I was at work last week and my friend became upset when I told him I didn't think Jesus Christ was still alive. He said he had his beliefs and I had mine and I let it go. But three days later he came back up to me and said he was really (i was less tactful there than in here to be fair) irked by my comment last week. He asked me why I though Jesus was dead and I threw out this senerio to him.

I said, Jesus Christ's sacrifice (according to Christanity) for the future salvation of man's sins was a prophecy right? He said yes. I said, than why if Jesus, knew the plan ahead of time, was he a Jew and not a Christian? This really upset my friend so I found a way to change the subject and we let it go. I am not going to ask him again because it is going to just upset him and nobody will come out wiser from it.

So I wanted to know..on these boards...how do Christians explain this?

Well I'm not a christian but I'll give it a crack;

Perhaps is because back then there was no Christianity!! duh!!

Godless.

robtex:
I said, than why if Jesus, knew the plan ahead of time, was he a Jew and not a Christian?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cristianity a new religion that revolves around the life of jesus
jesus is jew, because cristianity is based on jewish religion
now
what is cristianity?
jesus!
what is jesus
jew!
what is jew!
cristianity! Jesus!

cristians = jews=jesus

jew against jew thus cristians against jews

is jesus god?
answear=what is god?

Philosopher Philocrazy

True Christians are jews in spirit, They have accepted Jesus as The Messiah. Something that many jews did not accept and still do not accept. Christianity is in fact true judaism. Religious jews who believe they follow the will of the God of Abraham but have rejected His Word Immaueal have in fact fallen away from the true faith.


John 8
12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."
13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true."
14Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
19Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?"
Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."

All Praise The Ancient of Days

This "problem" is addressed many times in the New Testament:

Romans 2
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

I have made this argument many times that this text obviously says that Christians, being 'circumcised' in the Spirit, are therefore truly Jews.

The only other way to be declared a Jew is to live without EVER transgressing the Mosaic law.

Now of course, Jesus the Christ fulfilled both these requirements fully.

Jews are Christians, Christians are Jews. No, they are not, in either direction. I'm sorry if this fact conflicts with the views here that "everybody can be saved in Jesus", but it's 2004 and we have to come to terms with the multiplicity of religious faiths in this world, and to respect each other for their beliefs. Not to do so has been and continues to this day to be the cause of wars, strife and much much human suffering. The Crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, the Inquisition not far off 500. We have hopefully left such intolerance behind.

Silas; (The Crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, the Inquisition not far off 500. We have hopefully left such intolerance behind.)

In other words people wake up and smell the coffee. Jesus is dead, it's not comming back, your belief is moot, and irrational. Your doctrine is based on fary tale, ancient mythology, gone waco!. How gullible can you be?

Godless.

True Christians are jews in spirit, They have accepted Jesus as The Messiah. Something that many jews did not accept and still do not accept. Christianity is in fact true judaism. Religious jews who believe they follow the will of the God of Abraham but have rejected His Word Immaueal have in fact fallen away from the true faith.


John 8
12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."
13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true."
14Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
19Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?"
Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."

All Praise The Ancient of Days



Adstar,
Salaam....I wonder about this because if that is indeed true then why do you guys(christians) reject the old testement? for example the eating of pork in the old testement is strictly forbidden directly from God also the ten commandments(and their punishments) are very plainly laid out yet Christians say that all changed with Jesus(pbuh) coming. So how could you be Jews in Spirit when you dont follow Jews laws? :confused: remember Jesus also said:


Matthew 19:17 (NKJV) So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

I'll dig up links tomorrow, but if you look back through "Early Christian Writings" (ante-Nicene, &c.), you'll find a number of anti-Judaic writings from the foundling religion. Most of it is political, jockeying for imperial favor, and thus attempting to explain the difference between the Jews that already annoyed the Romans and the Jews that called themselves Christian. And yes, they exploited the passage from Romans included in §outh§tar's post.

From there, it just grew. Data transmission from generation to generation is inconsistent, to say the least. Were it not, we wouldn't have diverse sects within Christianity. By the time we get to modern assertions about Jesus being a Jew, the significance of the issue takes on a much different aspect.

Adstar,
Salaam....I wonder about this because if that is indeed true then why do you guys(christians) reject the old testement? for example the eating of pork in the old testement is strictly forbidden directly from God also the ten commandments(and their punishments) are very plainly laid out yet Christians say that all changed with Jesus(pbuh) coming. So how could you be Jews in Spirit when you dont follow Jews laws? :confused: remember Jesus also said:


Matthew 19:17 (NKJV) So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Serenderer i am amazed that you are asking me these questions again. You have asked these questions before remember and i have answered them.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Jesus is a dead man on a stick.
feel sorry for him

Serenderer i am amazed that you are asking me these questions again. You have asked these questions before remember and i have answered them.

All Praise The Ancient of Days


I did??What was the answer?? I dont believe though that you ever told me that Christians were Jews in spirit are then saying that Christians should follow Jews laws?

that Christians should follow Jews laws?
the 10 comandments are jew laws

Adstar: Christianity is in fact true judaism.
*************
M*W: Adstar, as a devout Roman Catholic, we were taught this, but since I deconverted, I have conversed with many Jews and a couple of Rabbis about this. They adamantly deny this. They believe there is absolutely no connection between Christianity and Judaism. However, there is a strong connection between Christianity and Paganism.
*************
Adstar: Religious jews who believe they follow the will of the God of Abraham but have rejected His Word Immaueal have in fact fallen away from the true faith.
*************
M*W: Who is "Immaueal?" There is no one mentioned in the Old or NT by this name. This name was never used in connection with Jesus. In fact, if you are asserting that the Annunciation is a truthful fact, Mary and Joseph BOTH were told to name Mary's son "Immanuel," but they did NOT obey the angel. Can you explain this oversight? Is there any other reference in either the Old or NT that calls Jesus "Immanuel?" If you break this word down, it is thus, "manu" means "humankind," "el" means "god," and "im" is the Hebrew suffix meaning "plural." Therefore, the name Immanuel would be written in Hebrew as "Manu-El-Im." (The plural suffix "im" is taken from the first of the word and placed at the end to show the meaning as "more than one.") Therefore, "Manu-El-Im" means "humankind ARE gods[im]" or if the original Hebrew was written as "El-Manu-Im," it would translate as "Gods ARE human." Either way it's translated, the plural prefix of "im" in front of the word is grammatically attached to the end of the word as a suffix. Since there are no vowels in Hebrew, the word should be written like this "MMNL" or "MNLM." I don't speak Hebrew by a longshot, but this is what my Jewish friends who are learned in Hebrew told me. I believe it is stated somewhere in the bible that "Immanuel" means "God is with us." This is entirely incorrect because it is written in singular as in "one god." This cannot be right because "im" says the word is plural.
*************
Adstar: "Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."
*************
M*W: Please explain why this statement allegedly said by Jesus actually refers to Lucifer, which literally means "one who brings light to the world" or even possibly "the light of the world," or maybe even the "SUN GOD?"

I think it's strange that "Lucifer" means "light" or the ability to see clearly (as with wisdom), and "sun" is translated as "helios" or another word for "hell."

So, if "Immanuel" means "God is with us," why do Christians believe humanity is so vile?

"I said, than why if Jesus, knew the plan ahead of time, was he a Jew and not a Christian?"

Perhaps creating Christianity was not the plan, he was promoting a totally new understanding that was neither Judaism nor Christianity, using the Jewish vocabulary available so as not to alienate potential followers.

M*W I applaud you on your efforts to explain the literal language. Pretty much what I've stated long time ago on another thread if you recall, "humans are gods" then if you recall U can now see were this realization came from, from the term Immanuel, of which of course was all distorted by the telling of the tale. Jesus was crusified not for the sin's of man but for contradiction with Jewish laws, Jesus was basically saying we are gods, and that we should love one another, and that we are enlightened by the father. However if those people had taken literally Jesus teachings in this manner, it would have created havoc, upon Jewish laws, this was blaspheme to claim that we are gods, the rullers of the Jewish empire, under Rome would have much trouble if everyone when on thinking they were gods, this would not be allowed or tolerated, therefore he was crusified. Latters Paul makes up the lies and deciet that Jesus's was crusified for the sins of man.

However this all speculation on my part. Because we have no accounts if Jesus even existed, because most of the literature written about jesus, crusifiction, resurection fable was written 100's of years after the fact.

But just think what would happen today in a church if someone preached we are gods, that poor preacher, pastor, rabbi, would most defenetly get expellled from his flock, because this would deem the church powerless. This is what I think could have occured. Maybe this is why the name Emmanuel was never used for Jesus' name.

Godless.

Godless: M*W I applaud you on your efforts to explain the literal language. Pretty much what I've stated long time ago on another thread if you recall, "humans are gods" then if you recall U can now see were this realization came from, from the term Immanuel, of which of course was all distorted by the telling of the tale. Jesus was crusified not for the sin's of man but for contradiction with Jewish laws, Jesus was basically saying we are gods, and that we should love one another, and that we are enlightened by the father. However if those people had taken literally Jesus teachings in this manner, it would have created havoc, upon Jewish laws, this was blaspheme to claim that we are gods, the rullers of the Jewish empire, under Rome would have much trouble if everyone when on thinking they were gods, this would not be allowed or tolerated, therefore he was crusified. Latters Paul makes up the lies and deciet that Jesus's was crusified for the sins of man.

However this all speculation on my part. Because we have no accounts if Jesus even existed, because most of the literature written about jesus, crusifiction, resurection fable was written 100's of years after the fact.

But just think what would happen today in a church if someone preached we are gods, that poor preacher, pastor, rabbi, would most defenetly get expellled from his flock, because this would deem the church powerless. This is what I think could have occured. Maybe this is why the name Emmanuel was never used for Jesus' name.
*************
M*W: Thanks, Godless. I agree with you on all counts. I believe we are on the same page, but I've never thought of myself as an atheist! Strangely, though, I may need to rethink my perception of God. As I've said in many posts, I believe in a "Creator god," but that entity is not a person with a personality or somthing that can feel emotion or judge us. I see our creator god as a non-personal force of positive energy. Later I likened god to electricity. There's so many symbols used in the bible, that nothing in the bible today is anywhere near correct. Actually, the bible probably has been mistranslated from the very beginning and after + or - 5000 years from the writing of Genesis, none of it is of any validity today nor has been since the beginning.

