Jump to content

Found This Fundie Website About "hell"


brad_religion
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I was browsing online to find sites about "hell" to see all the different concepts and I stumbled on this gem of a site. I basically responded point by point what this prick said. His words are prefaced with "Asshole : ". Mine are prefaced with "Response : ". Enjoy.

 

 

http://www.eternaldestiny.com/hell.html

 

Asshole : Does Hell Really Exist?

Yes, you better believe it does. Jesus spoke twice as much about Hell as He did about Heaven. He didn't want anyone to go there. A warning from God himself. Hell is a real physical place.

 

Response: This is a blatant lie. Assuming the King James Version (which mentions hell the most in evangelical circles) is the bible that this person uses, all one has to do is count the number of times Jesus said "hell" and the number of times Jesus mentioned "heaven". So, not only do these people apparently not know 3 doesn't equal 1, they don't know that hell is spoken about much less than heaven by Jesus in the bible. Jesus mentions "hell" a total of 15 times in the gospels. Jesus mentions heaven way more than 15 times in the gospels. Therefore, Jesus does NOT speak about hell twice as much as about heaven. All one needs is a trusty E-sword program with the KJV in it and run a search. This guy is apparently too lazy to do such a thing.

 

According to Jesus, a person who simply didn't believe would be damned. But, Jesus also explained why he spoke in parables to his disciples. He told them it was so people would NOT convert or be healed. It was so they would go from having sight to become blind, and from being able to hear to become deaf. In other words, he spoke in parables so people would NOT believe. Therefore, Jesus DID want people to be damned. As far as a "warning from God", Jesus said he would return in the lifetime of his disciples and failed to do so. Therefore, if he falsely predicted something, I doubt his "warnings" should be taken seriously either.

 

If "Hell" is a real, physical place, then certainly, scientists would be able to locate it in the physical universe and observe and test it's authenticity. If "Hell" is a real, physical place, why do non-physical "souls" go there? If I told you "Never Never land is a real, physical place", would you believe me if I told you "God" told me so? Or would you ask me for evidence?

 

 

 

Asshole : Satan Is Alive And Well!

The same level of truth concerning Hell can be applied to the topic of Satan (The Devil). Some people don't believe in him either. Guess what? If you don't believe in Satan then one of his little demons is whispering in your ear right now. Behind you! No, you can't see it. But believe me it's there. Here's a short outline of Satan's most powerful lies that he wants you to believe.

 

1. Satan wants to convince you that he doesn't exist.

2. Satan attacks the word of God, and tries to prove it is not true.

3. Satan wants to convince you to put off being saved today.

 

Response : This twit has not said anything "truthful" about hell even if the bible was true. He is willing to LIE for his beliefs. So, the "same level of truth" he wants to say about the "devil" will be just as ridiculous. Notice he is saying we SHOULD believe in Satan for some reason. He says "but believe me it's there". This idiot has not given anyone a reason to yet believe him about anything. I wonder what scripture says "If you don't believe in Satan, then one of his little demons is whispering in your ear right now."?

 

Here's a short outline of "God's" most powerful "truths" he wants you to believe.

 

1. God wants to convince you that he exists, but gives not one shred of evidence.

2. God says the word of God is true, but then internally attacks it by giving contradictory absolute claims.

3. God wants to convince you that you are scum because you are alive and he created hell for you to be tortured in, but he LOVES you?

 

Asshole : Watch out for these lies and hold fast to the truth. Satan controls 80% of the world's religions and 100% of the world's politics. - Mark Twain And he created most of the world's religions as well. He has done everything in his power to muddy the waters of truth. What is truth? That Jesus is the son of God, the only son of God. And to be saved, and to go to heaven one must believe in him and him alone.

 

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

BELIEVE

 

Response : For a guy quoting Mark Twain, he should keep reading, because Mark Twain was for all intents and purposes an atheist. I agree, we should watch out for "these lies" from this website with poorly done apologetics and even worse, saying things the bible does not agree with or say itself. Which statistics did this guy use to verify that 80% of the world's religions are controlled by Satan? If Jesus existed 2000 years ago, and people have lived for 4000 years (as fundies say) before Jesus was born, then this guy is condemning judaism as well (which is the basis of the old testament he believes). So, if "satan" created judaism, then he must have created the old testament which doesn't mention Jesus or says Jesus is the son of God. The problem is that if Jesus is based upon believing the old testament is true, yet the old testament completely denies Jesus by name and doesn't say he was the son of God, then it is clearly a circular argument. He has admitted : the old testament "muddies the waters of truth" because it doesn't say Jesus is the son of God or Jesus exists. Yet, he also believes in Jesus because the new testament tells him to. But the new testament claims its basis of belief in Jesus is the old testament. In other words, this guy has pretty much admitted that he believes the Old Testament is false (because it denies Jesus) and true (because the New testament says Jesus is based on the old testament) at the same time.

 

 

Asshole: Hell Isn't Party Time

 

Many people believe that Hell is party time for those who wanted to live their lives as they wanted without being obdient to God. These people also believe that all their friends will be in Hell and it will be one big party. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Interview with a denizen of Hell <18K>.

 

A young woman tells us what Hell is really like. <33K>

 

Response : I don't know of anyone who says "hell" is party time. At least anyone who takes "hell" seriously. The ones who say "party in hell" are clearly being sarcastic in response to fundies like this asshole, in order to further make them deluded. This guy says people who are going to hell are not being "obedient to God", yet this hypocrite has lied about what the bible says (hell is talked about more than heaven) and he added to what the bible said (demons whisper in your ear). He should really read Job 13 to see what the biblegod thinks of people who speak deceitfully for the biblegod.

 

Where is his evidence that there are people who believe in a literal hell think it will be a party? Where is his evidence that they believe their friends will be in hell? I do agree "nothing could be further from the truth" because he is making it up (probably took it out of his own ass). Then, this asshole has "audio" clips of people in hell screaming. Of course, these are not really people who are in hell, because hell doesn't exist. But honesty is not his strong point.

 

 

Asshole: Who's Going To Hell?

If you happen to find one of the following charateristics describe you do not fret or get upset. All of these characteristics are sins. Jesus Christ will forgive you of these sins and then you can go to Heaven. Jesus Christ must be your savior and Lord, ask to be forgiven, repent of your sins and you will go to heaven. God loves you and he wants none to perish into enternal damnation. What are the characteristics of the people are going to hell:

 

Whoremongers Liars Backbiters

Thieves Murderers Adulterers

Haters Of God False Accusers The Unmerciful

2 Tim 3:2-6

 

Response : Is this guy writing about himself? Notice he says "all of these characteristics are sins", yet he believes God is unmerciful to those in hell (so, is he saying God is sinning?). This man has clearly proven he is : a backbiter (he is backbiting non-believers without any proof), unmerciful (he almost jokes about people who go to hell) and a false accuser. Therefore, he will go to hell with the people he condemns.

 

This person needs a course in logic. He says "God loves you and he wants none to perish into eternal damnation". If such a thing was true, then "God" would not have created hell in the first place, knowing most humanity would go there (as this guy suggests). Imagine if you were all knowing and all loving, and knew that by building a trap in your backyard that was a fire pit that people would fall into and suffer in, would you still make it? If you would, then you are malevolent. If you wouldn't, then you are benevolent. This guy needs to ask himself if you love people, will you make something that you KNOW would torture billions of people? Only a complete moron would think that a loving being would even allow or create "hell" and then say he doesn't want people to go there. It's a big joke.

 

 

 

Asshole : The bible is very clear as to who is going into ever lasting fire:

 

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

It seems that anyone that isn't in the 'book of life' is going to the lake fo fire. When the only way to avoid hell is to become a Christian, why not make a decision to become one today? The Bible says all you must do is believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Then once you are a Christian , God will write your name in the 'book of life' so you can go to Heaven. It is that easy.

 

 

Response : All this asshole needs to do is read the false prophecy of Revelation 1:7 to realize nothing in Revelation is accurate or true. Nowhere does it say people who are in the book of life "made a decision" to be in it. He also is contradicting what it says about the book of life. It says God wrote names before the foundation of the world, not when you "make a decision". This guy seems to be worshipping a gameshow host who will send you to hell for answering a bunch of trivia questions incorrectly. Like I have said before, people like this guy are "spiritual nazis". They replace "Fuhrer" with "Jesus", "Aryan papers" with "book of life", "avoid the concentration camp" with "avoid hell", and "demonize anyone who isn't a nazi" to "demonize anyone who isn't a christian".

 

And why in the world would I want to spend 5 minutes with a guy like this, let alone an eternity in heaven? That would be hell!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the sudden urge to print that web page straight onto toilet paper and use such toilet paper in its intended manner.

 

:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheez, I hate that scare tactic of the proseletizers...pure psychological terrorism. If they want converts who really love their god and their jeezus, how can they expect that from those who've been scared into believing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, I was browsing online to find sites about "hell" to see all the different concepts and I stumbled on this gem of a site. I basically responded point by point what this prick said. His words are prefaced with "Asshole : ". Mine are prefaced with "Response : ". Enjoy.

 

 

http://www.eternaldestiny.com/hell.html

 

Asshole : Does Hell Really Exist?

Yes, you better believe it does. Jesus spoke twice as much about Hell as He did about Heaven. He didn't want anyone to go there. A warning from God himself. Hell is a real physical place.

 

Response: This is a blatant lie. Assuming the King James Version (which mentions hell the most in evangelical circles) is the bible that this person uses, all one has to do is count the number of times Jesus said "hell" and the number of times Jesus mentioned "heaven". So, not only do these people apparently not know 3 doesn't equal 1, they don't know that hell is spoken about much less than heaven by Jesus in the bible. Jesus mentions "hell" a total of 15 times in the gospels. Jesus mentions heaven way more than 15 times in the gospels. Therefore, Jesus does NOT speak about hell twice as much as about heaven. All one needs is a trusty E-sword program with the KJV in it and run a search. This guy is apparently too lazy to do such a thing.

 

Well, to play the part of the Devil's advocate (or in this case, Jesus' advocate :lol: ) ...Bible scriptures may have referred to Hell without actually saying hell -- things like "lake of fire". But that's really just a question of semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to 5 Methodist disiplies to read on hell. All have to refer to the NT. Hell isnt in the old Test. And Jesus when he spoke of hell it was aminly about a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. So this modern Day hell is a crock of shit even Bible scholars don't believe it! The Jesus Seminar a few years back disproved the concept of eternal torment...So when Christians themselves think this is total BS..Then how about us Agnostic?

Hell is one of the most powerful tools in the Christians inventory....They will try to hold that concept as long as they can even if it has been disroved from a doctrinal standpoint by their best scholars..EVEN Martine Luther "The Reformer" didnt agree with Hell..nor did any early church followers...I have Christians freinds still who are in bondage on this subject..and I chllenge them to research hell..from a Bible and Histroic veiw..Once they do that alone they will se the flaws and chalk it up as total Bull Shit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Asshole : Does Hell Really Exist?

Yes, you better believe it does. Jesus spoke twice as much about Hell as He did about Heaven. He didn't want anyone to go there. A warning from God himself. Hell is a real physical place.

 

Response: This is a blatant lie. Assuming the King James Version (which mentions hell the most in evangelical circles) is the bible that this person uses, all one has to do is count the number of times Jesus said "hell" and the number of times Jesus mentioned "heaven". So, not only do these people apparently not know 3 doesn't equal 1, they don't know that hell is spoken about much less than heaven by Jesus in the bible. Jesus mentions "hell" a total of 15 times in the gospels. Jesus mentions heaven way more than 15 times in the gospels. Therefore, Jesus does NOT speak about hell twice as much as about heaven. All one needs is a trusty E-sword program with the KJV in it and run a search. This guy is apparently too lazy to do such a thing.

Pity some people are like that... However, it is true that Jesus and John, the 'apostle of love', spoke most about Hell of the persons in the Bible.

 

According to Jesus, a person who simply didn't believe would be damned. But, Jesus also explained why he spoke in parables to his disciples. He told them it was so people would NOT convert or be healed. It was so they would go from having sight to become blind, and from being able to hear to become deaf. In other words, he spoke in parables so people would NOT believe. Therefore, Jesus DID want people to be damned.

Which, once again, shows God has reasons for what He does. If the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people. But in His mercy, He chose to extend the offer of mercy to the Gentiles -- to all the world. It's the choice between saving a burning house or saving a burning city.

 

As far as a "warning from God", Jesus said he would return in the lifetime of his disciples and failed to do so. Therefore, if he falsely predicted something, I doubt his "warnings" should be taken seriously either.

He did not. The disciples asked, 'What will be the sign of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the age?' (Matthew 24:3) This 'coming' happened in 70 AD: Christ came into His Messianic kingdom and He is reigning now. (A prophecy from Daniel is referred to, which talks about a coming UP, not down!) He 'came on the clouds of the sky', which is symbolism for 'coming in judgement', a figure of speech also used in other places of the Bible.

 

If "Hell" is a real, physical place, then certainly, scientists would be able to locate it in the physical universe and observe and test it's authenticity. If "Hell" is a real, physical place, why do non-physical "souls" go there? If I told you "Never Never land is a real, physical place", would you believe me if I told you "God" told me so? Or would you ask me for evidence?

Why should scientists be able to do that? Can they test anything about a star 4000 light years away? Some people say Hell is at the center of the earth, but most people doubt it strongly...

But souls are not non-physical. While 'soul' and 'spirit' are used interchangeably in the New Testament, in the Old Testament we have a clearer distinction. Most people think ruach 'spirit' refers to the non-physical part of a man, while nephesh 'soul' refers to the physical and non-physical part together. (Jews did not think dualistically like the Greek philosophers. They believed in the unity of soul and body.)

 

Asshole : Satan Is Alive And Well!

The same level of truth concerning Hell can be applied to the topic of Satan (The Devil). Some people don't believe in him either. Guess what? If you don't believe in Satan then one of his little demons is whispering in your ear right now. Behind you! No, you can't see it. But believe me it's there. Here's a short outline of Satan's most powerful lies that he wants you to believe...

Ah yes, 'Satan stole my car keys'... I believe Satan is bound right now: God has severely limited him in what he can do. But why would he want to let underlings whisper in a man's ear, while he knows well that man is weak and does not require external devilish promptings for disbelieving God?

 

Response : This twit has not said anything "truthful" about hell even if the bible was true. He is willing to LIE for his beliefs. So, the "same level of truth" he wants to say about the "devil" will be just as ridiculous. Notice he is saying we SHOULD believe in Satan for some reason. He says "but believe me it's there". This idiot has not given anyone a reason to yet believe him about anything. I wonder what scripture says "If you don't believe in Satan, then one of his little demons is whispering in your ear right now."?

None.

 

Here's a short outline of "God's" most powerful "truths" he wants you to believe.

 

1. God wants to convince you that he exists, but gives not one shred of evidence.

He's given enough. Apart from the Bible, there is so-called 'natural revelation', which means the concept of 'god' can be inferred from Creation.

 

2. God says the word of God is true, but then internally attacks it by giving contradictory absolute claims.

Which apologists have refuted before you were born. Can you give me some examples?

 

3. God wants to convince you that you are scum because you are alive and he created hell for you to be tortured in, but he LOVES you?

'Scum because you are alive'? Now YOU are quoting texts that don't exist. He created Hell as a place for unredeemed sinners, that's true (BTW, I don't believe sulphur and brimstone are involved), but He sent His precious Son to redeem sinners. The all-powerful God became the shamed victim of men.

 

Response : For a guy quoting Mark Twain, he should keep reading, because Mark Twain was for all intents and purposes an atheist. I agree, we should watch out for "these lies" from this website with poorly done apologetics and even worse, saying things the bible does not agree with or say itself. Which statistics did this guy use to verify that 80% of the world's religions are controlled by Satan? If Jesus existed 2000 years ago, and people have lived for 4000 years (as fundies say) before Jesus was born, then this guy is condemning judaism as well (which is the basis of the old testament he believes). So, if "satan" created judaism, then he must have created the old testament which doesn't mention Jesus or says Jesus is the son of God. The problem is that if Jesus is based upon believing the old testament is true, yet the old testament completely denies Jesus by name and doesn't say he was the son of God, then it is clearly a circular argument.

Christianity fulfilled Judaism; it was a 'shadow of the things to come', as the writer of Hebrews said. The Jews who held to God's Word were saved, but the covenant has changed now. Satan did not create Judaism. (In fact he didn't create anything, the old perverter.)

The OT nowhere 'denies Jesus by name'. This is like saying a history book from the 16th century denies the Second World War. Get a grip on chronology.

 

Asshole: Hell Isn't Party Time

 

Many people believe that Hell is party time for those who wanted to live their lives as they wanted without being obdient to God. These people also believe that all their friends will be in Hell and it will be one big party. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Interview with a denizen of Hell <18K>.

 

A young woman tells us what Hell is really like. <33K>

 

[...]

 

Then, this asshole has "audio" clips of people in hell screaming. Of course, these are not really people who are in hell, because hell doesn't exist. But honesty is not his strong point.

Rather, 'because it's unlikely you could record sounds from Hell and play them on earth'. This kind of scare tactics isn't the best method to spread the Kingdom of God, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

Asshole: Who's Going To Hell?

If you happen to find one of the following charateristics describe you do not fret or get upset. All of these characteristics are sins. Jesus Christ will forgive you of these sins and then you can go to Heaven. Jesus Christ must be your savior and Lord, ask to be forgiven, repent of your sins and you will go to heaven. God loves you and he wants none to perish into enternal damnation. What are the characteristics of the people are going to hell:

 

Whoremongers Liars Backbiters

Thieves Murderers Adulterers

Haters Of God False Accusers The Unmerciful

2 Tim 3:2-6

 

Response : Is this guy writing about himself? Notice he says "all of these characteristics are sins", yet he believes God is unmerciful to those in hell (so, is he saying God is sinning?).

Unmerciful? No more than a judge who condemns people to death is unmerciful. (And who has also let His Son pay the debt for those who shall believe in Him...)

 

This man has clearly proven he is : a backbiter (he is backbiting non-believers without any proof), unmerciful (he almost jokes about people who go to hell) and a false accuser. Therefore, he will go to hell with the people he condemns.

Not necessarily. ALL of us are sinners. The division line runs not between sinners and holy men, but forgiven sinners and unforgiven sinners. But I do agree he probably isn't the nicest guy to talk to.

 

This person needs a course in logic. He says "God loves you and he wants none to perish into eternal damnation". If such a thing was true, then "God" would not have created hell in the first place, knowing most humanity would go there (as this guy suggests).

Again, not necessarily. We don't know what happens to people who cannot hear or understand the Gospel. Even CH Spurgeon, an orthodox Calvinist, believed God would forgive all infants; and given the infant mortality rates over the course of world history, that would mean the majority of people would still be with God.

 

Imagine if you were all knowing and all loving, and knew that by building a trap in your backyard that was a fire pit that people would fall into and suffer in, would you still make it?

The Fall was not a set-up; Adam knew very well what he was doing. And I don't believe in 'burning', except in the sense of 'burning with shame'.

 

Response : All this asshole needs to do is read the false prophecy of Revelation 1:7 to realize nothing in Revelation is accurate or true.

And since you are obviously not an asshole ;) (no, seriously!), you will be delighted to read Come Again? The Olivet Discourse and Prophetic Fulfilment. 'Coming on the clouds' is Jewish symbolism for judgement, and in 70 AD, the Temple fell. I'll quote from the article I linked:

"As a prophet, Jesus staked his reputation on his prediction of the Temple's fall within a generation; if and when it fell, he would thereby be vindicated." Jesus also promoted himself as the new Temple which would replace the old one, with his predictions that he would raise a new one -- his body -- in three days. If the Temple did NOT fall, he would be proven a charlatan. But if the Temple did indeed fall, he would be vindicated -- just like Daniel's "Son of Man" which he claimed to be. In saying he will ride the clouds, Jesus is not saying, as Wright wryly notes, that Caiaphas would one say walk by a window, look outside, and see Jesus popping a wheelie on a cumulus. Rather Jesus is saying, "You will see me vindicated; you will see my predictions come true." The "coming" -- as noted, using the word erchomai, which specifies neither destination nor direction -- alludes to the "going" of the Daniel 7 Son of Man from earth to heaven to be enthroned.

 

Nowhere does it say people who are in the book of life "made a decision" to be in it. He also is contradicting what it says about the book of life. It says God wrote names before the foundation of the world, not when you "make a decision".

* applauds * This is what Calvinists always say: we love Him because He loved us first (which is not a sentimentalistic feeling but an action). We do 'make a decision', but unless God gives us spiritual sight, we will make the wrong decision.

 

This guy seems to be worshipping a gameshow host who will send you to hell for answering a bunch of trivia questions incorrectly.

Trivia? No. Life is far too serious to compare it with trivia, and I don't see where you get the idea. It's not a trivia question, it's a call to believe.

 

And why in the world would I want to spend 5 minutes with a guy like this, let alone an eternity in heaven? That would be hell!

I presume being in God's presence has a calming effect on people. :grin:

 

PS Does anybody know why the 'quote' function isn't working?

 

PPS The Jesus Seminar isn't exactly 'Christian'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Which, once again, shows God has reasons for what He does. If the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people. But in His mercy, He chose to extend the offer of mercy to the Gentiles -- to all the world. It's the choice between saving a burning house or saving a burning city.
What?[/]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, once again, shows God has reasons for what He does. If the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people. But in His mercy, He chose to extend the offer of mercy to the Gentiles -- to all the world. It's the choice between saving a burning house or saving a burning city.
What?
This 'coming' happened in 70 AD: Christ came into His Messianic kingdom and He is reigning now. (A prophecy from Daniel is referred to, which talks about a coming UP, not down!) He 'came on the clouds of the sky', which is symbolism for 'coming in judgement', a figure of speech also used in other places of the Bible.

Part 1: how do you know that, and 2: I'd like you to back up that symbolism assertion.

 

 

Christianity fulfilled Judaism
I have heard that repeatedly, but no one can say what it means.
The OT nowhere 'denies Jesus by name'. This is like saying a history book from the 16th century denies the Second World War. Get a grip on chronology.
With that logic, using the old testament to affirm the nature of christ is equally loopy.

 

Not necessarily. ALL of us are sinners. The division line runs not between sinners and holy men, but forgiven sinners and unforgiven sinners.
Why are god's standards so fucking high? And if god cannot abide by sin, how is it that 'forgiven sinners' are going to make it into heaven?

 

Again, not necessarily. We don't know what happens to people who cannot hear or understand the Gospel. Even CH Spurgeon, an orthodox Calvinist, believed God would forgive all infants; and given the infant mortality rates over the course of world history, that would mean the majority of people would still be with God.
No, you don't want to say what happens cuz it makes your religion look bad either way. On the one hand, you don't want to worship a god that would burn people for an inability to do what is necessary to not burn, although missionary work is carried out with such zeal on the idea that that is the case. On the other hand, if god will let good people into heaven, regardless of their knowledge of christ, that would mean that christ is not the only way, and good works can get you into heaven, and it would be better that no one who didn't hear the gospel be exposed to it.
The Fall was not a set-up; Adam knew very well what he was doing. And I don't believe in 'burning', except in the sense of 'burning with shame'
How did Adam know? How could he? The fruit contained the knowledge of good and evil, the strong implication being that that knowledge was something that they lacked.

 

It doesn't matter what you think about 'burning' because the millions of people that do believe can justify it just as you can justify your position. Who's right?

 

* applauds * This is what Calvinists always say: we love Him because He loved us first (which is not a sentimentalistic feeling but an action). We do 'make a decision', but unless God gives us spiritual sight, we will make the wrong decision.
If I were a Christian these days, I think I'd have no choice but to be a Calvinist. Omniscience and free will are incompatible, especially when the omniscient one is the one who created everything. And about this whole spiritual sight, are you saying that we have been created with deficiencies?

 

Trivia? No. Life is far too serious to compare it with trivia, and I don't see where you get the idea. It's not a trivia question, it's a call to believe.
Hmm...belief in provable concepts is compulsory, even if the belief is incorrect. If your god exists, he'd know exactly what it takes to make me believe. Not force, but compel, so don't try any free will arguments; obviously something convinced you that christianity is right, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turgonian,

 

I have no idea what flavor of Christainity you spout. Though, there is so much finger pointing within the varying denominations, saying exactly what you've said, "They are not really Christain." All of them use scripture to prove themselves true.

 

About the fall:

 

As a parent, if I were to fill a pitcher of apple scented toilet bowl cleaner, then put it in the fridge among other pitchers of juice, then tell my child not to drink it. I would do this because my child has free will and I want to make sure they obey and love me.

 

However, I have a plan if they drink the toilet bowl cleaner. If my child, just to see what it's like, drinks the toilet bowl cleaner, the other child has syrup of Ipacac. The only way, however, to save my other child is to slaughter the one child to get the Ipacac.

 

Frankly, not only is it really poor parenting skills, any person who would do this is psychotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which' date=' once again, shows God has reasons for what He does. If the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people. But in His mercy, He chose to extend the offer of mercy to the Gentiles -- to all the world. It's the choice between saving a burning house or saving a burning city.[/quote'] What?

From The Kingdom Offer:

 

THE KINGDOM OFFER EXTENDED

 

It would seem that the Kingdom offer was extended beyond the crucifixion. In his discourse at the Temple in Acts 3:12-26 Kefa [Paul] repeated the Kingdom offer saying:

 

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the L-rd, and that He may send Y'shua the Messiah, who was proclaimed to you before, whom heaven must receive until the time of restoration of all things, which G-d has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:19-21)

 

Thus it would appear that if the people of Israel had entered a national repentance, even then, the Messiah would have returned to restore the Kingdom to Israel right then and there.

 

THE KINGDOM OFFER EXPIRES

 

This Kingdom offer seems to have continued throughout the entire Acts period, until it expired at the end of the Book of Acts. In Acts 28 "Paul called the leaders of the Jews together... to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the Kingdom of G-d, persuading them concerning Y'shua..." (Acts 28:17, 23). Once again a corporate repentance did not occur "... some disbelieved. So they did not agree among themselves." (Acts 28:24b-25a). At this time Paul made known that the Kingdom offer had ended saying "...the salvation of G-d has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!" (Acts. 28:28) this parallels Romans 11:11 "...to provoke them [israel] to jealousy, salvation has been sent to the Gentiles." Which ties this concept to the Olive Tree Parable of Romans 11.

 

This 'coming' happened in 70 AD: Christ came into His Messianic kingdom and He is reigning now. (A prophecy from Daniel is referred to, which talks about a coming UP, not down!) He 'came on the clouds of the sky', which is symbolism for 'coming in judgement', a figure of speech also used in other places of the Bible.

Part 1: how do you know that, and 2: I'd like you to back up that symbolism assertion.