I believe early man believed the sun to be god. They feared god. But to early man, god was hell, too. God was extremely hot and you couldn't look directly at this god or be blinded! I also believe that this "creator god" evolved through the process of the big bang, which I don't believe was an instantaneous explosion but rather a gradual change in the universe, and at some point, electricity was formed. From that point our universe as we know it started to evolve. That's just my assumption. I've never read this anywhere.

Like you, I believe this "electrical" (or rather atomic force) is what keeps humanity bonded together. The entire universe is made up of atoms. When we break it all down to atoms, we are no different than this computer I'm typing on or this chair I'm sitting in. The only difference is that we are animated. These lifeless things are inanimate objects.

Maybe human beings didn't "create" god per se, but they surely attached their perception to it. All things considered, I do believe science will fully explain god to us very soon. Therefore, I don't call myself an atheist, because I believe a great source of positive energy created us. The power that created us also dwells within us. When I pray, I don't pray to an old white-beared man in the sky (who surely would have struck me dead a long time ago!), I pray to the power that resides within me. Only I can conjur up the power I need to solve problems or overcome dilemmas. There is no one outside of my very own self who I can turn to when I need help. When the electricity leaves our body we are "inactive," but I don't like to use the word "dead," because I don't believe in death per se. This electrical force that enlivens us simply moves elsewhere, but it doesn't die. In fact, I have a hard time calling this power of positive energy "God," because it doesn't really have a proper name nor should it be capitalized because even though it is a noun, it's a "thing."

Godless.[/QUOTE]

Jews are Christians, Christians are Jews. No, they are not, in either direction. I'm sorry if this fact conflicts with the views here that "everybody can be saved in Jesus", but it's 2004 and we have to come to terms with the multiplicity of religious faiths in this world, and to respect each other for their beliefs. Not to do so has been and continues to this day to be the cause of wars, strife and much much human suffering. The Crusades were nearly a thousand years ago, the Inquisition not far off 500. We have hopefully left such intolerance behind.
Silas;

In other words people wake up and smell the coffee. Jesus is dead, it's not comming back, your belief is moot, and irrational. Your doctrine is based on fary tale, ancient mythology, gone waco!. How gullible can you be?

Godless.Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again, specifically We have hopefully left such intolerance behind. I'm an atheist, and I don't agree with adstar and others on their interpretation of what Christianity ought to be, but I prefer to show an example by not denigrating them or their fundamental belief. I don't believe that Jews are failed Christians (as a minute's chat with just about any Jew will convince you) but I wouldn't tread all over adstar's undoubtedly sincerely held belief in the Living Christ. So kindly don't re-interpret what I've said.

Medicine Woman:This cannot be right because "im" says the word is pluralThe Im of Immanuel? No. The "im" of elohim? (i.e. Gods) Yes - but it's always understood to be singular even though it's a plural form. It's best to think of it as a Hebrew idiom. For example, in Italian one thousand is "mille" and two thousand (or as we might say, two thousands) is "due mila". For those words and those words only the usual singular and plural endings (e for fem. plural and a for fem. singular) are reversed. Nobody even things of Elohim as a plural word, it simply means "God". (Apologies to any Jews offended by my writing of the words for His name, by the way.)

Incidentally, it may be that the child called Immanuel and born of "a virgin" (mistranslated from the Hebrew, by the way) made by Isaiah was a reference to his own child. At any rate, the idea that Isaiah, as a prophet, was referring to someone who wouldn't be born for another 7 - 8 centuries is palpable nonsense.

spidergoat"I said, than why if Jesus, knew the plan ahead of time, was he a Jew and not a Christian?"

Perhaps creating Christianity was not the plan, he was promoting a totally new understanding that was neither Judaism nor Christianity, using the Jewish vocabulary available so as not to alienate potential followers.Jesus didn't create Christianity, and there's no reason to suppose that the formation of a wholly new religion was ever part of his purpose. He was a Jew and all his disciples were Jews and his mentions of "scripture" are specifically the Jewish scriptures. In fact it was the Jewish vocabulary which would have potentially alienated most of the Gentiles who were being chased as converts by Paul, which is why Paul made a point of downgrading the observance of Jewish Law, a point which caused a schism in the early Christian movement.

Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again, specifically We have hopefully left such intolerance behind. I'm an atheist, and I don't agree with adstar and others on their interpretation of what Christianity ought to be, but I prefer to show an example by not denigrating them or their fundamental belief.

Well I see you are quite new here! My bad for grabing a sentence of your post and using it out of context. me apolegies!!. But stick around, and you will notice that intorlerance with some thiest here is far, from comming. Welcome to sci-forums Silas, and again excuse my (militant atheist ways), I used to not be like this, but on a daily basis dealing with ignorance, assumptions, (there's a nut around here who thinks speaks to angels) and arrogance of some of these theist well it just gets the better of you. BTW, religious intolerance in real life is also far from comming, (gay bashing, religiou right, political influence, gay marriage, abortion issues, anti-porn, victimless crimes such as drugs issues & prostitution are all based on religious morals) being forced to us by religious influence in supposedly a secular government.

Godless.

Silas: "Medicine Woman:The Im of Immanuel? No. The "im" of elohim? (i.e. Gods) Yes - but it's always understood to be singular even though it's a plural form. It's best to think of it as a Hebrew idiom."
*************
M*W: A scholarly priest who happens to also be a bioscientist and is multilingual, explained the "im" rule to me. I wish I could remember the book I read that explained how "im" changed from suffix to prefix. It's been a while.
*************
Silas: Incidentally, it may be that the child called Immanuel and born of "a virgin" (mistranslated from the Hebrew, by the way) made by Isaiah was a reference to his own child. At any rate, the idea that Isaiah, as a prophet, was referring to someone who wouldn't be born for another 7 - 8 centuries is palpable nonsense.
*************
M*W: Totally!
*************
Silas: Jesus didn't create Christianity, and there's no reason to suppose that the formation of a wholly new religion was ever part of his purpose. He was a Jew and all his disciples were Jews and his mentions of "scripture" are specifically the Jewish scriptures. In fact it was the Jewish vocabulary which would have potentially alienated most of the Gentiles who were being chased as converts by Paul, which is why Paul made a point of downgrading the observance of Jewish Law, a point which caused a schism in the early Christian movement.
*************
M*W: Like I've always said, Christianity wasn't supposed to even exist! That's why I call it the Antichrist.

Imanauel means "God with us." The translators of the Septuagint did not mistranslate Almah into virgin because the word in some contexts can mean "virgin." We don't have the text that the translators of the Septuagint used, nor do we know why they translated it to virgin.

Mary is specifically designated as a “virgin” (Grk. parthenos - Mt. 1:23; Lk. 1:27), which term indicates a sexually pure woman. There are many examples in classical Greek where the meaning of “purity” is associated with parthenos. Euripides said: “My soul is virgin” (Hippolytus 1006). Aeschylus spoke of water that flows from a “pure spring” (Persae 613). When a young girl named Atalanta reached the age of puberty, she expressed the wish “to remain a virgin” (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2.9.2).

The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) speaks of a “virgin sister . . . who is not espoused to a man” (Lev. 21:3). Another text records the case of “young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him” (Judg. 21:12). The virgin birth of Christ was prophesied by Isaiah seven centuries before the event came to pass (Isa. 7:14).

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/virginBirth.htm

okinrus: Imanauel means "God with us." The translators of the Septuagint did not mistranslate Almah into virgin because the word in some contexts can mean "virgin." We don't have the text that the translators of the Septuagint used, nor do we know why they translated it to virgin.
*************
M*W: I don't believe it was the translators of the Septuagint that mistranslated it. I believe I've read it was mistranslated in the KJV. The myth of a virgin giving birth is an ancient belief predating even the old testament. This myth is also found predominantly in pagan cultures.

M*W: I don't believe it was the translators of the Septuagint that mistranslated it. I believe I've read it was mistranslated in the KJV.

You're thinking of something else. The KJV used the textus receptus by Erasmus, I think. There's some quotation in 1 John or so that might be erroneous.


The myth of a virgin giving birth is an ancient belief predating even the old testament. This myth is also found predominantly in pagan cultures.

This isn't really true, however. I can't think of any before Christ. Some people mention Mithra, but Mithra was really born from a cliff. I've read a similar Indian Myth where one of the gods took human form, and Gilgamesh also has a similar legend where Enriku is made from the earth.

okinrus]You're thinking of something else. The KJV used the textus receptus by Erasmus, I think. There's some quotation in 1 John or so that might be erroneous.
*************
M*W: I've read where there are more than 3,000 errors in the KJV.
*************
okinrus: This isn't really true, however. I can't think of any before Christ. Some people mention Mithra, but Mithra was really born from a cliff. I've read a similar Indian Myth where one of the gods took human form, and Gilgamesh also has a similar legend where Enriku is made from the earth.
M*W: From the book Mary: The Unauthorized Biography, by Michael Jordan:

"In pagan Rome, the Vestal Virgins and the priestesses of the great goddess Pallas Athene were considered the moral and social equals of their Christian counterparts and their chastity was dedicated to the well-being of the state[Ambrose, De Virginibus (I) 4.14-15]. Even Plato had argued that the salvation of the soul could best be achieved by refraining from passion and through the regular use of prayers. Nor was the Christian view - of a virgin being impregnated by a god before giving birth to a great leader - unique. Romans considered the Phrygian goddess Kybelle, who became their Magna mater to be a virgin mother. It was also widely held in both Greek and Roman traditions that the mythical founder of Rome, Romulus, the twin brother of Remus, was born to a mother who had been impregnated by the god Mars. In Rome the cult of Mithraism had been imported from India via Persia as a powerful influence which blended well with the monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism: the god Mithras was known to have been borm from a rock, symbolising the sun rising from behind mountains. Vergin deities like Vesta, the hearth goddess, were also revered and frequently invoked."

Well I see you are quite new here! My bad for grabing a sentence of your post and using it out of context. me apolegies!!. But stick around, and you will notice that intorlerance with some thiest here is far, from comming. Welcome to sci-forums Silas, and again excuse my (militant atheist ways), I used to not be like this, but on a daily basis dealing with ignorance, assumptions, (there's a nut around here who thinks speaks to angels) and arrogance of some of these theist well it just gets the better of you. BTW, religious intolerance in real life is also far from comming, (gay bashing, religiou right, political influence, gay marriage, abortion issues, anti-porn, victimless crimes such as drugs issues & prostitution are all based on religious morals) being forced to us by religious influence in supposedly a secular government.