1) I gave a link later in my post. 2) I'll quote from a debate between Dee Dee Warren and Jerry Shugart which can be found here (this is Dee Dee):

 

The answer is easy as pie if you know the OT. It happened in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order. Jesus is making a clear allusion to Daniel 7:13-14. Please read those verses in Daniel carefully and notice the direction of the coming. It is not DOWN to Earth but UP to the Ancient of Days on a cloud to receive His Kingdom (hint - Christ rules from Heaven). If we let the Bible interpret the Bible, it is crystal clear what is going on. Jesus is speaking in the idioms and language of an OT prophet, in fact, if you look at the NASV, you will see that these Matthean verses are indicated as a direct quote of Isaiah 13:9-10 giving us the OT framework in which it must be understood. Here is the Isaiah passage:

 

"Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

 

This passage, in its original context, is speaking of a past historical judgment upon ancient Babylon. Jesus is giving apostate Judaism a back-handed slap by comparing them to Babylon and stating that they will suffer the same fate. Throughout the whole OT (the only Scripture the disciples had with which to interpret Jesus' words), "collapsing universe," "decreation," and "lights out' imagery is used to describe God's temporal judgments. For similar language describing past judgment events see: Isaiah 34:4-5; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9 for just a FEW examples. For SOME similar passages describing God "coming" in judgment or battle see: Genesis 11:5; 2 Samuel 22:8-12; Psalm 18:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 31:4; Hosea 8:1; Micah 1:2-4. Notice also the repetition of "clouds" and judgment: 2 Samuel 22:12; Jeremiah 4:13; Ezekiel 30:3; Nahum 1:3; Zephaniah 1:14-15; These passages bear remarkable similarities to the Olivet Discourse. No one believes in these past historical judgments recorded by the OT that the stars of heaven and their constellations and the sun and the moon did not give their light. These heavenly bodies are often used in Scripture as symbolic of power and governments.

 

Christianity fulfilled Judaism
I have heard that repeatedly, but no one can say what it means.

It means Judaism was 'a shadow of the things to come'. They were the People of the Promise, with whom God had made a covenant. The covenant is now with the spiritual Israel; we are 'grafted' onto Judaism. The book of Hebrews describes the process accurately.

 

The OT nowhere 'denies Jesus by name'. This is like saying a history book from the 16th century denies the Second World War. Get a grip on chronology.
With that logic, using the old testament to affirm the nature of christ is equally loopy.

No, it's called 'midrash typology'. If you're familiar with JRR Tolkien, you'll know he didn't like 'allegory', but 'applicability' -- applying things from literature to events that bear similarity to it but were not 'meant' by the author as such.

 

Why are god's standards so fucking high? And if god cannot abide by sin, how is it that 'forgiven sinners' are going to make it into heaven?

'Be ye holy; for I am holy.' (I Peter 1:16)

The sin of sinners who cling to Jesus is reckoned to Jesus, not to them. God sees them as sinless. The process is called 'justification'.

 

Again, not necessarily. We don't know what happens to people who cannot hear or understand the Gospel. Even CH Spurgeon, an orthodox Calvinist, believed God would forgive all infants; and given the infant mortality rates over the course of world history, that would mean the majority of people would still be with God.
No, you don't want to say what happens cuz it makes your religion look bad either way. On the one hand, you don't want to worship a god that would burn people for an inability to do what is necessary to not burn, although missionary work is carried out with such zeal on the idea that that is the case. On the other hand, if god will let good people into heaven, regardless of their knowledge of christ, that would mean that christ is not the only way, and good works can get you into heaven, and it would be better that no one who didn't hear the gospel be exposed to it.

Burn? No, I don't think so. And last time I looked, judges didn't let murderers go simply because they had a bad nature or a bad education.

Good people? People who seek God, rather. Good works cannot get you into heaven; a rejection of Christ, as is clear in the Bible, will eventually send you to hell; but the Bible isn't clear about the salvation of those unreached by the Gospel. The fact remains that 'faith comes through hearing' and searching God is a lot easier when you know where to look. ;)

 

How did Adam know? How could he? The fruit contained the knowledge of good and evil, the strong implication being that that knowledge was something that they lacked.

No; the word used is yada, which means 'to know' in a very intimate sense. It's also used for sexual relations. This 'knowledge' is experiential knowledge.

 

It doesn't matter what you think about 'burning' because the millions of people that do believe can justify it just as you can justify your position. Who's right?

It's the difference between literalism and understanding ancient imagery.

 

If I were a Christian these days, I think I'd have no choice but to be a Calvinist. Omniscience and free will are incompatible, especially when the omniscient one is the one who created everything. And about this whole spiritual sight, are you saying that we have been created with deficiencies?

Not created with them; we lost them at the Fall.

 

Hmm...belief in provable concepts is compulsory, even if the belief is incorrect. If your god exists, he'd know exactly what it takes to make me believe. Not force, but compel, so don't try any free will arguments; obviously something convinced you that christianity is right, right?

It comes from reading rational apologists. ;) And, first and foremost, the Holy Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my response to Tergonian:

 

 

You said "Pity some people are like that... However, it is true that Jesus and John, the 'apostle of love', spoke most about Hell of the persons in the Bible."

 

My response : Where does John the "apostle of love" speak about hell in the bible? The gospel of John (which christians assume is John) doesn't mention hell once, and the book of Revelation was clearly not written by an apostle named John. Also, "hell" is a mistranslation of 4 different words.

 

 

 

You said : "Which, once again, shows God has reasons for what He does. If the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people. But in His mercy, He chose to extend the offer of mercy to the Gentiles -- to all the world. It's the choice between saving a burning house or saving a burning city."

 

My response : That makes no sense, when you consider that "God" is supposedly all powerful. Why does your "god" need a choice like that? Plus, the entire concept of "saving" people is bullshit.

 

 

 

 

You said : "He did not. The disciples asked, 'What will be the sign of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the age?' (Matthew 24:3) This 'coming' happened in 70 AD: Christ came into His Messianic kingdom and He is reigning now. (A prophecy from Daniel is referred to, which talks about a coming UP, not down!) He 'came on the clouds of the sky', which is symbolism for 'coming in judgement', a figure of speech also used in other places of the Bible."

 

My response : I was a preterist christian before I deconverted, so I know all about the "allegorical" excuses. All one needs to do in order to change a prophecy from being false to true is spiritualize it. So, when Jesus failed to return, you make an excuse by saying his kingdom is spiritual and he did return. The old testament says something completely different than that.

 

Also, why would an all knowing God use "figures of speech" for something that is so important? Especially if most people don't know those figures of speech today. Christians say that believing or not believing in this god and his doctrine are the most important thing you can do in life. Yet, this god causes confusion simply by giving an ancient figure of speech that most people cannot understand anyway? If the bible is God's book for us, he did a shitty job in making sure the message was clearly presented. So, even if this god did exist, he is either : incompetent (not all knowing) or malevolent (all knowing, but wanted most people to be confused).

 

 

 

You said : "Why should scientists be able to do that? Can they test anything about a star 4000 light years away? Some people say Hell is at the center of the earth, but most people doubt it strongly...

But souls are not non-physical. While 'soul' and 'spirit' are used interchangeably in the New Testament, in the Old Testament we have a clearer distinction. Most people think ruach 'spirit' refers to the non-physical part of a man, while nephesh 'soul' refers to the physical and non-physical part together. (Jews did not think dualistically like the Greek philosophers. They believed in the unity of soul and body.)"

 

My response : My point was simple. If Hell is physical and real, then we should be able to find it in the physical world. Where is your evidence of people who say "hell is the center of the earth" and/or "most people doubt it strongly"? Actually, if you believe the bible, then you can define what a soul is. Genesis 2:7 says the breath of life and the dust of the earth (body) is a living soul. So, the bible says a soul is physical, not non-physical.

 

 

 

You said : "Ah yes, 'Satan stole my car keys'... I believe Satan is bound right now: God has severely limited him in what he can do. But why would he want to let underlings whisper in a man's ear, while he knows well that man is weak and does not require external devilish promptings for disbelieving God?"

 

My response : Man is not weak by any measure, unless they stop thinking for themselves. That usually occurs when they join a religious cult like Christianity or some other religion which tells them it is wrong to question what their leaders or "god" tells them.

 

 

 

You said : "He's given enough. Apart from the Bible, there is so-called 'natural revelation', which means the concept of 'god' can be inferred from Creation."

 

My response : If your "god" is so powerful enough to use a creation to prove he exists, why doesn't he do the same to give people the right message to believe? Why doesn't he upload the "true" message in each person's mind, so that way there is no confusion on the issue? "Natural revelation" is no more legitimate to prove the biblegod exists than proves Brahma or Zeus exists. Yet, you reject all other gods except the biblegod. What if "natural revelation" is proof of a god you don't worship?

 

 

 

You said : "Which apologists have refuted before you were born. Can you give me some examples?"

 

My response : Apologists make excuses why contradictions are in the bible. They change what it says in order to make the contradiction disappear. Yet, if you were to find the contradictions of any non-christian/pseudo-christian books (the Quran, book of mormon, vedas), and their apologists gave the same excuses as your apologists do, would you still say they have contradictions? If so, then you should know where I'm coming from. Also, you only find these types of contradictions in religious texts, you usually will never find them in a science book or math book. That is because science and math have absolutes and the bible does not. 2+2=4 is an absolute equasion which cannot be changed without being in error. If math books were like the bible, then each chapter would give a different answer for what 2+2 is.

 

 

 

You said "Scum because you are alive'? Now YOU are quoting texts that don't exist. He created Hell as a place for unredeemed sinners, that's true (BTW, I don't believe sulphur and brimstone are involved), but He sent His precious Son to redeem sinners. The all-powerful God became the shamed victim of men."

 

My response : I never said I was "quoting" the bible. I was using what I read in the bible AND what many christians (who are representative of the "bible") say. They constantly say "we are all sinners" who deserve to go to hell. They do use scripture to back up that claim. They say humans outside of being Christian or believing in their god are "evil". The bible also supports this idea that non-believers are evil people who do nothing good (Psalms 14:1 is a popular text). If you believe he created "hell" for unredeemed sinners, then he does not love those people. I was pointing out the fellacious argument that a god who tortures innocent people including children "loves" them. But, they once again make excuse after excuse for their contradictory ideas.

 

Ask yourself this question....Why would God sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule he made himself?

 

 

You said : "Christianity fulfilled Judaism; it was a 'shadow of the things to come', as the writer of Hebrews said. The Jews who held to God's Word were saved, but the covenant has changed now. Satan did not create Judaism. (In fact he didn't create anything, the old perverter.)

The OT nowhere 'denies Jesus by name'. This is like saying a history book from the 16th century denies the Second World War. Get a grip on chronology."

 

My response : Then, when a mormon says "Mormonism fulfilled Christianity", will you buy it as well? There is just one problem. According to the old testament, the law of the Lord is PERFECT. Why would God change that which was perfect? And further, Jeremiah 31 which speaks of the new covenant specifies that each man will die for his own iniquity. That is the opposite of what Christianity claims (That Jesus died for our iniquities). Also, it is very EASY to fake a fulfilled prophecy. Jack Van Impe does it all the time and he has millions of gullible followers. The author of Matthew's gospel clearly misquoted, misapplied and deceitfully applied old testament prophecies to his godman character. For example, Matthew's gospel says Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 by being born of a virgin. The only problem is that the hebrew word "almah" is not virgin, it is young woman. This is because the author of Matthew is not familiar with jewish culture or hebrew, and he refers to the septuagint as his source. Secondly, the prophecy specifically says it is a sign given to King Ahaz who lived at the time of Isaiah. Thirdly, if Christians would bother READING the entire story, they would see it was fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3.

 

Another example is the genealogy of the gospel of Matthew. He obviously was unfamiliar with the hebrew culture, because he lists a descendant of Jesus who was told would never have any children on the throne of David (Jeconiah). So, if anything, it shows the author forgot some important details. I could give plenty of other examples of these intentional lies.

 

The old testament doesn't deny "Zeus" by name either or "Hercules" by name. A history book from the 16th century isn't claiming to be the word of an all powerful, all knowing god either.

 

 

You said : "Unmerciful? No more than a judge who condemns people to death is unmerciful. (And who has also let His Son pay the debt for those who shall believe in Him...)"

 

My response : A judge who condemns people to death IS unmerciful. Mercy is the absense of justice and justice is the absense of mercy. Plus, punishing a thief the same way you punish a murderer is not justice. We have a sense of what is justice in this world. Justice is making the punishment fit the crime. The biblegod has no concept of this (at least the christian version). At least in the old testament, the biblegod does punish different crimes with different degrees.

 

And how did Jesus "pay a debt" by dying on the cross? If paying the debt was physical death on a cross, which Jesus paid for us, then by that logic, no Christian should physically die (since physical death is the punishment for sins). That is why I know christianity is bullshit.

 

 

 

You said : "Not necessarily. ALL of us are sinners. The division line runs not between sinners and holy men, but forgiven sinners and unforgiven sinners. But I do agree he probably isn't the nicest guy to talk to."

 

My response : That is YOUR opinion. The bible says there are the righteous and there are sinners. It makes a distinction between the 2. Plus, sin is a non-existent thing, like widgets.

 

 

 

You said :"Again, not necessarily. We don't know what happens to people who cannot hear or understand the Gospel. Even CH Spurgeon, an orthodox Calvinist, believed God would forgive all infants; and given the infant mortality rates over the course of world history, that would mean the majority of people would still be with God."

 

My response : Who cares what Spurgeon said? He was trying to soften the calvinistic concept of God by saying God isn't such a bad guy because he will save infants. Here is the thing, if God would do that for an infant, why doesn't he do it for adults? And if he wanted to save everyone, why doesn't he kill them as infants so they go to heaven? And if infants have an automatic ticket to heaven, then how can abortion and infanticide be so bad? Isn't physical death worth an eternity in heaven? If christians REALLY believed such nonsense, they would kill their children to guarantee them entrance to heaven. Why would any parent even risk their children going to hell after the "age of accountability"? No good parents I know would. Of course, this is all superstitious nonsense. I am just showing the hypocrisy of christians who talk a good game, but never play it.

 

 

 

You said : "The Fall was not a set-up; Adam knew very well what he was doing. And I don't believe in 'burning', except in the sense of 'burning with shame'."

 

My response : Actually, if you bothered reading the text, it says they did NOT know good from evil before eating the fruit. Therefore, they could not have known it was wrong to disobey God's order not to eat from the fruit. And by the way, the bible says it was Eve who was at fault. You are making excuses as to why the biblegod is such a prick to people. Blaming a child for what its parent does to cause it to do something is a sickening thought, but that is really what you are doing.

 

 

 

You said : " And since you are obviously not an asshole wink.gif (no, seriously!), you will be delighted to read Come Again? The Olivet Discourse and Prophetic Fulfilment. 'Coming on the clouds' is Jewish symbolism for judgement, and in 70 AD, the Temple fell. I'll quote from the article I linked:

"As a prophet, Jesus staked his reputation on his prediction of the Temple's fall within a generation; if and when it fell, he would thereby be vindicated." Jesus also promoted himself as the new Temple which would replace the old one, with his predictions that he would raise a new one -- his body -- in three days. If the Temple did NOT fall, he would be proven a charlatan. But if the Temple did indeed fall, he would be vindicated -- just like Daniel's "Son of Man" which he claimed to be. In saying he will ride the clouds, Jesus is not saying, as Wright wryly notes, that Caiaphas would one say walk by a window, look outside, and see Jesus popping a wheelie on a cumulus. Rather Jesus is saying, "You will see me vindicated; you will see my predictions come true." The "coming" -- as noted, using the word erchomai, which specifies neither destination nor direction -- alludes to the "going" of the Daniel 7 Son of Man from earth to heaven to be enthroned.
"

 

My response : The entire problem is that Matthew was written almost a century after the events it claims happened. It would not be entirely hard to mention the destruction of Jerusalem as a "future prophecy" of Jesus being that the entire story was written after it happened. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written after 70 AD, and Matthew and Luke were copies of Mark written several years after Mark.

 

 

You said : "* applauds * This is what Calvinists always say: we love Him because He loved us first (which is not a sentimentalistic feeling but an action). We do 'make a decision', but unless God gives us spiritual sight, we will make the wrong decision."

 

My response : Making the "right decision" to "go to heaven" is similar to picking the right door on "Let's make a deal". The odds are piled against you because there isn't just 3 doors, there are over 30,000 doors (if Christianity is the true religion). The bible says you cannot believe any FALSE gospel. Yet, each denomination has their own different gospel (oftentimes one denomination says members of a rival denomination are going to hell). So, even if Christianity were true, you only have a 1 in 30,000 chance of believing the "right" gospel. But even if you believe the "right" gospel, the bible says you can't be sure about going to heaven as Matthew 7:21-23 says.

 

 

You said : "Trivia? No. Life is far too serious to compare it with trivia, and I don't see where you get the idea. It's not a trivia question, it's a call to believe."

 

My response : Going to hell for not believing the poorly written fictional story you call the "gospel", would be just as ridiculous as if you didn't believe in leprechauns. Would it be right to eternally torture a person who has never heard or can't possibly believe in leprechauns? How can I be punished for something I truly don't believe (because my mind cannot allow it)?

 

 

You said :"I presume being in God's presence has a calming effect on people."

 

My response : then NOBODY who follows christianity today is in "God's presence".

 

 

You said : "PPS The Jesus Seminar isn't exactly 'Christian'."

 

My response : I have not found anyone who is "exactly" Christian (since there is no wooden definition).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If may cut in a bit, because there is this Christian theological question that I like to contemplate:

 

Quote from Turgonian:

the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people.

 

A question to Turgonian, if the Jews had accepted Jesus, and Jesus did become Saviour of His people, what would be Jesus' job for the Jews, as their Messiah? What would he do in his everyday Messianic activities in the land of Palestine, as the Jews heard Jesus' name and knelt, "Jesus is the Messiah!"

 

What is God's plan in mind that he intended Jesus to do as the Jewish Messiah, say, before the Jewish leaders exercised their freewill to reject Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The Kingdom Offer:
Why did you make me read that whole thing? It explained nothing about the first question, and I'm sure if I investigated further, it would only raise further questions.

 

It means Judaism was 'a shadow of the things to come'. They were the People of the Promise, with whom God had made a covenant. The covenant is now with the spiritual Israel; we are 'grafted' onto Judaism. The book of Hebrews describes the process accurately.
Run it past me real quick: is there a part of the old testament that states that the 'old covenant' is a shadow of things to come?

 

If you're familiar with JRR Tolkien, you'll know he didn't like 'allegory', but 'applicability' -- applying things from literature to events that bear similarity to it but were not 'meant' by the author as such.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying that the new testament writers took allegories and 'applicable events' from the old testament to justify what they percieved to be prophetic?

 

The sin of sinners who cling to Jesus is reckoned to Jesus, not to them. God sees them as sinless. The process is called 'justification'.
Do you realize that a thing can be understood completely, but still be considered senseless? That quote just makes no sense.

 

Burn? No, I don't think so.
Who cares what you think? The bible can be just as easily used to affirm that position, and regardless of what you think hell is, my point still stands.
And last time I looked, judges didn't let murderers go simply because they had a bad nature or a bad education.
Ah, so your point about babies going to heaven is moot then?

 

No; the word used is yada, which means 'to know' in a very intimate sense. It's also used for sexual relations. This 'knowledge' is experiential knowledge.
Which is probably the only kind of knowledge of good and evil. Occam's Razor: (from my viewpoint) The writer(s) of the A&E story in Genesis wanted to convey either an allegorical story for the nature of good and evil, which is what many Jews believe, or it was an attempt to literally explain where us and our mores came from. Either way, the story failed to take into account the fact that some sort of understanding of right and wrong had to exist in order that Man should be punished for his transgression. Nothing about the story so much as implies that that was the case.

 

Good people? People who seek God, rather. Good works cannot get you into heaven; a rejection of Christ, as is clear in the Bible, will eventually send you to hell; but the Bible isn't clear about the salvation of those unreached by the Gospel.
But it is clear that Christ is the path to heaven, and one cannot 'hear' about Christ without hearing the gospel. Simple logic dictates that unless Christ himself appears to those unreached by the gospel (and for that matter, many that have heard it), one cannot enter heaven. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the unreached go to hell per se, just not heaven.

 

Not created with them; we lost them at the Fall.
The deficiency being that we were created with an inability to partake of that fruit and not lose a lot of the other things we were created with.

 

It comes from reading rational apologists.
Apologists, fuh. Why is the bible so insufficient that it needs to be 'defended'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 'coming' happened in 70 AD: Christ came into His Messianic kingdom and He is reigning now. (A prophecy from Daniel is referred to, which talks about a coming UP, not down!) He 'came on the clouds of the sky', which is symbolism for 'coming in judgement', a figure of speech also used in other places of the Bible.

Really? So he's doing all those things that the messiah is supposed to do in Jeremiah 31?

 

Also, Daniel 7 has absolutely nothing to do with jesus at all. For the Jews it has to do with either David or possibly Judah Macabee. It's a little more complicated than that however since it can also relate to the entire people of Israel as well. Since all xian bibles (to my knowledge) mistranslate the verse I can't simply tell you to look and you'll see it.

 

Here's verse 13 from a Jewish translation and then the KJV:

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.

 

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Note the capitalization trick used in the KJV to try to indicate jesus. Note the use of the word "the" to indicate a specific person/entity. This is used elsewhere in translations of Daniel. The only place where the word Messiah is used instead of "annointed" by xian translators (this being the case the word messiah should be used many times throughout the OT). Ironically, the place where it is used is in reference to Cyrus II...a gentile.

 

In proper context, the verses are to show that YHWH (the Ancient of Days) has passed judgement on Israel's enemies (in this case it would be Antiochus IV) and Israel (those like a son of man...or more specifically Judah Macabee and his offspring) will have an everlasting kingdom. Considering you seem to have a preterist view of things you should appreciate this interpretation of Daniel (written about 170BCE when the Macabees were fighting Antiochus IV and the story of Daniel was placed in the Babylonian exile).

 

It means Judaism was 'a shadow of the things to come'. They were the People of the Promise, with whom God had made a covenant. The covenant is now with the spiritual Israel; we are 'grafted' onto Judaism. The book of Hebrews describes the process accurately.

I suppose this is where "faith" comes in because the OT has zero support for this assertion. Jesus maintains during his ministry that he has come solely for the Jews. The Gentiles are something added by Paul and the epistles with Jewish scriptural support at all. Islam must have been foreshadowed by Judaism and xianity by this reasoning.

 

No, it's called 'midrash typology'. If you're familiar with JRR Tolkien, you'll know he didn't like 'allegory', but 'applicability' -- applying things from literature to events that bear similarity to it but were not 'meant' by the author as such.

Midrash is not theology.

 

Not created with them; we lost them at the Fall.

We lost nothing but access to the garden and the ability to eat from the Tree of Life at "the fall." On the other hand we gained the knowledge of Good and Evil and became like the gods. According to the story of the Tower of Babel, all we need to do is work together as a group and there's nothing we can't accomplish. This is the one thing the gods don't want us to do and apparently the thing they will stop us from accomplishing. It's really kind of sad when you think about it.

 

It comes from reading rational apologists. ;)

Well there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. :HaHa:

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's some really long posts, but I don't think he is coming back. My last 3 post to him are unanswered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been absent for some time because of other duties and because I couldn't get onto this forum.

Since my quote function doesn't seem to be working, I'll use colour coding; my response will be in black.

 

Brad: Where does John the "apostle of love" speak about hell in the bible? The gospel of John (which christians assume is John) doesn't mention hell once, and the book of Revelation was clearly not written by an apostle named John. Also, "hell" is a mistranslation of 4 different words.

 

It's not a mistranslation. It's true that our word 'hell' comes from a Germanic word, but both the OT and the NT know an 'abode of the unrighteous'; the NT equates it with 'eternal punishment'. Our 'Hell' comes close then, doesn't it?

John in any case lays out clear that people need to believe in Jesus, or they will 'die in their sins' (John 8:24).

 

Me: "Which, once again, shows God has reasons for what He does. If the Jewish leaders would have accepted Him, Jesus would have been the saviour of His people. But in His mercy, He chose to extend the offer of mercy to the Gentiles -- to all the world. It's the choice between saving a burning house or saving a burning city."

 

Brad: That makes no sense, when you consider that "God" is supposedly all powerful. Why does your "god" need a choice like that?

 

I don't know, not being omniscient. But I'm glad God chose to extend salvation to us Gentiles too. ;)

 

Brad: Plus, the entire concept of "saving" people is bullshit.

 

The whole concept of saving people? Whew! I guess you want to limit it to God's saving work, in which case you're begging the question.

 

Brad: I was a preterist christian before I deconverted, so I know all about the "allegorical" excuses. All one needs to do in order to change a prophecy from being false to true is spiritualize it. So, when Jesus failed to return, you make an excuse by saying his kingdom is spiritual and he did return. The old testament says something completely different than that.

 

The Old Testament also uses a lot of symbolic imagery. 'Eternal smoke' rising from Edom, for instance. 'All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken' over Egypt. Or would you say people took it literally and were disappointed when the Egyptians were destroyed in full daylight?

 

Brad: Also, why would an all knowing God use "figures of speech" for something that is so important? Especially if most people don't know those figures of speech today. Christians say that believing or not believing in this god and his doctrine are the most important thing you can do in life. Yet, this god causes confusion simply by giving an ancient figure of speech that most people cannot understand anyway?

 

Precisely because we don't know those today. The Bible was primarily written for ancient people. As every different culture has somewhat different outlooks, you can't write a Bible every culture will understand completely. 'The Good News for 16th-century China', 'The Gospel for the First Quarter of the 22nd Century in North-Western Europe'... However, the KEY doctrines, those pertaining to salvation, are clear enough. Any culture can understand those.

 

Brad: If the bible is God's book for us, he did a shitty job in making sure the message was clearly presented. So, even if this god did exist, he is either : incompetent (not all knowing) or malevolent (all knowing, but wanted most people to be confused).

 

Or He didn't mind if people didn't understand every single sentence in the Bible, as not every single sentence is equally relevant for a Christian and He wouldn't mind if Christians did some study into His Word, rather than reading it absent-mindedly. 'I'm rapidly blinking my eyes, whistling and half-watching a movie while reading my Bible -- God will make me understand if He isn't incompetent or malevolent!'

 

Me: "Why should scientists be able to do that? Can they test anything about a star 4000 light years away? Some people say Hell is at the center of the earth, but most people doubt it strongly...

But souls are not non-physical. While 'soul' and 'spirit' are used interchangeably in the New Testament, in the Old Testament we have a clearer distinction. Most people think ruach 'spirit' refers to the non-physical part of a man, while nephesh 'soul' refers to the physical and non-physical part together. (Jews did not think dualistically like the Greek philosophers. They believed in the unity of soul and body.)"

 

Brad: My point was simple. If Hell is physical and real, then we should be able to find it in the physical world.

 

Especially since we have already thoroughly explored every little corner of the universe.

 

Brad: Where is your evidence of people who say "hell is the center of the earth" and/or "most people doubt it strongly"?

 

I found the idea on a strongly fundamentalist website as well as on this forum. But most Christians don't look for Hell in the center of the earth.