Godless.Well, you'll probably find I can be pretty intolerant myself - primarily of bad spelling and grammar. I'll leave you alone for now except to say that the word is "common", not "comming" (took me a while to even figure out what you were saying!). Now I look again, I think you meant to write "uncommon" since you employed it with the phrase "far from"

SouthStar:Mary is specifically designated as a “virgin”Obviously, since the fact that the Gospel stating that the mother of Jesus was a virgin is not in dispute.The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) speaks of a “virgin sister . . . who is not espoused to a man” (Lev. 21:3). Not unless they switched to English for that part. That the bible mentions virgins is not in dispute, I think we can safely say that Chapter 21 of Leviticus is not any prophecy about the Messiah.Another text records the case of “young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him” (Judg. 21:12). It seems to me to be clear that the English translation has put the word "virgin" in, thus making the entire phrase a tautology, whereas if the original Hebrew word meant "young woman" then it actually makes more logical sense. "Young virgins who'd never slept with anyone"? Wha..? But "Young girls who'd never slept with anyone"... Ah, virgins, you mean.The virgin birth of Christ was prophesied by Isaiah seven centuries before the event came to pass (Isa. 7:14).Biblical scholars more knowledgable than I disagree. Of course, the rationalist viewpoint does not accept that biblical prophecies were actual foretellings. In this case, however, the Jesus interpretation was put on Isaiah after the fact

Ah, forget it - I thought you were speaking for yourself, now I see you were just quoting from an article which actually stretches the bounds of credulity.

SouthStar: re your link at http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/virginBirth.htm :In a recent issue of the notoriously liberal journal, Bible Review, Professor Crossan, commented upon Jesus’ birth. He wrote: “I consider him the normally born child of Mary and Joseph” (February, 2001, p. 45).

To argue such a position is to flaunt the evidence of history and to invent a scenario that has no higher basis than skeptical fantasy. Consider the following factors.Remember, we're talking about a supposed virgin birth. But apparently casting doubt upon a (I'll emphasise it again) virgin having given birth is "fantasy". However, the only evidence the article offers is the fact that it says she was a virgin in the bible. I loved this part: The New Testament writers make it clear that Joseph and Mary were only “betrothed” (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:27), which required sexual abstinence, as the notable Jewish scholar, Alfred Edersheim, observed (Sketches of Jewish Social Life, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, p. 151). Mary was said to be with child “before they came together” in sexual intimacy, and the conception is attributed to a miracle effected by the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:18,20; Lk. 1:35).Yes, of course - betrothal required sexual abstinence, so it chuckle, chuckle, goes without saying that they were sexually abstinent!The fact that Joseph was “minded to put away” Mary (Mt. 1:19) clearly shows he knew he was not the father of the child. When the angel informed Mary of her impending conception, she expressed amazement. “How shall this be, since I have never been intimate with a man?” (Lk. 1:34) - so the force of the Greek text. Wayne Jackson hasn't noticed that in his supposed rational defence of the miracle of the virgin birth he's unquestioningly included the part where an Angel came to visit Mary. He forgot to mention that Joseph's qualms were actually assuaged by an angel who came to visit him. However, for presumably both of these visitations we are relying entirely on the word of Mary and Joseph themselves. Or did Matthew make them up? Maybe Joseph wasn't actually minded to put Mary away, since Jesus was his son!

except to say that the word is "common", not "comming"

Gaawwwdammm!!! I guess you've never had a TYPO!!!! :rolleyes:

Anyhow picking on mispelling and shiet around here is considered prety lowball!!

And you will leave me alone for now? What's that a threat? lol!!! :D

Put your panties on straight son, your not fucking with my emotions or attitude, for mispelling or bad grammar! I say this ain't high school anymore!. :D

Man all I'm trying to say is just RELAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXS!! Ok

Godless.

Yes, of course - betrothal required sexual abstinence, so it chuckle, chuckle, goes without saying that they were sexually abstinent!
Maybe in those days morals actually meant something. I know religion did.

Wayne Jackson hasn't noticed that in his supposed rational defence of the miracle of the virgin birth he's unquestioningly included the part where an Angel came to visit Mary. He forgot to mention that Joseph's qualms were actually assuaged by an angel who came to visit him. However, for presumably both of these visitations we are relying entirely on the word of Mary and Joseph themselves. Or did Matthew make them up? Maybe Joseph wasn't actually minded to put Mary away, since Jesus was his son!

The term "the Son of God" would not be used if Jesus was the product of a normal relationship. Instead, Jesus would use "a son of God," denoting his common relationship with the Father.

Hi...
I am new to this board and this is my first post/reply...I hope you don't all mind that I jump right in. A bit of background:

I am studying for my MA in Theology at Fuller Thelogical Seminary. I am Christian.

Regarding Jesus/Jewry....

From what I can figure, Jesus was a Jew. I don't ever find that he separates himself from his Jewish context although he seems to have had quite a contrary view of where first century Judaism was going.

Although viewed as radical, he also seems to have based his platform on the historic Jewish interpretations of the Law and Prophets (something he felt was lost in the context of first century Rabbinical Judaism). In particular (esp. in book of Matthew) Jesus staunchly defends his position that he has come to fulfill the Law rather than to invalidate it - a defense neccesary since his perspectives on what he considered to be the deeper, true nature of the Law were contrary to the mindset of the Phrasaic view. BTW, the "Law" here refers to the Torah and is essential to the self-awareness of anyone within the Jewish faith.

Jesus specifically quotes Jewish scripture as a basis of forming his own self-awareness as the fulfilment of prophecy and as the messiah (this is not to argue against those, including Jews, who do not believe Jesus was the messiah or a fulfillment of prophecy - this is just to underscore what Jesus himself seems to have believed). From his perspective, Jesus clearly considered himself a bona-fide Jew.

The first "Christians" were originally considered a sect of Judaism (both by the Romans in in self-awareness). They did not name themselves and were awarded the title from one of them emperors (before Nero, I think). They were initially closely associated with the temple cult (not a negative term used here) and so considered, for all practical purposes, a segment of Judaism.

The book of Matthew is particularly focused on the Jewish identity of Jesus as he places primacy on his ministry on the Jews as firstfruits.

With all due respect...I think an argument that Jesus was "Christian" and not a Jew reflects a sort anachronist, Christian-centric view on Christ which often carries anti-Jewish undertones.

My $.02
MC
=================================
I was at work last week and my friend became upset when I told him I didn't think Jesus Christ was still alive. He said he had his beliefs and I had mine and I let it go. But three days later he came back up to me and said he was really (i was less tactful there than in here to be fair) irked by my comment last week. He asked me why I though Jesus was dead and I threw out this senerio to him.

I said, Jesus Christ's sacrifice (according to Christanity) for the future salvation of man's sins was a prophecy right? He said yes. I said, than why if Jesus, knew the plan ahead of time, was he a Jew and not a Christian? This really upset my friend so I found a way to change the subject and we let it go. I am not going to ask him again because it is going to just upset him and nobody will come out wiser from it.

So I wanted to know..on these boards...how do Christians explain this?

Hi scombridae1969 (had to cut and paste that ;))

Welcome to the forums. We could use someone with your knowledge!

It seems you came at bad time, though - the email notification isn't working so replies are slow in coming in (at least for some of us). Hope that doesn't keep you from posting a lot more here.

Yours in Christ
Jenyar

scombridae1969, wow that was interesting. So if I had to paraphrase you in a quick summary are you stating that Christians are neo-jew? Or are you saying Christians are jews who believe Jesus was the Messiah? If that is true would you than consider Mormans who see books being written in more modern times as neo-christians?

In your estimation is Jesus a Jew or Christian today?

To give the historical reason why Jesus is a jew. We all know or at lest most of us know jesus' story. Not everyone knows how Chritianity comes from.

After his death, Jesus' deciples began to preach to the gentiles and jews. There a group of Gentiles that called them Christians in their native tounge. To use it means "little christs". Jesus was a jew, but of course he did not agree with the priests. he has his own beliefs, being the son of God.

camphlps: To give the historical reason why Jesus is a jew. We all know or at lest most of us know jesus' story. Not everyone knows how Chritianity comes from.
*************
M*W: Why was Jesus a Jew? I think some of us would like to know that. Some of us don't know or don't agree where Christianity comes from. Please tell us what you know.
*************
camphlps: After his death, Jesus' deciples began to preach to the gentiles and jews. There a group of Gentiles that called them Christians in their native tounge.
*************
M*W: That's interesting! I never knew any Gentiles called themselves Christians. What was their native tongue?
*************
camphlps: To use it means "little christs". Jesus was a jew, but of course he did not agree with the priests. he has his own beliefs, being the son of God.
*************
M*W: I think I've read in the Bible where it said Jesus was a Rabbi. Could the Son of God be a Rabbi? I'm not that familiar with all the Bible verses, but where does it say in scripture that Jesus didn't agree with the priests? How were Jesus' beliefs different? I look forward to your answers.

MW

Matt 25/26
Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you
Matt 26/49
Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him
mark 9/5
Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters–one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah

mark 10/51
What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him. The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see.
mark 14/45
Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him
john 1:38
Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" "where are you staying
john 3:2
He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.

John 6:25

When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"


(ect ect, source biblegateway.com keywords jesus rabbi).

I didn't think about it before but Judism does not believe in orginal sin and as far as I have ever read no place in the Bible does Jesus promote the concept of orginal sin. If Jesus did not believe in orginal sin (a cornerstone of Christanity) how could he ever have been a Christian? More importantly if he did not promote orginal sin than how would he promote himself as the savior of Christians?

1) Rabbi means 'my master', an honorific title for a teacher, like a Ph.D. This is evident from Jesus' use of it in Matthew 23.
History

The rabbi is not an occupation found in the Torah (Five books of Moses); the first time this word is mentioned is in the Mishnah [dating from around 80CE]. The modern form of the rabbi developed in the Talmudic era. Rabbis are given authority to make interpretations of Jewish law and custom.