 

Brad: Actually, if you believe the bible, then you can define what a soul is. Genesis 2:7 says the breath of life and the dust of the earth (body) is a living soul. So, the bible says a soul is physical, not non-physical.

 

I quote myself: But souls are not non-physical. It's up there, if you want to look it up.

 

Brad: Man is not weak by any measure, unless they stop thinking for themselves. That usually occurs when they join a religious cult like Christianity or some other religion which tells them it is wrong to question what their leaders or "god" tells them.

 

Christianity is not a cult by any definition (well..not one you can find in a dictionary), since you can 'get out' any time you like. Also, asking questions is perfectly legitimate. I've never been told that it's wrong to ask questions. Why do you think there are apologists? To provide questioners with answers -- not to shut them up oppressively...

 

Brad: If your "god" is so powerful enough to use a creation to prove he exists, why doesn't he do the same to give people the right message to believe? Why doesn't he upload the "true" message in each person's mind, so that way there is no confusion on the issue? "Natural revelation" is no more legitimate to prove the biblegod exists than proves Brahma or Zeus exists. Yet, you reject all other gods except the biblegod. What if "natural revelation" is proof of a god you don't worship?

 

Why, why? Why didn't God zap the Israelites to Canaan instead of letting them wander around the desert? Why did God choose the Great Commission over giving the message to everyone personally? Why doesn't God put a stop to evil? I don't have an answer ready, but I trust He has His reasons.

Natural revelation is not proof of the Christian God; that requires special revelation. In fact, Paul was using the argument with regard to pagans. Pagans inferred from nature god(s) existed.

 

Brad: Apologists make excuses why contradictions are in the bible. They change what it says in order to make the contradiction disappear. Yet, if you were to find the contradictions of any non-christian/pseudo-christian books (the Quran, book of mormon, vedas), and their apologists gave the same excuses as your apologists do, would you still say they have contradictions?

 

You still haven't given me an example. Don't, by the way; you refuse explanations out of hand. If an apologist from another religion could give me a good explanation for an apparent contradiction, I'd be satisfied.

 

Brad: Also, you only find these types of contradictions in religious texts, you usually will never find them in a science book or math book. That is because science and math have absolutes and the bible does not. 2+2=4 is an absolute equasion which cannot be changed without being in error. If math books were like the bible, then each chapter would give a different answer for what 2+2 is.

 

Seems you discovered literature and poetry isn't like mathematics. Good. Do they need to be?

 

Me: 'Scum because you are alive'? Now YOU are quoting texts that don't exist. He created Hell as a place for unredeemed sinners, that's true (BTW, I don't believe sulphur and brimstone are involved), but He sent His precious Son to redeem sinners. The all-powerful God became the shamed victim of men.

 

Brad: I never said I was "quoting" the bible. I was using what I read in the bible AND what many christians (who are representative of the "bible") say. They constantly say "we are all sinners" who deserve to go to hell. They do use scripture to back up that claim.

 

Christians SHOULD accurately represent the Bible, in any case. They don't always. However, you're right that we are all sinners, which can be easily backed up by the Bible. You mean you've never hated someone? But apparently, God does not desire the death of the sinner.

 

Brad: They say humans outside of being Christian or believing in their god are "evil". The bible also supports this idea that non-believers are evil people who do nothing good (Psalms 14:1 is a popular text).

 

So are believers, unless God rescues them. Spiritually, they cannot come any closer to God; even their good works are as 'dirty rags' in God's eyes. I'm talking about believers here.

 

Brad: If you believe he created "hell" for unredeemed sinners, then he does not love those people. I was pointing out the fellacious argument that a god who tortures innocent people including children "loves" them.

 

Or He loves the work of His hands too much to simply destroy it. Sinners did not want to come to Him, so He will not force them. He puts them into 'quarantine'. Lewis said there are two kinds of people: those who say to God 'Thy will be done', and those to whom God ultimately says, 'Have it your way, then.' If shame is torture, then He tortures. But, once again, the Bible is unclear about children.

 

Brad: Ask yourself this question....Why would God sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule he made himself?

 

Maybe because the rule proceeds from His justice, not from arbitrariness.

 

There is a story of an ancient lawgiver who ordered that the punishment for a certain crime should be blinding. His son was convicted of the crime. Rather than changing the just law he had made, he ordered that his son should lose one eye and he himself should give another.

 

Brad: Then, when a mormon says "Mormonism fulfilled Christianity", will you buy it as well? There is just one problem.

 

If it could be plausibly shown that Joseph Smith could be believed as much as Jesus, yes.

 

Brad: According to the old testament, the law of the Lord is PERFECT. Why would God change that which was perfect?

 

He didn't change it; He pruned the traditions of the Jews, which had only obscured the law (cf. Matt. 23:23), and radicalized the Old Testament law (cf. Matt. 5:20-28).

 

Brad: And further, Jeremiah 31 which speaks of the new covenant specifies that each man will die for his own iniquity. That is the opposite of what Christianity claims (That Jesus died for our iniquities).

 

In the new covenant in Christ, 'God relates to the people individually rather than corporately' (Holding, The Problem of "Sins of the Fathers").

 

Brad: The author of Matthew's gospel clearly misquoted, misapplied and deceitfully applied old testament prophecies to his godman character.

 

'Deceitfully'? See Did the Messianic Jewish Believers use the OT deceitfully or ignorantly in the New Testament? by Glenn Miller.

 

Brad: For example, Matthew's gospel says Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 by being born of a virgin. The only problem is that the hebrew word "almah" is not virgin, it is young woman. This is because the author of Matthew is not familiar with jewish culture or hebrew, and he refers to the septuagint as his source.

 

Are you very sure 'Matthew' is not familiar with Jewish culture? Why?

 

"It is evident that the primary meaning of the word has to do with sexual maturity and, by extension, the age of the young woman, not with sexual experience or the lack of it. That the word may be used of a virgin is evident: it is not used, however, to define her virginity, but to define her capacity for marriage. So . . . it may also refer to a married young woman (until the birth of her first child) (Bratcher, 98)." Quoted from The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah by Glenn Miller.

 

Brad: Secondly, the prophecy specifically says it is a sign given to King Ahaz who lived at the time of Isaiah.

 

It's possible the prophecy didn't primarily refer to Jesus, but it's also possible the sign was intended for the 'house of David' (Is. 7:13)

 

Brad: Thirdly, if Christians would bother READING the entire story, they would see it was fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3.

 

Isaiah 7:14: 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.' Isaiah 8:3: 'And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.'

 

Brad: Another example is the genealogy of the gospel of Matthew. He obviously was unfamiliar with the hebrew culture, because he lists a descendant of Jesus who was told would never have any children on the throne of David (Jeconiah). So, if anything, it shows the author forgot some important details. I could give plenty of other examples of these intentional lies.

 

'Intentional lies', when the physical bloodline stopped at Joseph? However, the problem isn't as big as you claim. Quoting from another part of Miller's The Fabulous Prophecies of Jesus:

 

I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:

 

1. The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"- yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;

2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;

3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.

4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate/non-physical descendants of Jeconiah?).

 

If you're not convinced, there are alternate explanations, such as that the curse was revoked in Haggai 2:20-24 -- something many Jewish commentators think.

 

Brad: The old testament doesn't deny "Zeus" by name either or "Hercules" by name. A history book from the 16th century isn't claiming to be the word of an all powerful, all knowing god either.

 

No, nor does the OT deny Flirp Bazuhka by name. But you said it denied Jesus Christ by name.

 

Brad: A judge who condemns people to death IS unmerciful. Mercy is the absense of justice and justice is the absense of mercy.

 

'Being unmerciful' means 'being habitually disinclined to show mercy'. 'I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord GOD' (Ezekiel 18:32). However, 'Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.' (Psalm 5:4)

 

Brad: Plus, punishing a thief the same way you punish a murderer is not justice. We have a sense of what is justice in this world. Justice is making the punishment fit the crime. The biblegod has no concept of this (at least the christian version). At least in the old testament, the biblegod does punish different crimes with different degrees.

 

And, by implication, not in the NT? So please explain: 'Then [Jesus] began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.' (Matthew 11:20-24) Degrees of punishment. If you see hell as a place of various degrees of shame rather than various temperatures of fire, it fits in beautifully.

 

Brad: And how did Jesus "pay a debt" by dying on the cross? If paying the debt was physical death on a cross, which Jesus paid for us, then by that logic, no Christian should physically die (since physical death is the punishment for sins). That is why I know christianity is bullshit.

 

The punishment for sins is first and foremost spiritual death, separation from God. Jesus promises, 'I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.' (John 5:24)

Physical death is a matter that shall be restored after the final Coming of Christ.

 

Brad: That is YOUR opinion. The bible says there are the righteous and there are sinners. It makes a distinction between the 2.

 

The Hebrew terms used in these passages do not mean sinlessness. Rather, the Hebrew word is tam, which refers to completeness, not sinless perfection. When applied to man, it would refer to a complete man with moral integrity (see: Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon for details). (James White, quoted from Does the Bible present some people as sinless? by JP Holding)

 

Brad: Plus, sin is a non-existent thing, like widgets.

 

Of course; e.g. rape is not a sin, but merely an inconvenience for one of the persons involved.

 

Brad: Who cares what Spurgeon said? He was trying to soften the calvinistic concept of God by saying God isn't such a bad guy because he will save infants. Here is the thing, if God would do that for an infant, why doesn't he do it for adults?

 

Responsibility.

 

Brad: And if he wanted to save everyone, why doesn't he kill them as infants so they go to heaven?

 

I'm flattered that you think I'm (close to) omniscient, but I'm not. I do know that it would be hard for infants to reproduce and preserve humanity. Apparently the good outweighs the evil.

 

Brad: And if infants have an automatic ticket to heaven, then how can abortion and infanticide be so bad? Isn't physical death worth an eternity in heaven? If christians REALLY believed such nonsense, they would kill their children to guarantee them entrance to heaven.

 

Praying earnestly works as well. If Christians really believe in God, they know He has outlawed abortion and will not want to violate His commands. Maybe you would do a Christian adult a favour by murdering and sending him to Heaven, but the act of murder remains immoral.

 

Brad: Actually, if you bothered reading the text, it says they did NOT know good from evil before eating the fruit. Therefore, they could not have known it was wrong to disobey God's order not to eat from the fruit. And by the way, the bible says it was Eve who was at fault.

 

Not true; the knowledge implied is intimate and experiential. And although Eve was seduced by the devil, not Adam, Adam was at fault too.

If you have all reason to trust someone who a) gave you life and B) gave you everything you had, wouldn't you think it would be unwise at the least to disregard His orders?

 

Brad: Blaming a child for what its parent does to cause it to do something is a sickening thought, but that is really what you are doing.

 

Adam is not influencing my actions; I take responsibility for my own wrongdoing. Contrary to people who ascribe all crimes to bad society influence and wrong genes.

 

Brad: The entire problem is that Matthew was written almost a century after the events it claims happened. It would not be entirely hard to mention the destruction of Jerusalem as a "future prophecy" of Jesus being that the entire story was written after it happened. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written after 70 AD, and Matthew and Luke were copies of Mark written several years after Mark.

 

Mark wasn't written after 70 AD. The context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed. Verses 13:1, 3 and 11 imply that the temple is still standing, referring to it in a very casual way. (Mark, JP Holding) The same article lists reasons to date it before 70 AD:

 

Contemporary-sounding references. Mark 15:21 refers to Alexander and Rufus, sons of Simon of Cyrene. It would be peculiar to mention these two persons unless they were somehow alive and known to the church - and the later Mark is dated, the more doubtful this becomes. The same may be said of referring to Pilate without mentioning his position as Matthew and Luke do.

 

Material accuracy. Mark's Gospel reflects well the contours of Palestinian Judaism before the time of the fall of Jerusalem; indeed, "No New Testament author portrays the different groups in Jewish Palestine at the time of Jesus as accurately as Mark" [Heng.Mark, 10]. Since the whole religious landscape was changed by the events of 70, Mark is reflecting either a very accurate memory, or else is writing before 70 when that landscape was still whole - and if we choose the former, we have no basis to reject the sayings of Jesus as inauthentic due to memory loss!

 

Indications of early tradition. Mark's rare use of the word "apostle," his consistent ordering of the apostles' inner circle (Peter, James, John - as opposed to Luke's Peter, John and James), and his references to "the Twelve" point to an earlier date when these terms were in use.

 

Brad: Making the "right decision" to "go to heaven" is similar to picking the right door on "Let's make a deal". The odds are piled against you because there isn't just 3 doors, there are over 30,000 doors (if Christianity is the true religion).

 

Only a few big ones, and only a few which are plausible.

 

Brad: The bible says you cannot believe any FALSE gospel. Yet, each denomination has their own different gospel (oftentimes one denomination says members of a rival denomination are going to hell). So, even if Christianity were true, you only have a 1 in 30,000 chance of believing the "right" gospel. But even if you believe the "right" gospel, the bible says you can't be sure about going to heaven as Matthew 7:21-23 says.

 

Anyone who holds to the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith (as articulated in the Apostles' Creed) can be saved. The 'excommunicative' denominations are mostly fundamentalist minorities.

 

You told me to start reading the text I was referring to. Well, Matt. 7 talks about people who prophesied, drove out demons and performed many miracles in Jesus's name. It doesn't talk about believers. It talks about hypocrites.

 

Brad: Going to hell for not believing the poorly written fictional story you call the "gospel", would be just as ridiculous as if you didn't believe in leprechauns.

 

'Poorly written'? Some people would strongly disagree. And for the existence of Jesus is much more to be said than for the existence of leprechauns.

 

Brad: Would it be right to eternally torture a person who has never heard or can't possibly believe in leprechauns?