Rabbi is a Hebrew term used as a title for those who are distinguished for learning, who are the authoritative teachers of the Law, and who are the appointed spiritual heads of the community. The word Rabbi is derived from the Hebrew word RV, which in biblical Hebrew means "great" or "distinguished,". In the ancient Judean schools the sages were addressed as "Rabbi" (my master). This term of respectful address gradually came to be used as a title, the pronominal suffix "i" (my) losing its significance with the frequent use of the term. - Websters Online (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/ra/rabbi.html)
And according to the JewishEncyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=30&letter=R&search=rabbi):
The title 'Rabbi' is borne by the sages of Palestine, who were ordained there by the Sanhedrin in accordance with the custom handed down by the elders, and were denominated 'Rabbi,' and received authority to judge penal cases
Jesus was not ordained by anyone but God. Not even the great leader of the Sanhedrin, Hillel (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html), was called "rabbi" (he presided during the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BC)):
The more ancient generations, however, which were far superior, had no such titles as 'Rabban,' 'Rabbi,' or 'Rab,' for either the Babylonian or Palestinian sages. This is evident from the fact that Hillel I., who came from Babylon, had not the title 'Rabban' prefixed to his name.
Wherever Jesus received his authority from, it was not from the Sanhedrin. That he was called rabbi at all, means that his disciples recognized him as an authority higher than the ordained Pharisees. That would have excited them no end ;).

Ironically, what you know of rabbi's today probably comes from Christian tradition:
As a matter of course, the example of the minister in the Church, especially in Protestant countries, exerted a great influence upon the function and position of the rabbi in the Synagogue; even upon his outward appearance, since the vestments of the Christian clergy, or their abandonment, have sometimes been copied by the modern rabbi...

Another function of the modern rabbi which follows the pastoral practise of the Christian minister is the offering of consolation and sympathy to persons or families in bereavement and distress, in forms perhaps more cheering and elevating than those formerly in use. Here, as well as in his pulpit and educational work, the modern rabbi has the opportunity of bringing the blessings of religion home to every individual in need of spiritual uplifting. - JE: Rabbi (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=30&letter=R&search=rabbi)
2) 'Original sin' is a misnomer. But it comes down to this:
1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
As for what Jews believe: "There is no man that sinneth not" (I Kings viii. 46); "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Eccl. vii. 20; see Sanh. 105a).
On the other hand, it is maintained that at least four persons—Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Chileab—died without having committed any sin and merely as the result of Adam's weakness in yielding to the temptation of the serpent. - JewishEncyclopedia: Sin (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=812&letter=S&search=original%20sin#2582)
Make of that what you will.

I'm guessing Jews might say that those people mentioned are exceptions, and there are verses (to me) which could be interpreted as referring to people being sinless (at least at the time), such as Noah and Job being "blameless". Christians themselves have an exception to the "all have sinned" idea, that is Jesus. And Catholics add Mary to that I believe.

robtex: MW

"I didn't think about it before but Judism does not believe in orginal sin and as far as I have ever read no place in the Bible does Jesus promote the concept of orginal sin. If Jesus did not believe in orginal sin (a cornerstone of Christanity) how could he ever have been a Christian? More importantly if he did not promote orginal sin than how would he promote himself as the savior of Christians?"
*************
M*W: Jesus wasn't a Christian!!! He was a Jew, and he never promoted himself as the savior of Christians. It is doubtful in his circle of associates that there were any "Christians." His primary focus was of, by and for, the Jews.

I'm guessing Jews might say that those people mentioned are exceptions, and there are verses (to me) which could be interpreted as referring to people being sinless (at least at the time), such as Noah and Job being "blameless". Christians themselves have an exception to the "all have sinned" idea, that is Jesus. And Catholics add Mary to that I believe.
There isn't much reason to think Mary was sinless, or exceptional people. That was why the Pharisees were so surprised when they saw Jesus doing great things (Matt.3:55). But Jesus didn't have the connection with Adam that everybody else have - he was not part of that "weakness" that made even otherwise sinless men subject to death. Incidentally, Adam was also called the son of God (Luke 3:38), and Jesus the "last Adam" or the "second man" (1 Corinthians 15). Compare this with my last quote above:
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Death was a consequence of sin, and it's a consequence we're all born into. It's not something innocense or sinlessness can undo. Being who you're supposed to be isn't a virtue, it's a responsibility. An action was required out of sinlessness.

Noah and Job weren't saved because they were sinless, but because they were obedient to something that needed to be done. Noah would have drowned, righteousness and all, if he had not built the ark. Job still died, but expected eternal life by faith. The book just describes his faith in action.

There isn't much reason to think Mary was sinless, or exceptional people. That was why the Pharisees were so surprised when they saw Jesus doing great things (Matt.3:55). But Jesus didn't have the connection with Adam that everybody else have - he was not part of that "weakness" that made even otherwise sinless men subject to death. Incidentally, Adam was also called the son of God (Luke 3:38), and Jesus the "last Adam" or the "second man" (1 Corinthians 15). Compare this with my last quote above:
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Death was a consequence of sin, and it's a consequence we're all born into. It's not something innocense or sinlessness can undo. Being who you're supposed to be isn't a virtue, it's a responsibility. An action was required out of sinlessness..

There were a couple people in the OT who were supposedly "caught up to heaven", so I'm not sure it's quite correct to say that "in Adam all die."

Are you serious? Being who you're supposed to be (perfect?) isn't a virtue? What an unrealistic, impossible requirement. You might as well say being 250 feet tall isn't a virtue, it's a responsibility. Imagine if your parents held you to that standard. Perfection or torture.

Noah and Job weren't saved because they were sinless, but because they were obedient to something that needed to be done. Noah would have drowned, righteousness and all, if he had not built the ark. Job still died, but expected eternal life by faith. The book just describes his faith in action.

When you are saying Jesus didn't have that connection to Adam, are you saying that "original sin" is inherited from the male side? I don't see where the Bible says that Mary's genes weren't used in the creation of the "human nature" of Jesus. I guess I'll let a Catholic argue about Mary.

Could you tell me where in the book of Job it states that Job was "obedient to something that needed to be done", and only after that was called "perfect and upright?"

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil

This appears to be a matter of fact statement, it doesn't say anything about Job believing a certain thing that God supposedly said, and THEN he became "perfect and upright." I know the argument made by Paul about Abraham, but I don't believe that every single person in the Bible called perfect, righteous, upright merely was called that because they "believed God."

When you refer to Noah, I assume you're saying "saved" in a literal sense (by the ark). He's called a just man and perfect in his generations before it's said he obeyed God by building the ark.

I'm not saying that these people were sinless. I have no idea if they were or not. I'm just saying it's not all clear cut that nobody can be sinless, unless you already accept the Christian doctrine that all have sinned (besides Jesus, or if you're Catholic, Jesus and Mary). If the Christians/Catholics can have their exception(s), then why not the Jews?

There were a couple people in the OT who were supposedly "caught up to heaven", so I'm not sure it's quite correct to say that "in Adam all die."
Enoch. Yes, although his body must have been changed ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, or the perishable the imperishable" - 1 Cor. 15:50). For us, he died. For God, he lived. Do you see the difference? It didn't just happen automatically - it happened within a relationship with God.
Romans 6:3-
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.
Are you serious? Being who you're supposed to be (perfect?) isn't a virtue? What an unrealistic, impossible requirement. You might as well say being 250 feet tall isn't a virtue, it's a responsibility. Imagine if your parents held you to that standard. Perfection or torture.
Exactly. Perfection is not something we achieve naturally. It's not even something we are naturally. Then why do we consider it good? The best we can be is "good". But that "good" is what God grants to us as perfection. That's who we're supposed to be, because that's how He created us. Otherwise we are trying to achieve the impossible - be like God by our own human efforts. By making laws to regulate ourselves and following them to the letter we try to be perfectly perfectly just, and then we haven't even started being moral yet. It's our efforts - and our failure. That's why it was such a revelation to see God become failure for us - at last we could see what we were supposed to do and who we were supposed to be. By the grace of God, we are able to visualize "being perfect as God is perfect", while carrying or failures (our cross) and walking on a forgiving road - Christ himself.
Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Philippians 3:12
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
When you are saying Jesus didn't have that connection to Adam, are you saying that "original sin" is inherited from the male side? I don't see where the Bible says that Mary's genes weren't used in the creation of the "human nature" of Jesus. I guess I'll let a Catholic argue about Mary.
No, gender has nothing to do with it. It's about origins: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47). And
Romans 5:14... death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Our imperfection (in relation to God) is closely connected to our being natural beings. This wasn't such a bad thing, until it was all we had. "We can't live from bread alone", remember?
Could you tell me where in the book of Job it states that Job was "obedient to something that needed to be done", and only after that was called "perfect and upright?"

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil

This appears to be a matter of fact statement, it doesn't say anything about Job believing a certain thing that God supposedly said, and THEN he became "perfect and upright." I know the argument made by Paul about Abraham, but I don't believe that every single person in the Bible called perfect, righteous, upright merely was called that because they "believed God."
Job 1:1 is our introduction to Job. It states exactly what we will see in the proceeding chapters. Do you think he was called perfect and upright in spite of his relationship with God? No, it was only by knowing God that he had enough faith not "curse God and die". He knew that God would see his innocense - even if it was only in the grave. What he "needed to do", in spite of everything that happened to him, was have faith. Not a perfectly blameless life.
Job 19:25-
I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
I myself will see him
with my own eyes - I, and not another.
When you refer to Noah, I assume you're saying "saved" in a literal sense (by the ark). He's called a just man and perfect in his generations before it's said he obeyed God by building the ark.
Yes, like Job. He didn't perfect himself by his own efforts, it was attributed to Him because of his faith. It was that faith that made him hear God, and that wish to be perfect that made him build the ark. He would not have listened if he didn't have faith before he built it, and he would not have built it if he didn't listen. Faith is knowing the path, perfection is walking it. (Now I sound like Morpheus.)

His literal salvation has figurative meaning to us as well. The ark was Noah's coffin, the flood his baptism into death. The rainbow God's promise of life.
I'm not saying that these people were sinless. I have no idea if they were or not. I'm just saying it's not all clear cut that nobody can be sinless, unless you already accept the Christian doctrine that all have sinned (besides Jesus, or if you're Catholic, Jesus and Mary). If the Christians/Catholics can have their exception(s), then why not the Jews?
Whether someone can be sinless or not is almost besides the point, since as I said: it's not innocense that saves you. Some Jews did believe you could lead a sinless life, but why would that be so desireable if they didn't also believe God would see it? It's whether God recognizes it or not that's important. If you claim you are perfect on your own merit, you are basially saying sin and death has no hold on you, and you don't need God. If you're confident of that, then by all means. But Jesus came for those of us who aren't - those who have sinned and are without hope of ever reaching perfection by themselves.
Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

I had a reply, but for some reason it's not accepting it. I'll try again.

Enoch. Yes, although his body must have been changed ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, or the perishable the imperishable" - 1 Cor. 15:50). For us, he died. For God, he lived. Do you see the difference? It didn't just happen automatically - it happened within a relationship with God.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I'm not sure every single person called "upright", "blameless", "perfect" were called that MERELY because they "believed God". But no need to argue this, I was just giving a possible answer to your "make of it what you will" statement regarding 4 people being sinless according to your quote.

It doesn't say Enoch and Elijah died though, that's the thing. So, in a sense, "in Adam all die" is not exactly accurate. It doesn't matter though. I know Christianity has an apology for just about every "alleged discrepancy" of the Bible. ;) Incidentally, if "flesh and blood" can't inherit the kingdom of God, and Jesus was resurrected and went into heaven, was his body bloodless? ;) I know, I know, the theory is "flesh and blood" is a parallel to "corruption". I wonder though, there's a verse in the NT which flat out says Paul is "difficult to understand". I'd think God would make it clear, not inspire writings which are difficult to understand, speak in parables so that people won't understand, etc. But hey, that's just me.

No, gender has nothing to do with it. It's about origins: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47). And
Romans 5:14... death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Do you have an explanation for how Jesus was sinless then? Do you not believe in original sin? If Mary's egg was used for Jesus' human nature, then did he inherit that "sin nature?"

Job 1:1 is our introduction to Job. It states exactly what we will see in the proceeding chapters. Do you think he was called perfect and upright in spite of his relationship with God?

I don't know exactly how much of a "relationship" with Job supposedly had with God before the events described. I don't recall him saying "Hey God, nice to see you again." ;) It just says he was perfect and upright, fearing God, eschewing evil. That doesn't sound like he was called "perfect and upright" MERELY because he "believed God."

Whether someone can be sinless or not is almost besides the point, since as I said: it's not innocense that saves you. Some Jews did believe you could lead a sinless life, but why would that be so desireable if they didn't also believe God would see it? It's whether God recognizes it or not that's important. If you claim you are perfect on your own merit, you are basially saying sin and death has no hold on you, and you don't need God. If you're confident of that, then by all means. But Jesus came for those of us who aren't - those who have sinned and are without hope of ever reaching perfection by themselves.
Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

What he seems to be saying, to me, is that there are two types of people, righteous (who he didn't come for), and sinners (who he did). So Jesus didn't come for a group of people (the righteous)? If that's the case, why would they need Jesus' blood? I don't really buy the explanation that Jesus was referring to a group with no members.

I'm not perfect, far from it. I do wrong things, and I will die. Where I differ from you is this: I have doubt that God is like a machine which had its "fill" of sin, that he just had to dish out the wrath on Jesus, that he punishes someone innocent instead of someone guilty. I don't believe that because I'm imperfect that I deserve to be tortured for eternity, nor do I believe anyone deserves to be tortured for eternity. Hitler? Stalin? Let the punishment fit the crime. How about substituting them for the people they killed, again and again, let Hitler and Stalin be killed in the ways they killed. Heck, how about even millions of deaths for Hitler and Stalin? But eternal torture? How is that justice? Besides, what if I, right now, said "I believe Jesus died for my sins and accept his sacrifice for them." Ok, now what? To me, Christianity is bait and switch. It's not just believe in Jesus. It's follow the Bible (whichever one that is, with 66 books, or 73, or whatever the Ethiopic canon is), it's believing/doing whatever happens to be that "right" thing, whatever that is, depending on the many different sects who disagree with each other, some of them declaring the others heretical. It's making myself believe in what I see as contradictory texts/doctrines [such as eternal security vs losing your salvation. Look at Hebrews 6:4-6. Sounds like after you go back to your old ways, you can never return to Christianity (ie you go to hell)]. To me, Christianity teaches other religions are satanic or at least misguided. And, I'm sorry, I don't want to have to believe such a thing, nor do I want to have to believe most of mankind will be tortured for eternity for believing the wrong thing. This is how I see Christianity. Light? Seems more like darkness and a mass of confusion to me. If all Christianity said was "Believe in Jesus", then I guess I could do that, but then what?

What do you think "Godfearing" means? Not just in your opinion - what does the Bible mean when it uses the term?

If it's difficult to understand: no, it's not just you - but it might be just you who thinks God was explaining simple things to simple minds. I used the word "changed", so does Paul. Do you know what that implies?
Do you have an explanation for how Jesus was sinless then? Do you not believe in original sin? If Mary's egg was used for Jesus' human nature, then did he inherit that "sin nature?"
Jesus was only sinless because He did nothing except what God told him to do. He could have acquired sin, just like Adam did, but He didn't. Apply this to all the other examples we discussed, but add the death of natural man ("Adam"). The "Adam" in Jesus died, the "Adam" in Jesus was without sin, and the "Adam" in Jesus was raised to the status of Jesus himself - a spiritual man. By becoming the "Adam" of Jesus, we have part in his resurrection. I'm shooting from the hip here, so I'm looking forward to objections to this.
I'm not perfect, far from it. I do wrong things, and I will in time die. Where I differ from you is this: I have doubt that God is like a machine which had its "fill" of sin, that he just had to dish out the wrath on Jesus, that he punishes someone innocent instead of someone guilty.
Good, because I don't believe that either. In fact, it might be considered hersesy to believe that. You're practically disarding the whole salvation history in one sentence. PS. The religious and secular world punished Jesus for being exactly who He was. Just like you're taking it out on God now, by justifying yourself.
I don't believe that because I'm imperfect that I deserve to be tortured for eternity, nor do I believe anyone deserves to be tortured for eternity. Hitler? Stalin? Let the punishment fit the crime. How about substituting them for the people they killed, again and again, let Hitler and Stalin be killed in the ways they killed. Heck, how about even millions of deaths for Hitler and Stalin? But eternal torture? How is that justice?
Sounds like hell to me. Anyone who takes a life destroys something impermanent, but commits a crime against God, who is eternal. Sin doesn't fade away with time against Him. Jesus payed the price of a murderer - even in the stead of Hitler or Stalin - by dying an impermanent death. But He had no guilt against God, no sin, and was justified for eternity. Do you understand that there's two crimes, because there are two relationships involved: against humanity, which we can bring to justice, or forgive - and against God, because it betrays an attitude to God that has eternal consequences.
Besides, what if I, right now, said "I believe Jesus died for my sins and accept his sacrifice for them." Ok, now what? To me, Christianity is bait and switch. It's not just believe in Jesus. It's follow the Bible (whichever one that is, with 66 books, or 73, or whatever the Ethiopic canon is), it's believing/doing whatever happens to be that "right" thing, whatever that is, depending on the many different sects who disagree with each other, some of them declaring the others heretical. It's making myself believe in what I see as contradictory texts/doctrines [such as eternal security vs losing your salvation.
Listen, it's the difference between merely saying "I believe Jesus died for my sins and accept his sacrifice for them," and living as if you believed it. If you believed Jesus restored your relationship with God, wouldn't you start living in that relationship? That's the difference between those who shout "Lord, Lord!" and those who will be recognized by Him. The Bible is good for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". It is not the end-all and be-all of your existence and relationship with God, but it's the only introduction we've got. It's basically a conversation with people who have lived and realized the same relationship that you are entering into.
Look at Hebrews 6:4-6.
Read Hebrews 6:1-3 as well. When those things have become "elementary" to you, you'll understand verse 4-6. Don't read only the parts that support your argument.
To me, Christianity teaches other religions are satanic or at least misguided. And, I'm sorry, I don't want to have to believe such a thing, nor do I want to have to believe most of mankind will be tortured for eternity for believing the wrong thing. This is how I see Christianity. Light? Seems more like darkness and a mass of confusion to me. If all Christianity said was "Believe in Jesus", then I guess I could do that, but then what?
Then to you, Christianity is not what it is to me. "It" cannot say what the Bible doesn't say, and the Bible says nothing about any religion that still exist other than Judaism. It does say about idolatry and self-serving practices. Religion, Christianity included, can easily become both those things.

"Believing the wrong thing" = "tortured for eternity"? It's not about what you believe, but who you stand in relationship with, and in whose hands you place your life. If you can save your own life, then hold on to it. If someone else can, then trust them with it. But for all the information we have about sin and its connection to death (which is closely related to hell), I would not wish to end up where the slaves and supporters of sin end up. You use "tortured" as if you think God derives some pleasure out of losing lives to sin. Where could you possibly have come up with such an idea? That's your own theology.

If it were true, why did God intervene at all? Why not just let people like Noah and Enoch discover the truth, and leave the rest to wherever they wish to place their faith?

If you would believe in Jesus, it would imply you believed who He was within the context of history and religion, and the implications of it. I think you will agree that his message is more problematic than merely believing in him as a person. For one: you'd have to believe in God, as he did. Otherwise you won't in good conscience be able to say you "believe in Jesus". That's the "and then what" of it. The same "and then what" of trusting your life to anyone.

What do you think "Godfearing" means? Not just in your opinion - what does the Bible mean when it uses the term?

I don't know, what does it mean? I'd say it means Job thought God was worthy of being followed, and that he did what God wanted.


The religious and secular world punished Jesus for being exactly who He was. Just like you're taking it out on God now, by justifying yourself.

Did I just read you right? Are you trying to compare me to those who supposedly killed Jesus? Well, I suppose that's consistent. After all, I was supposedly "in Adam" when he sinned (interesting how I don't recall this. Do you recall when you were "in Adam" when he sinned?). Now I'm like the people who supposedly killed Jesus? Because I merely claim I don't deserve eternal torture? What kind of logic is that? Not much logic, but rather Christian guilt imo. Kind of like "You're the reason Jesus had to die! Don't you feel bad?"


Sounds like hell to me. Anyone who takes a life destroys something impermanent, but commits a crime against God, who is eternal. Sin doesn't fade away with time against Him. Jesus payed the price of a murderer - even in the stead of Hitler or Stalin - by dying an impermanent death. But He had no guilt against God, no sin, and was justified for eternity. Do you understand that there's two crimes, because there are two relationships involved: against humanity, which we can bring to justice, or forgive - and against God, because it betrays an attitude to God that has eternal consequences..

Nope, it doesn't sound like hell at all. Millions of deaths for Hitler and Stalin do not make an eternity. You teach eternal torture, not finite punishment.