 

No. But the analogy is wrong anyway.

 

Brad: How can I be punished for something I truly don't believe (because my mind cannot allow it)?

 

One can be sincerely wrong. Sometimes with devastating consequences.

 

Me: I presume being in God's presence has a calming effect on people.

 

Brad: Then NOBODY who follows christianity today is in "God's presence".

 

And you know all the Christians in the world personally; I don't doubt you do. The persecuted Christians in North Korea, for instance, are in every aspect similar to raging, near-illiterate American Christians.

 

Me: PPS The Jesus Seminar isn't exactly 'Christian'.

 

Brad: I have not found anyone who is "exactly" Christian (since there is no wooden definition).

 

From what I've heard, the Jesus Seminar deny almost everything about Christ which Christians have ever believed. Especially the important things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't change it; He pruned the traditions of the Jews, which had only obscured the law (cf. Matt. 23:23), and radicalized the Old Testament law (cf. Matt. 5:20-28).

What nonsense?

 

Jesus changed the laws regarding the following issues and contradicted the Hebrew Scripture

 

1)Dietary Restrictions

2)Sabbath

3)In case of adultery

4)Divorce

5)A Blood drinking ritual

 

No torah observant jew would give instruction which contradict the Law that were laid down in the bible. Jesus did the exact opposite.

 

Then we have Paul repeatedly said righteousness cannot be obtained by following the law. That is complete contradiction to what the Jewish Scrioture saw.

 

If law has not changed, you better start following it. For starters observe the sabbath on a saturday,rather on the Pagan day of worship

Are you very sure 'Matthew' is not familiar with Jewish culture? Why?

Because real Jewish Experts like Orthodox Rabbinal Jews have good reasons to show "Matthew" cannot be written by someone who was expert in Jewish culture

 

http://anti-missionary.com/files/drashi_ch4.html

http://anti-missionary.com/files/drashi_ch6.html

http://www.kosherjudaism.com/matthew.html

 

One good example of Matthew ignorance - His misinterpretation of hebrew parralellism of Zech 9:9 by stating Jesus needed two donkeys instead of one

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/twodonkeys.htm

 

"It is evident that the primary meaning of the word has to do with sexual maturity and, by extension, the age of the young woman, not with sexual experience or the lack of it. That the word may be used of a virgin is evident: it is not used, however, to define her virginity, but to define her capacity for marriage. So . . . it may also refer to a married young woman (until the birth of her first child) (Bratcher, 98)

 

Glenn Miller doesn't speak Hebrew. Jews do.

 

A Jewish Rebuttal to his exact article can be found here

 

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6784

 

In this case I am sorry, I rather agree with experts who communicate in hebrew on the daily basis rather than listen to a non-hebrew speaking "expert".

 

Isaiah 7:14: 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'

Isaiah 8:3: 'And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.'

Ok if you want to be picky

Matt 1:20-23

But while he(Joseph) thought on these things(Mary's surprise pregnancy), behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

So I guess that Jesus did not fulfill Is 7:14 as he was never refered to Immanuel in his entire life, unless offcourse, you want to engage in special pleading.

 

Isaiah 7:14-Deception In The Name Of Jesus

Isaiah 7:14...He Shall Be Named(fill in the blank)

Why The Bible Must Be The Word Of God

 

It's possible the prophecy didn't primarily refer to Jesus, but it's also possible the sign was intended for the 'house of David' (Is. 7:13)

 

Part 2: The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14

 

The Jewish response identifies and addresses the problems created by this explanation. For starters, the notion of a "dual prophecy" is unbiblical, and it appears to have been crafted in order to explain away a serious theological problem: No hint or evidence of a second fulfillment exists anywhere in this chapter or elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah.

 

Moreover, if, as claimed, the word (ha'almah) means "a virgin" and Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, then who was the first virgin that conceived in King Ahaz’s time? Were there two virgin births? In other words, if Christian apologists and missionaries claim that the "Virgin Birth", allegedly prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, was fulfilled twice, then who was that first virgin about to give birth to a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bearing in mind the claim that the word (ha'almah) can only mean "a virgin", does this not imply that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive, remain a virgin, and give birth to a male child? Think about that!

 

Furthermore, if it is claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy", how could Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad Immanu’el?

 

Isaiah 7:14-16 – (14) Therefore the L-rd, of His own, shall give you a sign, “Behold the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanu’el. (15) Cream and honey he [immanu'el] shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; (16) for, when the lad [immanu'el] does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

 

If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a "dual prophecy", answers to the following questions need to be provided by the claimants:

 

§ At what age did baby Jesus mature?

 

§ What are the implications that Jesus sinned up to this age?

 

§ Which two kingdoms were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus?

 

§ How could the Kingdom of Israel be dreaded during the first century C.E., when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the eighth century B.C.E.?

 

§ Where is the account of Jesus eating cream and honey recorded?

 

Does any of this make sense? From the Jewish perspective, it does not, and from the Christian point of view, it is indefensible. It appears that the argument of a "dual prophecy" was born out of desperation.

 

Christian apologists and missionaries counter and attempt to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of "dual prophecy" by claiming that, in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed King Ahaz both in the singular "you" and in the plural "you". [unlike the English language, the Hebrew language has separate pronouns for singular and plural.] They claim that, at times, Isaiah addressed King Ahaz alone, and in other places in this chapter, he addressed the House of David. Therefore, they conclude that, whenever the prophet addressed the House of David, or spoke in the plural "you", he was addressing the future Davidic dynasty (i.e., Jesus, the claimed heir to it, some seven centuries later). On the other hand, whenever Isaiah addressed King Ahaz, or spoke in the singular "you", he was addressing the immediate crisis facing King Ahaz, created by the two kingdoms that were poised to defeat him. They argue that in using Hebrew word (lachem), [plural] you, in Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah addresses the future House of David and, thereby, points to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, which was associated with the House of David, not with King Ahaz and military crisis he was facing.

 

Y The Jewish response to this claim is that, in this chapter, it is clearly demonstrated that both the House of David and King Ahaz were threatened by the situation, not just King Ahaz himself. Every reference to the House of David and the plural "you", which was addressed to the entire Davidic House, referred only to the military crisis described herein. In fact, in the second verse of this chapter, Isaiah relates that both, King Ahaz and the House of David, were informed of the crisis created by the two warring kingdoms. This verse goes on to declare that both his heart [ (levavo)] (of King Ahaz – singular)] and the heart of his nation [ (u’levav ammo)] (of Judah/the House of David – plural) were trembling with fear. Not only King Ahaz alone was terrified of these two hostile armies, the entire House of David was scared as well.

 

Isaiah delivered the message in this fashion, by repeatedly addressing King Ahaz as the House of David and in the plural "you" throughout this chapter, for a reason. King Ahaz was a wicked king and, as such, was personally undeserving of G-d’s merciful intervention. Nevertheless, King Ahaz was spared through the merit of the House of David. The two kingdoms intended to conquer Jerusalem in order to undermine the throne of David (Is 7:6). G-d promised King David that his dynasty would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king on the throne (2 Sam 7:12-16). King Ahaz was saved by G-d in the merit of the House of David, not through his own worthiness.

 

If you're not convinced, there are alternate explanations, such as that the curse was revoked in Haggai 2:20-24 -- something many Jewish commentators think.

 

Have you ever spoken to Jews or visited a counter missionary website?If not then, stop posing like you are an authority on Judaism or Jewish Interpretation of the bible

 

Genealogical Scams and Flimflams

The Curse on Jeconiah and the slaughter of Zedekiah's sons at Riblah are moot issues, and have no bearing on the viability of a flesh and blood Jewish Messiah sprouting from the seed of David. The Jewish Messiah's lineage is not restricted to either of these two allegedly "problematic" branches of monarchs. As has been demonstrated, and according to the Hebrew Bible, the promised Messiah may emerge from ANY royal branch that leads to David through Solomon.

 

........

However, the passage does not say anything about Jeconiah actually prospering in his days, since the Hebrew phrase for will not prosper, (lo-yitzlah), is not countermanded. In fact, Jeconiah never returned to Judah, never returned to sit on the throne of David, and he died in exile, just as was foretold by Jeremiah (Jer 22:27-28).

...........

This carefully selected passage is claimed to be messianic since it "connects" with Jeremiah 22:24, the opening verse in the Curse on Jeconiah, via the signet ring, which allegedly symbolizes kingship.

 

This argument is plagued with major flaws. First, it is important to note that the Haggai passage does not point to the messianic era (the days of the Third Temple). The tenses used here are: Zerubbabel has been chosen to do a certain job, and he will be made like a signet. In Haggai 2:23 the Prophet refers to the previous verses, Haggai 2:20-22, in which he assures Zerubbabel of G-d's protection, and where he describes the defeat of the Persian Empire at the hands of the Greeks, an event that occurred not long after this prophecy was made.

 

Next, consider the signet ring and the significance attached to it throughout the Hebrew Bible. None of the 14 applications of the Hebrew noun (hotam), a signet ring, implies any connection with being chosen as king or, perhaps, even the Messiah Gen 38:18; Ex 28:11,21,36, 39:5,14,30; 1 Kgs 21:8; Jer 22:24; Job 38:14; Hag 2:23; Song 8:6[2x]). The same is true for the Hebrew noun (taba’at), which appears seven times in the context of a signet ring (Gen 41:42; Est 3:10,12, 8:2,8[2x],10). Genesis 41:42 and Esther 8:2 clearly demonstrate that a signet ring symbolizes authority, but not kingship, since the king, alive in both cases, is the one who gives his signet ring to the other person.

 

Is there a connection between a signet ring and a right to kingship? The phrase in Jeremiah 22:24 is conditional, "… even if Coniah … were a signet …". Given that Coniah already was the king at the time the curse was put on him and on his descendants, the context here is that, due to Coniah’s wickedness, even if he were vested with G-d’s authority such as when he first took the throne, it would surely have been removed from him.

 

So, what is the meaning of G-d's saying to Zerubbabel, "… I will make you like a signet; for I have chosen you …"? The answer to this question is found in the fourth chapter in the Book of Zechariah, where Zerubbabel is told that he has been chosen (anointed) to build the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although Jeconiah was wicked, his great-grandson, Zerubbabel, was righteous and played a central role in the restoration of the second commonwealth. Because of his faithfulness, Zerubbabel was given the authority to rule over the Jewish people as Governor of Judah (e.g. Hag 1:1, Ezra 5:14). However, this authority was limited since he did not sit on the throne of David and rule as king of Judah.

 

Thus, the claim by Christian apologists and missionaries that Zerubbabel's appointment reversed the phrase "… for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah …", does not hold, since the "prospering" is linked to being King of Judah, not to being Governor of Judah.

 

Y Conclusion: G-d showed his mercy to the righteous Zerubbabel, and rewarded him with the privilege of building the Second Temple and ruling as Governor of Judah. This did not revoke or cancel the Curse on Jeconiah.

 

Miller:I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME.

Maybe Miller should read the verse carefully.

 

Not true; the knowledge implied is intimate and experiential. And although Eve was seduced by the devil,

Please don't LIE!!!!!!!!

 

Show me the verse in the book of Genesis where it states that Eve was seduced by the Devil.

 

If you see hell as a place of various degrees of shame rather than various temperatures of fire, it fits in beautifully.

Too bad, hell as a concept doesn't exist in Judaism nor in their scripture.

 

Turgonian, you repeatedly ignored my last post to you, and you also ignored my challenge that is there in my signature

 

I suggest you do a bit more research in the area of counter apologetic and Jewish Counter Missionary movement. You have nothing new to offer me. Christianity and NT is not a proper offshoot/progressive revelation of Judaism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Aside from the content, this is one of the UGLIEST websites I've seen in quite some time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a short outline of Satan's most powerful lies that he wants you to believe.

 

1. Satan wants to convince you that he doesn't exist.

2. Satan attacks the word of God, and tries to prove it is not true.

3. Satan wants to convince you to put off being saved today.

 

Am I wrong, or is there no Babblical evidence to back either of these classic Xian claims up? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS Does anybody know why the 'quote' function isn't working?

 

PPS The Jesus Seminar isn't exactly 'Christian'.

 

You appear to be using too many quotes. I think you only get 10.

 

 

Just exactly what is "exactly Christian"?

 

Good people? People who seek God, rather. Good works cannot get you into heaven; a rejection of Christ, as is clear in the Bible, will eventually send you to hell; but the Bible isn't clear about the salvation of those unreached by the Gospel. The fact remains that 'faith comes through hearing' and searching God is a lot easier when you know where to look

 

Not true, unless you wish to deny the word of God. Ezekiel said that YHWH told him that good works will save you even if you've been an evil doer for a bit. (Ez:18)

 

Of course Paul denies this, but then Paul wasn't very fond of the Jews, was he? He wouldn't even hang out with the real Apostles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the content, this is one of the UGLIEST websites I've seen in quite some time!

 

And how does that fit the context of the thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Scotter: A question to Turgonian, if the Jews had accepted Jesus, and Jesus did become Saviour of His people, what would be Jesus' job for the Jews, as their Messiah? What would he do in his everyday Messianic activities in the land of Palestine, as the Jews heard Jesus' name and knelt, "Jesus is the Messiah!"

 

What is God's plan in mind that he intended Jesus to do as the Jewish Messiah, say, before the Jewish leaders exercised their freewill to reject Jesus?

 

A good question.

Of course God DID know and decree in advance that the Jews would not believe.

 

In answer to your question: I'm not quite sure what the promise to the Jews was, but it seems to have involved bringing the Jews into close communion with God and eliminating the Yezer ha-Ra or evil impulse. Spirituality triumphs over materialism and greed, people trust God rather than their own strength, and believe in Divine Providence rather than blind fate.

 

Dhampir: Why did you make me read that whole thing? It explained nothing about the first question, and I'm sure if I investigated further, it would only raise further questions.

 

Do investigate further, then. By the way, your first question was 'What?', so don't be surprised if the answer might be not what you wanted to hear.

 

Dhampir: Run it past me real quick: is there a part of the old testament that states that the 'old covenant' is a shadow of things to come?

 

I'm thinking of Jeremiah 31:28-35 (thank you, mwc).

 

Dhampir: Are you saying that the new testament writers took allegories and 'applicable events' from the old testament to justify what they percieved to be prophetic?

 

Relevant, I think, rather than prophetic.

 

Dhampir: Do you realize that a thing can be understood completely, but still be considered senseless? That quote just makes no sense.

 

See Glenn Miller's article on Penal Substitution.

 

Me: Burn? No, I don't think so.

 

Dhampir: Who cares what you think? The bible can be just as easily used to affirm that position, and regardless of what you think hell is, my point still stands.

 

It becomes more difficult with proper context study. The first 'long-term judgement' Bible verse (Dan. 12:2) talks about 'disgrace' and 'contempt', which would almost be misleading if there is an awful amount of physical torture.

 

Me: And last time I looked, judges didn't let murderers go simply because they had a bad nature or a bad education.

 

Dhampir: Ah, so your point about babies going to heaven is moot then?

 

Why do you think it is?

 

Me: No; the word used is yada, which means 'to know' in a very intimate sense. It's also used for sexual relations. This 'knowledge' is experiential knowledge.

 

(Note: I was informed that the word yada is not actually used in the Genesis account. My apologies.)

 

Dhampir: Which is probably the only kind of knowledge of good and evil. Occam's Razor: (from my viewpoint) The writer(s) of the A&E story in Genesis wanted to convey either an allegorical story for the nature of good and evil, which is what many Jews believe, or it was an attempt to literally explain where us and our mores came from. Either way, the story failed to take into account the fact that some sort of understanding of right and wrong had to exist in order that Man should be punished for his transgression. Nothing about the story so much as implies that that was the case.

 

Argument from silence.

God, who made Adam and whom Adam knew and loved, had forbidden him to eat of the fruit. We don't know how much God told Adam, but Adam knew that disobeying God would have grave consequences. No, he had not experienced evil yet, but he should have listened to God rather than to his spouse.

 

Me: Good people? People who seek God, rather. Good works cannot get you into heaven; a rejection of Christ, as is clear in the Bible, will eventually send you to hell; but the Bible isn't clear about the salvation of those unreached by the Gospel.

 

Dhampir: But it is clear that Christ is the path to heaven, and one cannot 'hear' about Christ without hearing the gospel. Simple logic dictates that unless Christ himself appears to those unreached by the gospel (and for that matter, many that have heard it), one cannot enter heaven. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the unreached go to hell per se, just not heaven.

 

I believe it's possible that God causes a knowledge of and trust in Christ's character even in some of the unreached. Rev. 5:7 would seem to support such a bold statement.

 

Dhampir: The deficiency being that we were created with an inability to partake of that fruit and not lose a lot of the other things we were created with.

 

So you're deficient because you can't put your hand into a fire without burning it. I see.

 

Dhampir: Apologists, fuh. Why is the bible so insufficient that it needs to be 'defended'?

 

Is it? Or are you?

Some people would rather believe weird theories than face facts. Take e.g. the viewpoint that man is inherently evil -- or call it lazy, irrational and destructive, if you will. All religions and all sages started with that fact, including, say, Machiavelli and Hobbes, who were not really interested in defending religious doctrine. However, Rousseau popularized the fuzzy notion that man was inherently good -- they just needed to be educated. An example of someone putting his own theory over the evident. (Of course, Darwin didn't help either, with the 'everything's getting better and better' implication of his evolutionary theory.)

 

mwc: So he's doing all those things that the messiah is supposed to do in Jeremiah 31?

 

I think so. Vs. 28-35, at least.

 

mwc: In proper context, the verses are to show that YHWH (the Ancient of Days) has passed judgement on Israel's enemies (in this case it would be Antiochus IV) and Israel (those like a son of man...or more specifically Judah Macabee and his offspring) will have an everlasting kingdom.

 

Don't think so. See Come Blow Your Horn:

 

J.P. Holding: Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was.

 

[...]

 

On the side now, what of claims that Daniel 9:24-27 was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus? Attempts to prove this are rather labored and overstated. A typical example tells us:

 

1. That the "anointed one" who is "cut off" is one of many of Antiochus' rivals whom he killed;

2. That Antiochus' invasion of Israel amounts to the "destruction" of Jerusalem and the Temple, when in fact he was let into Jerusalem by his own supporters without a fight (Jos. Ant. 12.5.3) and only plundered money from it, and later also plundered the Temple and profaned it, but did not destroy it;

3. Thereby also read into these events a "desolation"

 

In short, to meld Daniel 9:24-27 into the Maccabbean era requires making a rose garden out of a weed and vastly overstating the events of 167-164 BC.

 

mwc: I suppose this is where "faith" comes in because the OT has zero support for this assertion. Jesus maintains during his ministry that he has come solely for the Jews. The Gentiles are something added by Paul and the epistles with Jewish scriptural support at all. Islam must have been foreshadowed by Judaism and xianity by this reasoning.

 

'If a traffic light can turn from red to green, it must be able to turn blue by this reasoning...'

 

If Mohammed could be shown to be greater than Jesus, you're right.

 

Me: No, it's called 'midrash typology'.

 

mwc: Midrash is not theology.

 

Which is why I was talking about typology.

 

mwc: We lost nothing but access to the garden and the ability to eat from the Tree of Life at "the fall." On the other hand we gained the knowledge of Good and Evil and became like the gods.

 

Satan has been shown to be a rather untrustworthy source. One wonders if his anthropology might have been deceptive.

 

mwc: According to the story of the Tower of Babel, all we need to do is work together as a group and there's nothing we can't accomplish.

 

Someone missed the story ending here. AND has a rather Rousseauian view of man, too.

 

mwc: This is the one thing the gods don't want us to do and apparently the thing they will stop us from accomplishing. It's really kind of sad when you think about it.

 

The Tower of Babel was an act of rebellion against God. The exhortation to be as little children refers to trust, not to knowledge.

 

SkepticOfBible: Jesus changed the laws regarding the following issues and contradicted the Hebrew Scripture

 

1)Dietary Restrictions

2)Sabbath

3)In case of adultery

4)Divorce

5)A Blood drinking ritual

 

Not true; the 'blood-drinking ritual' was in fact a wine-drinking ritual, where the wine symbolized blood; the other things did not violate the Mosaic law, but the Pharisaic traditions.

 

SOB: Then we have Paul repeatedly said righteousness cannot be obtained by following the law. That is complete contradiction to what the Jewish Scrioture saw.

 

Paul says that no one is righteous; no one meets God's standards. The Jews also knew that people were sinful, which is why they sacrificed.

 

SOB: For starters observe the sabbath on a saturday, rather on the Pagan day of worship.

 

There were ceremonial laws which were abolished at Christ's death (e.g. with regard to sacrifices); there were universal laws which remained unchanged; there were civil laws which remained unchanged in their underlying moral law. In this way, the Sabbath remained, but on which day one holds the Sabbath is, according to the NT, unimportant.

 

SOB: Because real Jewish Experts like Orthodox Rabbinal Jews have good reasons to show "Matthew" cannot be written by someone who was expert in Jewish culture.

 

As you so rightly noticed, I am not an expert in Jewish culture, so I just asked J.P. Holding. I'll let him speak for himself...

 

JPH: There's a lot here, but I can say right away that someone like "Drashi" with no known credentials is not to be trusted. I'll just pick a couple of points to illustrate.

 

Drashi: Yet in Matthew, chapter 3, we are treated to the Pharisees as being as evil as the Saducees, and Jesus treated them worse than the Saducees, for the Saducees didn't harass Jesus very much, while the Pharisees were constantly on Jesus' case for violating mitzvah after mitzvah. "Matthew" paints a caricature of these great men in a characteristically non-Jewish way.

 

JPH: This is just plain ignorance of the culture of the period. In a collectivist culture everyone minded everyone else's business and deviants (as Jesus would be regarded by the Pharisees) would be hounded and challenged by members of the status quo.

 

Drashi: Over and over again, Jesus proclaims the Pharisees as evil. In his story, the Pharisees (who had little power in the Sanheidren court by the time the Saducees bought power) are shown to be plotting schemers who were in power. In truth, they had little power and were trying to stop the eventual destruction of the Temple out of the lawlessness of the Jewish people.

 

JPH: More ignorance. They are not aware that social power was in the hands of the Pharisees as persons of high standing. The Pharisees in the NT exert exactly the sort of power they would have had historically: They confronted Jesus publicly and challenged his honor.

 

Drashi: From his point of view, someone being possessed by a demon was a rarity. Yet when Jesus showed up, dozens of people claimed to be possessed, which required his healing. Then dozens grew into hundreds, and the hundreds grew into thousands.

 

JPH: WHAT! There are not "thousands" or even "dozens" of people being possessed in the NT. No more than a dozen I'd say in reality. Stupid!

 

Drashi: Also, the Pharisees during this time were brilliant men. Yet, the Christian bible presents them to be confused, not very well versed in Torah, and willing to manipulate the Jewish people for their own ends.

 

JPH: Baloney. It shows them to indeed be knowledgable and well versed in Torah. As for manipulation, is Drashi going to deny that abuses of power occurred? Ever?

 

Drashi: So in Matthew 12:1, when the Pharisees see the disciples of Jesus tearing ears of corn off of the stalks, the Pharisees informed Jesus that they were violating the Shabbos. Jesus then responds with Have you not read what David did when he and his men were hungry? How he entered into the house of G-d and they ate the showbreads, which was something that was not lawful for him to eat? How it was nor for those with him, but for the priests only? In the book of Matthew, the Pharisees are treated as ignorant. Had they been treated more accurately, one of them would have responded "If the bread that was given to the priests to be used as showbread for the temple was given as a thanksgiving offering, then it may have been eaten by anyone who was not unclean. Therefore, no law was broken." In this text, the Pharisees are treated as ignorant of Judaism while Jesus as treated scholarly, when in reality it was the other way around.

 

JPH: Baloney also. The answer he gives is a dodgeball because the issue was the Sabbath, not cleanliness.

 

Drashi: Now notice in that quoted paragraph it ends "until this day." This is a clear indication that this last chapter (if not the entire book) was written during the time when Christianity was starting to come into it's own after the conversion of Emperor Constantine (between the second and third century). One might first believe that the author of "Matthew" was a Jew, for after all, who else would be writing this story, if not a Jew? Remember, Jesus demanded that his disciples should stay away from the gentiles. Jesus didn't want to heal gentiles. In fact, Jesus didn't want anything to do with the gentiles until after he resurrected, which has many scholars believe that this chapter, like the first two that deal with the "virgin" birth, were tacked on. The term "Jews" is also used in "Matthew" as though it was an outsider writing about a people he is separate from. This book is not a Jewish book. This book is not for Jews.

 

JPH: Stupidity. They do not show that "until this day" requires a period of hundreds of years. If it does, then they need to provide parallel uses of the phrase that show this. I can say "to this day the Berlin Wall is down" right? Duh!

 

Also, they are ignorant of the fact that "Jews" is an ethnic term meaning Judeans, people who are native to Judaea, not simple religious term. Matthew was a Galileean so he WAS separate from the Judeans! Duh!

 

I think this makes it clear that you can't trust this Drashi or anyone who recommends him.

 

You be the judge, SOB.

 

SOB: One good example of Matthew ignorance - His misinterpretation of hebrew parralellism of Zech 9:9 by stating Jesus needed two donkeys instead of one.

 

See here.

 

SOB: In this case I am sorry, I rather agree with experts who communicate in hebrew on the daily basis rather than listen to a non-hebrew speaking "expert".

 

Odd. I'd rather trust an English expert with a university degree in German language & culture to explain German words than someone living in some village of Germany. To each his own...

 

SOB: So I guess that Jesus did not fulfill Is 7:14 as he was never refered to Immanuel in his entire life, unless offcourse, you want to engage in special pleading.

 

OK...so maybe almah does mean 'young woman'. Alternatively, it could mean 'unmarried young woman'. And they do give birth at times... (Again, see here.)

 

But it's quite possible that Matthew was simply saying that Jesus 're-enacted' Isa. 7:14. For information, see Fictional Friction. This article also demonstrates that first-century Jews thought of dual fulfilment as normal.

 

Glenn Miller quotes Longenecker:

 

Longenecker: The central concept in rabbinic exegesis, and presumably that of earlier Pharisees as well, was "midrash." The word comes from the verb darash (to resort to, seek; figuratively, to read repeatedly, study, interpret), and strictly denotes an interpretive exposition however derived and irrespective of the type of material under consideration. In the Mishnah, the Palestinian Gemaras, and the earlier Midrashim the verb peshat and derash are used in roughly synonymous fashion, for the earlier rabbis (the Tannaim) did not see any difference between their literal interpretations and their more elaborate exegetical treatment. Only among the Amoraite rabbis, sometime in the fourth century C.E were literalist exegesis and midrash exegesis consciously differentiated. But while not recognized as such until later, midrashic exegesis can be seen in retrospect to have differed from literalist exegesis among the Pharisaic teachers of the New Testament period.