What does God being eternal or infinite have to do with sins? First off, I don't believe one could REALLY hurt God. Could you tell me how you could hurt an omnipotent, eternal being? Sure, I could understand God being mad, but just because he is infinite and eternal, where is the logical link between that and eternal punishment? I mean, is anything done to God then deserving of an eternal reaction just because he is eternal? If I pray to God, will his response be eternal? (Say, if I ask anything in Jesus' name, and he gives it to me, can I expect him to continue to give me things, without prayer, because of God's "eternal response?") Can you please explain to me, that if the punishment of God is eternal wrath, how Jesus supposedly only suffered a finite, impermanent death? To be consistent, why isn't he being tortured for eternity? If he truly was to pay for the sins of mankind, where's his eternal punishment? God had the anger from the sins of the entire world on the shoulders of Jesus (supposedly), and he only suffered for hours? Even if you claim "all of God's wrath" was on Jesus for those hours, they were still hours, not an eternity. Why would a finite punishment on Jesus appease God's anger, while an infinite punishment on human beings wouldn't? Why do I say it wouldn't? Because he's still doing it, for eternity, isn't he? So he's still pissed off? For eternity? No matter what, he can't quit being pissed off at humans by torturing them for eternity? He supposedly got out the wrath of the sins of the world on Jesus, but yet somehow he still has enough wrath left to torture humans for eternity? Yet he was appeased with the 3 hours Jesus suffered? But I thought he already put the weight of the sins of the world on Jesus? If so, why torture humans? Why would they have to be a Christian to get into heaven? Jesus already paid for their sins, right? Why do they need to accept that? It's already paid for whether they accept it or not. And even if God somehow had to have them accept Jesus' sacrifice in order to get into heaven (why this would be, I don't know), why couldn't he give them another chance after they die? What's inconsistent about a loving God allowing that to happen? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But, I know, I know the "gospel is foolishness" idea. I know how the Bible tries to argue against things that don't make sense to the "natural man." ;) So no need to go there.


Then to you, Christianity is not what it is to me. "It" cannot say what the Bible doesn't say, and the Bible says nothing about any religion that still exist other than Judaism. It does say about idolatry and self-serving practices. Religion, Christianity included, can easily become both those things.

You just showed my point. Every religious belief outside of Christianity is wrong, satanic, irrelevant, etc, in Christian thought, correct, EVEN Judaism?
And I personally find it silly that God would care if someone used an idol as a helper in worship. That he would care sounds more like a vain, jealous human. Not all those "evil idol worshippers" really think their idols are literally gods.

Read Hebrews 6:1-3 as well. When those things have become "elementary" to you, you'll understand verse 4-6. Don't read only the parts that support your argument..

Please elaborate. You may believe in "eternal security", but there are some Christians who don't. It's easy to simply say they're wrong, but how I see it, is that they have a point, and it goes to show that the Bible is not perfectly consistent and obvious.

"Believing the wrong thing" = "tortured for eternity"? It's not about what you believe, but who you stand in relationship with, and in whose hands you place your life. If you can save your own life, then hold on to it. If someone else can, then trust them with it. But for all the information we have about sin and its connection to death (which is closely related to hell), I would not wish to end up where the slaves and supporters of sin end up. You use "tortured" as if you think God derives some pleasure out of losing lives to sin. Where could you possibly have come up with such an idea? That's your own theology.

Could you tell me how this metaphysical concept known as "sin" leads to death? First off, everyone dies, we know that. Secondly, I don't see how an idol worshipper per se dies before a non idol worshipper. That being said, there are some generally wise sayings in the Bible which, if followed, could lead to a long life. But even you must admit, the "good die young" also.

Where do I come up with the idea that God derives some pleasure out of losing lives to sin? Well, I have to ask, if God didn't derive some pleasure from it, why does the Bible say he will send people a strong delusion that they'll believe a lie? (2 Thess 2:11) I have to ask, why would a loving God send anyone a strong delusion that they'll believe a lie, when that lie leads to eternal torture? You'd think he'd do whatever he could to prevent them from believing a lie that sends them to hell, wouldn't you? But does he do that, according to this passage?

And yes, "believing the wrong thing" gets one eternal torture, according to the Bible. That's a fact. He who doesn't believe is condemned already. So guess what? Not believing in Jesus=eternal torture. And you yourself admit to this, don't you? Where's Ghandi today (besides a general, "I don't know, I'm not God, I can't judge his heart?) I'd assume he's roasting in hell according to Christian theology. I don't see anywhere that he accepted Jesus as the only way to God. The bottom line is, billions of people are being tortured and will be tortured for eternity according to Christian thought, because they didn't believe in Jesus. This is the God you believe in. You can spin it and say "it's not just because they don't believe", "it's a relationship", but show me where my statement is wrong. Simple question - Where do those who believe the wrong thing (as in believe in a god/theology other than Jesus/Christianity) go to after they die? You know that's what Christianity teaches. Please don't deny it. Non-believer=believing the wrong thing=eternal torture. Please show me that this is NOT Christianity.

Well, can you explain to me why God puts people in hell if he doesn't derive some pleasure from it? Please don't say that the omnipotent God HAS to do it. That's ridiculous. And here's why. If God created souls, he could easily destroy them. No reason to torment them forever. He could also just leave them alone. Evidently he doesn't hate sin THAT much, because remember, in Job, in the first chapter, the AUTHOR of sin in your view, Satan himself, was in the presence of God, and if God is omnipresent, then he's here on earth too, and has been exposed to sinners for thousands of years, and if Jesus is God, then he was on earth for 30+ years with sinners. Those facts are not consistent with the idea of a poor, sad God, who just really wants people to not go to hell, but just has to send them there, because he has no choice.

I don't know, what does it mean? I'd say it means Job thought God was worthy of being followed, and that he did what God wanted.
Doesn't that answer your question about how Job was before we read about him?

Did I just read you right? Are you trying to compare me to those who supposedly killed Jesus? Well, I suppose that's consistent. After all, I was supposedly "in Adam" when he sinned (interesting how I don't recall this. Do you recall when you were "in Adam" when he sinned?). Now I'm like the people who supposedly killed Jesus? Because I merely claim I don't deserve eternal torture? What kind of logic is that? Not much logic, but rather Christian guilt imo. Kind of like "You're the reason Jesus had to die! Don't you feel bad?"
Not more bad than being just as guilty. Jesus died for those He forgave for his death. Remember? "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" You say He was innocent, but do you even know what you're saying? He blasphemed against God by saying he can forgive sins (=guilty by religious standards); he threatened the peace of Rome by admitting he was "King of the Jews", and he was called Son of God, a title reserved for the emperor. If you say he was innocent, you are saying that he was innocent by your standards - but you didn't write the law, or invent your brand of morality. We are all in the wrong before God, except where we are in agreement with Christ. That's the way God provided.

Nope, it doesn't sound like hell at all. Millions of deaths for Hitler and Stalin do not make an eternity. You teach eternal torture, not finite punishment.

What does God being eternal or infinite have to do with sins? First off, I don't believe one could REALLY hurt God. Could you tell me how you could hurt an omnipotent, eternal being? Sure, I could understand God being mad, but just because he is infinite and eternal, where is the logical link between that and eternal punishment? I mean, is anything done to God then deserving of an eternal reaction just because he is eternal? If I pray to God, will his response be eternal? (Say, if I ask anything in Jesus' name, and he gives it to me, can I expect him to continue to give me things, without prayer, because of God's "eternal response?") Can you please explain to me, that if the punishment of God is eternal wrath, how Jesus supposedly only suffered a finite, impermanent death? To be consistent, why isn't he being tortured for eternity? If he truly was to pay for the sins of mankind, where's his eternal punishment? God had the anger from the sins of the entire world on the shoulders of Jesus (supposedly), and he only suffered for hours? Even if you claim "all of God's wrath" was on Jesus for those hours, they were still hours, not an eternity. Why would a finite punishment on Jesus appease God's anger, while an infinite punishment on human beings wouldn't? Why do I say it wouldn't? Because he's still doing it, for eternity, isn't he? So he's still pissed off? For eternity? No matter what, he can't quit being pissed off at humans by torturing them for eternity? He supposedly got out the wrath of the sins of the world on Jesus, but yet somehow he still has enough wrath left to torture humans for eternity? Yet he was appeased with the 3 hours Jesus suffered? But I thought he already put the weight of the sins of the world on Jesus? If so, why torture humans? Why would they have to be a Christian to get into heaven? Jesus already paid for their sins, right? Why do they need to accept that? It's already paid for whether they accept it or not. And even if God somehow had to have them accept Jesus' sacrifice in order to get into heaven (why this would be, I don't know), why couldn't he give them another chance after they die? What's inconsistent about a loving God allowing that to happen? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But, I know, I know the "gospel is foolishness" idea. I know how the Bible tries to argue against things that don't make sense to the "natural man." ;) So no need to go there.
God didn't vent his anger on Christ! Our lives - all of it - are forgiven inasmuch they are contained in His body.

You want me to cover all of the New Testament right here, but you don't understand een the principles. So I'll start with a basic idea: If you committed a crime against the government, say, high treason. For how long are you guilty? Only until you die or the law that makes you guilty is dissolved. That's why military coups are so attractive. Your death satisfies the law because the government only has jurisdiction over life, it doesn't stretch past death. With me? If the government could still judge you after death, they would have dug you up and pur you on trial with the daisies on your head and all - but justice must prevail. God won't be overthrown, and your death won't be an excuse before him. "Detained by death" isn't a valid excuse before his courtroom.

Christ came to satisfy any guilt that leads to death. The laws that made death binding, so we could inherit from Him. What we inherited from Adam was death, that was what was written on his "testament": To my dearest descendants, I leave you: death. Sounds a lot like nature, doesn't it? But the New Testament is that God has payed the debt owed by Adam, payed out the inheritance, and adopted us as sons so we could inherit from Him. To my dearest children: Death is in the grave (hell), I have payed the price that was on your heads, and you owe your debt to me now. Except, I have written off all debt to my Son, who owns everything I do, and is therfore able to repay it fully. Through Him, you will receive the full inheritance that was originally made out to Adam, which he could not collect because of death.

I suggest you read the whole of Romans and then come back to me. I have no intention of repeating everything Paul said.
You just showed my point. Every religious belief outside of Christianity is wrong, satanic, irrelevant, etc, in Christian thought, correct, EVEN Judaism?
And I personally find it silly that God would care if someone used an idol as a helper in worship. That he would care sounds more like a vain, jealous human. Not all those "evil idol worshippers" really think their idols are literally gods.
Idols replace God, that's why. They didn't help, they became revered. Idols fall into the fire and melt. They would give people a completely twisted idea of who God is, as kings who proposed to be divine did as well. Like Pharoah. If they replace or prevent a living relationship with God, then yes, they are wrong. Otherwise they must still provide the redemption that Christ represents, which they can only do by faith. Will that faith be justified? But you ignore a few things:
Romans 6:12-[/b] All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Please elaborate. You may believe in "eternal security", but there are some Christians who don't. It's easy to simply say they're wrong, but how I see it, is that they have a point, and it goes to show that the Bible is not perfectly consistent and obvious.
Christians who have no security lack faith in Him, and there is usually a reason for that. There is no wrong or right about it. It's like the argument about determinism. We could go on and on, but if you're in doubt, do something about it.

Could you tell me how this metaphysical concept known as "sin" leads to death? First off, everyone dies, we know that. Secondly, I don't see how an idol worshipper per se dies before a non idol worshipper. That being said, there are some generally wise sayings in the Bible which, if followed, could lead to a long life. But even you must admit, the "good die young" also.
That's what Ecclesiastes says as well. The conclusion it comes to is "Fear God and keep his commandments, that is the whole duty of man". Sin, as a whole, leads to death - but until you die you have a chance to repent and change your lifestyle. Think of it as a steep slope into hell/chaos/death/whatever. You don't have to bring time into it. What we see when people die is simply the "face" of it.

Where do I come up with the idea that God derives some pleasure out of losing lives to sin? Well, I have to ask, if God didn't derive some pleasure from it, why does the Bible say he will send people a strong delusion that they'll believe a lie? (2 Thess 2:11) I have to ask, why would a loving God send anyone a strong delusion that they'll believe a lie, when that lie leads to eternal torture? You'd think he'd do whatever he could to prevent them from believing a lie that sends them to hell, wouldn't you? But does he do that, according to this passage?
Paul looks at it in retrospect, so to speak. If they wouldn't have believed the deulsion, what would it have helped God to send it? What happens is that God exposes what was only latent until then. He bring them to the choice - like he did when He sent Moses to Pharoah, remember? Pharoah's heart was hardened. The word is also used for pots that harden when they're exposed to heat. If you don't put them in the oven, they'll never be called pots. Their nature is "confirmed".

And yes, "believing the wrong thing" gets one eternal torture, according to the Bible. That's a fact. He who doesn't believe is condemned already. So guess what? Not believing in Jesus=eternal torture. And you yourself admit to this, don't you? Where's Ghandi today (besides a general, "I don't know, I'm not God, I can't judge his heart?) I'd assume he's roasting in hell according to Christian theology. I don't see anywhere that he accepted Jesus as the only way to God. The bottom line is, billions of people are being tortured and will be tortured for eternity according to Christian thought, because they didn't believe in Jesus.
No, that's your conclusion, and there are Christians that come to the same conclusion. But based on what? We know the certainty, but not the uncertainty. How did people come to God before they knew Jesus? By faith. Faith is not something any Christian is an authority on, because nobody puts their faith in "Christianity", but in God. You can't get by that.

Jesus is the only way, yes: Even for people who didn't realize that he is the way. But ignorance doesn't help people come to a faith that leads to God, which is why we must know where our hope comes from.

This is the God you believe in. You can spin it and say "it's not just because they don't believe", "it's a relationship", but show me where my statement is wrong. Simple question - Where do those who believe the wrong thing (as in believe in a god/theology other than Jesus/Christianity) go to after they die? You know that's what Christianity teaches. Please don't deny it. Non-believer=believing the wrong thing=eternal torture. Please show me that this is NOT Christianity.
They go to wherever that god/theology/religion takes them. If it makes their lives on this earth a happy one, good for them, and good for humanity. But my certainty lies through Christ alone, and I don't care for a happy life if it ends where everyone else ends up: death, and the uncertainty of what to expect after. I will not share in that uncertainty, but neither can I force my certainty on anyone else. Good news is there to be accepted or rejected. Bad news is common enough that I don't have to emphasize it. I won't tell you who goes to hell and who doesn't, because I can't. Christianity should teach what Christ taught, and Christ taught that sin ends in death and people need to repent and restore their relationship with the only One who can give life.

Well, can you explain to me why God puts people in hell if he doesn't derive some pleasure from it? Please don't say that the omnipotent God HAS to do it. That's ridiculous. And here's why. If God created souls, he could easily destroy them. No reason to torment them forever. He could also just leave them alone. Evidently he doesn't hate sin THAT much, because remember, in Job, in the first chapter, the AUTHOR of sin in your view, Satan himself, was in the presence of God, and if God is omnipresent, then he's here on earth too, and has been exposed to sinners for thousands of years, and if Jesus is God, then he was on earth for 30+ years with sinners. Those facts are not consistent with the idea of a poor, sad God, who just really wants people to not go to hell, but just has to send them there, because he has no choice.
God does nto go back on his word, and He did not make a mistke when He gae us life. He is taking back the life He gave us, and that's just the problem. Impurities will burn up in his holiness. There's no place for sin in God's kingdom. He can't tolerate it, or heaven would look a lot like earth does today. Where God reaches is not where God lives. Everywhere isn't holy because God is everywhere, it is holy where God "gathers".

Sin is left alone on earth, for the time being. In fact, some places where God punishes sin in the Bible, it is written that He "gives them over to sin". God lets the weeds grow, because there is still corn growing among it. Eventually, sin will also be gathered, along with everything that lives with it, and separated from the corn. If you can imagine of a cozy place for death, sin and every vile thought to live, without God's mercy, life and forgiveness - without all that is good and eternal - then please share.

Not more bad than being just as guilty. Jesus died for those He forgave for his death. Remember? "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" You say He was innocent, but do you even know what you're saying? He blasphemed against God by saying he can forgive sins (=guilty by religious standards); he threatened the peace of Rome by admitting he was "King of the Jews", and he was called Son of God, a title reserved for the emperor. If you say he was innocent, you are saying that he was innocent by your standards - but you didn't write the law, or invent your brand of morality. We are all in the wrong before God, except where we are in agreement with Christ. That's the way God provided.

Jenyar, this is kind of like what I've read about the Bab of the Bah'ai religion (or even Mani for that manner). Maybe he and Mani sincerely believed their claims were true, I don't know. But they were both supposedly killed for their beliefs. I know, I know, "but Jesus resurrected", so no reason to go there, I already know the claim. ;) The Bab made religious claims, and was killed in Persia. The Bab supposedly was to be put to death and a firing squad fired, but when the smoke cleared, he wasn't to be found, then later on they found him back in his prison cell, I guess he had things he needed to get done before he was killed, or so says that "miracle story." You're arguing from the idea that the Bible is true, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he is who he said he was, etc, which is quite understandable, since you're a Christian.... but this is your view.

You want me to cover all of the New Testament right here, but you don't understand een the principles. So I'll start with a basic idea: If you committed a crime against the government, say, high treason.

Have I committed high treason though? And what's the punishment for that? Death, not eternal torture. ;)

For how long are you guilty? Only until you die or the law that makes you guilty is dissolved. That's why military coups are so attractive. Your death satisfies the law because the government only has jurisdiction over life, it doesn't stretch past death. With me? If the government could still judge you after death, they would have dug you up and pur you on trial with the daisies on your head and all - but justice must prevail. God won't be overthrown, and your death won't be an excuse before him. "Detained by death" isn't a valid excuse before his courtroom

You're still maintaining that God is just so mad he can't stop it, for eternity, he just keeps on and keeps on being mad. Remember, he's supposedly pissed off and hell is God's wrath, not Satan's, so isn't God the one maintaining hell? And he just can't stop himself from doing so? I find that incredible. If this human commits "high treason", does that nation hate him just as much, say, 5000 years in the future, than it did when they convicted him? I doubt it. Their anger wanes, doesn't it? Who could possibly be mad forever? But that's how I see the Bible God, mad forever.

No, that's your conclusion, and there are Christians that come to the same conclusion. But based on what? We know the certainty, but not the uncertainty. How did people come to God before they knew Jesus? By faith. Faith is not something any Christian is an authority on, because nobody puts their faith in "Christianity", but in God. You can't get by that.

Jenyar, this is a Christian theory about those who didn't hear, or those who lived before Jesus. First off, the Bible itself doesn't say that those pagans who didn't hear Jesus would go to heaven, does it? Let's go over what you just quoted:


Romans 6:12-[/b] All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

First he says all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law. Who is he talking about here? Why would he even use these terms, when just afterward, he tries to make the Gentiles have a "law" in a sense. Why not just say that, instead of the "all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law" part, as if the Gentiles really have no law? Just odd to me. And when Paul says "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets though Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares", what is he referring to? He doesn't actually say anything about a judgement before this, he just says Gentiles' thoughts are NOW accusing and NOW even defending them. Not later. Not in a later judgement. So it's odd wording to me. No wonder Peter said Paul was "difficult to understand." ;)

So, what is Paul saying? Is he saying that the Gentiles will defend themselves on the Day of Judgement? I'm guessing so. But this does not say a single thing about those who haven't heard getting into heaven. Not one thing. Just because Paul thinks the gentiles "do by nature the things of the law", that doesn't necessarily mean he's saying that they'll get to heaven, does it, because he then says that their thoughts ACCUSE them (why accuse yourself if you're sinless?) and defend them, and he said "all have sinned", so he doesn't see the Gentiles as being exceptions to the "all have sinned" part, does he? All he's saying, to me, is that God will judge gentiles by the "law in their hearts", "their consciences", instead of the Law of Moses. That'd still make them sinners in need of Jesus just as much as a Jew, wouldn't it? So why did you even quote this passage? What do *YOU* think it means? I see nothing about it saying that those who haven't heard can attain heaven, it doesn't even appear to be addressing that. To me, all it's saying is that the Gentiles have a standard, and so does the Jew, and they'll both be judged by each respective standard, kind of like how he says in the first part of the quotation, "All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles?] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews?] will be judged by the law." Isn't that what he's trying to say?

Does it mention anyone not an OT "worthy", or not connected with Israel or Christianity being in heaven? Does it say Buddha's in heaven? Not only that, but the fact is, there are many people after Jesus who don't believe. To me, to say, that anyone in the past is in heaven, who was not connected with Israel (say, like Rahab), or was an OT "worthy", or was a Christian, is just a theory. Where does the Bible say any of that? And the simple question, IF people can get into heaven without Jesus or being an OT "worthy", or connected with Israel (Rahab), but instead just need "faith in God", then why would anyone in their right minds preach Jesus to people who already have "faith in God", therefore, putting their eternal souls in jeopardy? Just ask the Muslims if they think they have "faith in God." Why tell them about Jesus if they can get to heaven without specifically believing he's the savior? If people could really get to heaven merely by having "faith in God", then why not preach only that?

Good news is there to be accepted or rejected. Bad news is common enough that I don't have to emphasize it. I won't tell you who goes to hell and who doesn't, because I can't. Christianity should teach what Christ taught, and Christ taught that sin ends in death and people need to repent and restore their relationship with the only One who can give life.

This is perspective. Good news? To you, perhaps. To me, it's HORRIBLE news, of unimaginable proportions. The Bible itself says most of mankind is going to hell (narrow is the way, few are those who find it, broad is the path to destruction, many are those who enter). That's HORRENDOUS news. I find it perhaps infinitely better news to think we just die and that's it, than to think that there's a God who's an eternal torturer of most of mankind.


God does nto go back on his word, and He did not make a mistke when He gae us life. He is taking back the life He gave us, and that's just the problem. Impurities will burn up in his holiness. There's no place for sin in God's kingdom. He can't tolerate it, or heaven would look a lot like earth does today. Where God reaches is not where God lives. Everywhere isn't holy because God is everywhere, it is holy where God "gathers"

When you speak of an omnipresent deity, and then say he "gathers" somewhere, just what are you really saying? There's a verse I believe which talks about "where can I flee from your presence?" And there's still the point of Satan being in the presence of God. Did God say "Leave me now, I can't tolerate your existence here, because you're the author of sin" and end the conversation there? Sure, I could see why God wouldn't want people who do these things in heaven. But if you were in heaven, why would you even want to still do these things? And why couldn't he change people (you yourself believe he changes people) so they wouldn't sin anymore?

Sin is left alone on earth, for the time being. In fact, some places where God punishes sin in the Bible, it is written that He "gives them over to sin". God lets the weeds grow, because there is still corn growing among it. Eventually, sin will also be gathered, along with everything that lives with it, and separated from the corn. If you can imagine of a cozy place for death, sin and every vile thought to live, without God's mercy, life and forgiveness - without all that is good and eternal - then please share.

Why would it need to live anywhere? Just destroy it. If God wanted to "have a few (million) whacks" at Hitler (for example) beforehand though, who would blame him? Destroying it is not torturing it for eternity. Big difference. You yourself are saying "death, sin, and every vile thought" lives, IN HELL, and people will LIVE forever, being tortured for eternity. It's not just merely "Oh this place where God has left, doesn't continue to maintain, etc". Evidently he still maintains it, because its fires are eternal, aren't they? And he maintains the soul's "integrity", doesn't he? I mean the souls are never destroyed. God continues to maintain hell, doesn't he? Otherwise, how does it eternally exist?

Sorry Medicine Woman. Been busy....

Jesus has been called Rabi, teacher....but, Im a beliver in Christ but i have no title of Christian. Same with Jesus, he doesnt HAVE to believe the exact same as the religous leaders. Especially since the Saducies tried to trap jesus with stuf THEY dont even believe in.

The original name for Christianity was called "The Way" (refering to the way of jesus). I do not recall the exact group. But locals began calling them Chritians "little Christs" so TECHNICLY hes Jewish. But that doesnt keep him from having his own beliefs.

Jenyar, this is kind of like what I've read about the Bab of the Bah'ai religion (or even Mani for that manner). Maybe he and Mani sincerely believed their claims were true, I don't know. But they were both supposedly killed for their beliefs. I know, I know, "but Jesus resurrected", so no reason to go there, I already know the claim. ;) The Bab made religious claims, and was killed in Persia. The Bab supposedly was to be put to death and a firing squad fired, but when the smoke cleared, he wasn't to be found, then later on they found him back in his prison cell, I guess he had things he needed to get done before he was killed, or so says that "miracle story." You're arguing from the idea that the Bible is true, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he is who he said he was, etc, which is quite understandable, since you're a Christian.... but this is your view.
That's a disingenious argument. I don't believe Jesus' claims "because I'm a Christian". That would be circular logic. Besides, none of those who first heard him were Christian - there were no Christians. Jesus didn't make random religious claims, either. His very existence proceeded from the expectation and need of generations of people. He didn't fall from the moon, nor did His message. Jesus' ministry was one of confirmation as much as news.

His baptism by John the Baptist (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/john.html) is a good example. Jesus would not have insisted on being baptized if he did not believe John's message. And did John's message come out of nowhere? Did it come from God, or from people?

Have I committed high treason though? And what's the punishment for that? Death, not eternal torture. ;)
How do you know there's a difference? You didn't pay attention to my argument.

You're still maintaining that God is just so mad he can't stop it, for eternity, he just keeps on and keeps on being mad. Remember, he's supposedly pissed off and hell is God's wrath, not Satan's, so isn't God the one maintaining hell? And he just can't stop himself from doing so? I find that incredible. If this human commits "high treason", does that nation hate him just as much, say, 5000 years in the future, than it did when they convicted him? I doubt it. Their anger wanes, doesn't it? Who could possibly be mad forever? But that's how I see the Bible God, mad forever.
Mad? It's not God's anger that will be appeased - it's his justice. Please show me where you get the idea that hell is "God's wrath". It's a place of judgment, like a prison. We don't sens people to prison to appease our wrath - no matter how mad we get at criminals.

God is maintaining heaven and justice... anything else is hell. It's everything that is not God. If a human commits hight treason, he is guilty for as long as he lives. The nation might forget why he was hated, but justice doesn't "forget". Where did you get that idea? If any hope for mercy and forgiveness is rejected, where would those come from? The guilt will remain forever.

What do you make of John 3:16? Why do you think it doesn't fit your argument?
First he says all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law. Who is he talking about here? Why would he even use these terms, when just afterward, he tries to make the Gentiles have a "law" in a sense. Why not just say that, instead of the "all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law" part, as if the Gentiles really have no law? Just odd to me.
It's odd because you don't realize that the law Paul is talking about is the Torah (having been a Jew, and speaking to Jews). Jews were under the impression that only they could be saved, since only they had the means to attain salvation, and everyone else were "apart from the law". But Paul shows them how their law is just as binding. Back to the concept of justice: if there is no law, you can't be considered guilty. This is an argument I hear often: "we don't believe in sin, so we can't be punished for it". But you do believe in an equivalent of sin, don't you? What else is morality than a law? What else is your conscience than a judge of that law?

God holds everyone accountable, not just Jews, and not just Christians. Without that, there would be no justice.

And when Paul says "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets though Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares", what is he referring to? He doesn't actually say anything about a judgement before this, he just says Gentiles' thoughts are NOW accusing and NOW even defending them. Not later. Not in a later judgement. So it's odd wording to me. No wonder Peter said Paul was "difficult to understand." ;)
"Now this, now that". Ever heard the expression? Now he says one thing, now he says another. That "now" indicates contradiction. Internal conflict. God will judge by the law everybody is already applying. Just because time elapses between being caught, being sentenced and being jailed, doesn't mean different laws or sentences are being carried out each time. It's all part of the same process.

It might seem difficult to understand because you're trying to force a different interpretation - or an uneducated one.

So, what is Paul saying? Is he saying that the Gentiles will defend themselves on the Day of Judgement? I'm guessing so. But this does not say a single thing about those who haven't heard getting into heaven. Not one thing. Just because Paul thinks the gentiles "do by nature the things of the law", that doesn't necessarily mean he's saying that they'll get to heaven, does it, because he then says that their thoughts ACCUSE them (why accuse yourself if you're sinless?) and defend them, and he said "all have sinned", so he doesn't see the Gentiles as being exceptions to the "all have sinned" part, does he? All he's saying, to me, is that God will judge gentiles by the "law in their hearts", "their consciences", instead of the Law of Moses. That'd still make them sinners in need of Jesus just as much as a Jew, wouldn't it? So why did you even quote this passage? What do *YOU* think it means?
As I explained, it's a matter of accountability. The consequence is that nobody is without guilt, whether they derive their guilt from God's explicit laws, or implicitly - by showing they are aware of the need for laws. Yes, "all have sinned", when you understand sin this way. But likewise, not knowing Jesus does not make them ignorant of God, or takes away their ability to have faith in Him. It just leaves them open to uncertainty, or worse - leave them with a need to try working off their guilt, as if salvation depended on their efforts, or innocense could be earned. Some might have the perseverance to keep this up, others will feel its hopeless. Some might reject God altogether for demanding so much. They need to hear that God has heard them and sees their plight.

But that's the catch, isn't it? You have to assume those who haven't heard the gospel doesn't believe in God. Most people I know who reject their accountability is because they feel judged, and they don't like it. If you're so certain that you will be found innocent when God judges your secrets, why are you arguing with me? Are you trying to convince me those who haven't heard the good news are condemned? That they are without hope?

I see nothing about it saying that those who haven't heard can attain heaven, it doesn't even appear to be addressing that. To me, all it's saying is that the Gentiles have a standard, and so does the Jew, and they'll both be judged by each respective standard, kind of like how he says in the first part of the quotation, "All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles?] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews?] will be judged by the law." Isn't that what he's trying to say?
Yes, but that's not why I quoted it. It's a departure point for my argument: that Gentiles have a way of knowing something similar to God's requirements without Judaism. The very idea that everyone could have God's law written in their hearts means they have some kind of interaction with it. Something that might lead to realization. It's that realization that leads people to invent gods, or look for Him. How far do people have to look before they find out about Christ?

Should I emphasize that "judgment" doesn't automatically mean condemnation? That punishment isn't necessarily eternal? It is eternal for those who reject God and the means of his salvation. How could it not be? What options are there? But in an analogy, Jesus said:
Luke 12
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
But what about those who don't listen at all, who in fact deny the very existence of the master in whose house they live? Won't He drive them out when He returns? If you do what the obedient servants do, the master might recognize your obedience. But how will you know?
Does it mention anyone not an OT "worthy", or not connected with Israel or Christianity being in heaven? Does it say Buddha's in heaven? Not only that, but the fact is, there are many people after Jesus who don't believe. To me, to say, that anyone in the past is in heaven, who was not connected with Israel (say, like Rahab), or was an OT "worthy", or was a Christian, is just a theory. Where does the Bible say any of that?
James