 

Midrashic exegesis ostensibly takes its point of departure from the biblical text itself (though psychologically it may have been motivated by other factors) and seeks to explicate the hidden meanings contained therein by means of agreed-upon hermeneutical rules (e.g., Rabbi Hillel's seven Middoth; Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha's later set of thirteen; Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili's thirty-two). The purpose of midrash exegesis is to contemporize the revelation of God given earlier for the people of God living later in a different situation. What results may be characterized by the maxim: "That has relevance for This"--that is, what is written in Scripture has relevance for our present situation. In so doing, early Judaism developed what George Foote Moore once aptly defined as "an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context or the historical occasion, as divine oracles; combines them with other similar detached utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expression often by purely verbal association."

 

Yep, this is Judaism -- first-century Judaism. As I've been told, 'Modern Judaism is a creation of third century rabbis.'

 

SOB: ...stop posing like you are an authority on Judaism or Jewish Interpretation of the bible.[/url]

 

I didn't. I was still drawing from Glenn Miller's article. And he arguably quoted authorities.

 

Your quote: The Curse on Jeconiah and the slaughter of Zedekiah's sons at Riblah are moot issues, and have no bearing on the viability of a flesh and blood Jewish Messiah sprouting from the seed of David.

 

Yep, that's what Glenn Miller said.

 

Miller: I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME.

 

SOB: Maybe Miller should read the verse carefully.

 

I don't believe your article refuted the arguments put forward by Miller to suggest that the prophecy would be short-term.

 

Me: Not true; the knowledge implied is intimate and experiential. And although Eve was seduced by the devil...

 

SOB: Please don't LIE!!!!!!!!

 

May I draw your attention to the fact that highly fundamentalistic Christians often (1) capitalize whole words, (2) use a lot of exclamation marks, (3) never give their opponent the benefit of the doubt, but immediately assume he is engaged in deliberate deceit?

 

SOB: Show me the verse in the book of Genesis where it states that Eve was seduced by the Devil.

 

Is this how you treat all history? 'Because book A says something about topic X which book B doesn't say on the same topic, A is irrelevant!'

 

SOB: Too bad, hell as a concept doesn't exist in Judaism nor in their scripture.

 

Too bad, it doesn't need to.

 

SOB: Turgonian, you repeatedly ignored my last post to you, and you also ignored my challenge that is there in my signature.

 

Oh dear, someone doesn't seem to be placed too high in my priority list. :D

 

Varokhar: Am I wrong, or is there no Biblical evidence to back either of these classic Christian claims up?

 

You're right. ;)

 

chefranden: Just exactly what is "exactly Christian"?

 

I would say it involves at least a belief in the Apostles' Creed.

 

chefranden: Ezekiel said that YHWH told him that good works will save you even if you've been an evil doer for a bit. (Ez:18)

 

'Do what is lawful and right' includes relying on the mercy of God. Also, keeping YHWH's statutes would include bringing sacrifices for the remission of sins -- which was fulfilled in Christ's Atonement!

Also consider John 6:28-29: 'Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.'

 

chefranden: Of course Paul denies this, but then Paul wasn't very fond of the Jews, was he?

 

Paul was a Jew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul says that no one is righteous; no one meets God's standards.

 

Difference between Judaism and Christianity

 

See the following points in the above essay

 

1)Sin(fulness), Atonement, and Righteousness

 

2)Attitude Toward Other Beliefs

 

Also check out my following post here when you have the time, and do post your rebuttal there.

 

There were ceremonial laws which were abolished at Christ's death (e.g. with regard to sacrifices); there were universal laws which remained unchanged; there were civil laws which remained unchanged in their underlying moral law. In this way, the Sabbath remained, but on which day one holds the Sabbath is, according to the NT, unimportant.

 

Sorry the law does not make distinction between universal law, civil law or ceremonial law. The law clearly says all needs to be followed for eternity.

 

If Jesus was the valid messiah, then he was to usher in the era of great compliance with the law as the Hebrew verses Ezek 36:27 and Ezek 37:24 promise.

 

A valid messiah certainly wouldn't claim that parts of the law no longer needed to be observed, nor is it anywhere stated in the Hebrew Bible that certain part of laws would be "abolished". If you have scriptural evidence from the Hebrew Bible then now is the time to present so.

 

As you so rightly noticed, I am not an expert in Jewish culture, so I just asked J.P. Holding

 

And you are saying the J P Holding is?

 

What are his credentials, which makes him a expert on Jewish culture?

 

Holding does not speak Hebrew or Greek, his main source of information about the language comes from bible Software and transliteration dictionaries. That is certainly not the way translation are done.

 

Here are some online examples of his blunders

 

Software Blunder - example 1

 

Software Blunder - example 2

 

What Holding does, is mostly engage in a lot of ad hominums while never addresses the actual issue at hand. This attitude reflected in his response by you.

 

While Miller refrains from his sarcastic/ad hominum remarks, Miller is also ignorant of Hebrew and also of Orthodox Jewish culture. He does quotes Hebrew scholars, but only those who support his views, preferably on the Christian side, who. Not a very scholarly approach

 

Holding:but I can say right away that someone like "Drashi" with no known credentials is not to be trusted

 

See ad hominum. Drashi is a well known and respected Jewish Scholar amongst the online orthodox Jewish community. He has a website called "Kosher Judaism"(http://www.kosherjudaism.com/), where he publishes a series of counter missionay articles which are highly recommended by most Jews.

 

Drashi does speak Hebrew and, I believe also NT greek. You can find him debating on the following forum

 

Holding:They are not aware that social power was in the hands of the Pharisees as persons of high standing. The Pharisees in the NT exert exactly the sort of power they would have had historically: They confronted Jesus publicly and challenged his honor.

 

However the NT also potrays them as having immense legal power during his trial, which does not conform to the known Jewish law, Jewish/Roman protocols or Roman laws themselves

 

Trial of Jesus before Sanhedrin

 

Trial of Jesus before Pilate

 

Are the pharisees as bad as the GT potrays them to be

 

Holding:Baloney. It shows them to indeed be knowledgable and well versed in Torah. As for manipulation, is Drashi going to deny that abuses of power occurred? Ever?

 

I doubt it, that Holding ever read the article with a open mind or carefully. Matthew 12 is a great counter example of his statement

 

Drashi:In the book of Matthew, the Pharisees are treated as ignorant. Had they been treated more accurately, one of them would have responded "If the bread that was given to the priests to be used as showbread for the temple was given as a thanksgiving offering, then it may have been eaten by anyone who was not unclean. Therefore, no law was broken."

 

I bet this problem did not even appear on Holding's radar, since it is not a common skeptical arguement, rather it is a Jewish one. David did NOT sin when he ate the bread, which pretty much shows that Jesus made a bad illustration to prove his point of situational ethics.

 

More explanation can be found here. Look for the post of Sophiee, for the explaination, You may pose further clarifications if you have any doubts

 

Another example of this, is where the Pharisees are potrayed as torah ignorant, are when they are asking a sign from Jesus to prove his veracity. However Deut 13;18 clearly states that signs are not a criteria to prove the validity of true prophet and that even false prophet(which are are sent by God btw) can produce valid miracles. So why would the legalistic Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign?

 

Holding:Also, they are ignorant of the fact that "Jews" is an ethnic term meaning Judeans, people who are native to Judaea, not simple religious term. Matthew was a Galileean so he WAS separate from the Judeans! Duh!

 

Ok, I will be honest with you. I have never heard this claim, so I checked out the veracity of the claim by asking one of the administrator at Kosher Judaism forum (Sophiee again). She is a rebbitzim btw way.

 

Here was her response

 

If Jew mean people native to Judah by that time then why would Paul, a NATIVE OF TSARUS not Judah, call himself a Jew?

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

 

The term Jew had become an overall term for us most likely because the nation of Judah outlasted Israel -- but no one really knows. It could well be because the term Yehudim means "people of G-d."

 

Of course it doesn't mean a "simple religious term" either. It refers to one who is a Jew -- part of the Jewish nation who accepted the covenant at Sinai.

 

Holding is an uneducated fool. Ask him who the Jews are who are mentioned in the Book of Ezra?

 

How about Nehemiah??

 

How about the Book of Esther?

 

Esther 2:5

 

Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin

 

A Jew living in Iran (Persia). She wasn't native to Judah so how does Holding explain HER and Mordecai being called Jews???

 

How about all those Jews Jeremiah spoke of who lived in Egypt?? Oops, not Jews either according to Holding even though the Tanach calls them Jews?

 

Who is right, Holding or Jeremiah?

 

Jeremiah 44:26

 

But hear the word of HaShem, all Jews living in Egypt

 

Then of course there is Daniel living in Babylon. Not a Jew either I take it?

 

Shall I go on SOTB or do you get the idea that Holding is a totally clueless guy who found a way to make money deceiving people on the internet

 

In my skeptical experiance, I have discovered that no one knows the Hebrew Bible better than a Orthodox Jew, and till date I have never seen them quote a text out of it's context for any of their exegesis or explanation. As demonstrated above, Holding just makes blank assertions without double checking his resources and just assumes it is correct.

 

You can't get away with these kinds of mistakes especially in the day of the internet.

 

As I've been told, 'Modern Judaism is a creation of third century rabbis

 

I see that even you are ignoring your own scripture. From the "Trial Before The Sanherdin"

 

The Pharisees, like the Christians that were to appear on the scene later, believed in angels, demons and the bodily resurrection. The differences between these two main Jewish parties arose from their attitude toward the oral law. The Pharisees believed that the Torah is to be supplemented by oral tradition that sought to interpret and develop it.

 

.........................................

 

It was through the efforts of the Pharisees that the Jewish faith was kept alive in the towns and villages throughout the land. Judaism, as we know it today, is a direct spiritual descendant of the theology of the Pharisees

 

Please provide historical evidence for your position. Whoever told you this is gravely mistaken

 

so maybe almah does mean 'young woman'. Alternatively, it could mean 'unmarried young woman'. And they do give birth at times

 

If she was a "unmarried young women" ie she had sex before marriage, then she would have been stoned to death. So no, G-d himself said not let such females give birth to such children. I doubt it you would want to claim that the Prophet Isaiah (and thefefore God) is talking about a sinner.

 

So Almah refers to a young women who married. Even your quote from Miller article says this

 

it may also refer to a married young woman (until the birth of her first child) (Bratcher, 98)." Quoted from The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah by Glenn Miller.

 

Btw a Jewish rebuttal to his claim about this exact article can be found here, which demonstrate again the lack of knowledge that Miller has about the Hebrew language

 

But it's quite possible that Matthew was simply saying that Jesus 're-enacted'

 

.....

 

Midrashic exegesis ostensibly takes its point of departure from the biblical text itself (though psychologically it may have been motivated by other factors) and seeks to explicate the hidden meanings contained therein by means of agreed-upon hermeneutical rules

 

My knowledge about Midrash is very limited, but here are some keypoints about Midrash as I understand after my discussion with Orthodox Jews.

 

1)Every midrashic INTERPRETATION is true, ie The point they are making is true, it re-enforces the torah and commandments.

 

2)Midrash seeks to find more than one meaning in a passage, which is not the same as as more than one prophecy. ie it would not come with statements such as "thus it is fulfilled according to the prophet"

 

3)From

 

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/OTinNT.htm

 

Perhaps one could say that pesher interpretation is as much theological assertion as it is interpretation, so that one's acceptance of the validity of a pesher interpretation depends on one's assessment of the spiritual credibility and authority of the interpreter."

 

4)Midrash discusses a scripture, but it doesn't misquote scripture. It isn't a matter of taking a scripture out of context or finding eschatological meanings where none were originally intended. It's a matter that Matthew uses phrases like 'in the words of the prophet' or 'to fulfill the scripture,' and then doesn't have the correct words or scripture.

 

5)This is rabbinical(man-made) tradition, not a biblical one. It seems you are promoting something which Jesus was very against it

 

More details about the details Midrash itself can be found here

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/midrash.html

 

Once again I asked Sophiee from Kosher Judaism to double check the veracity of the claim that "Matthew" is midrashic

 

First of all make sure you explain that you are discussing midrash aggadah, not midrash halacha.

 

(Ask Miller if he knows the difference. That should be good for a laugh).

 

There are two types of midrash.

 

Midrash halacha -- which explains the mitzvot (Jewish law = halacha).

 

Midrash aggadah is homily or story telling for the purpose of making a moral point. They start with a word or sentence in the Tanach and use it as a spring board to jump off into imagination. Aggadah is meant to be understood for the meaning of something, not the literal aspects.

 

These Xian sources of yours try to quote it as it were meant to be taken literally.

 

So when you ask about the "leper student" Sanhedrin 98b where they take Midrash aggudah (which is story telling to make a moral point in a sermon) and quote it as if it were pshat (plain meaning). It is akin to a Xian telling a story about Santa Clause and having a Muslim come along to prove that Xians believe in Santa.

 

In Midrash aggadah teachers (rabbis) take an old topic and apply it to provide some new insight or idea to it - a twist. It is not meant to be taken literally - and many are puns and interesting rabbit trails.

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-To...section-63.html

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...p;_midrash.html

 

Also this article demonstrates that Matthew is not typical Midrashic book and also the fact that early Fathers rejected such writings

 

http://www.kosherjudaism.com/mattcover.pdf

 

So. if still you want to claim that Matthew is a type of Midrashic writing then please answer the following

 

Is it a historical record, or is it a collection of Midrashic writings based upon an event that was taught to the people of Greece and Rome, using stylistic metaphors to teach a new faith?

 

By claiming that the NT writers use "midrash"/"typological interpretation, it opens the door for just about any connection to be deemed appropriate. In other words, creative license allows for of "midrash"/"typological interpretations to be evidence of the authority of Jesus.

 

Once that door is opened, anything goes and even Martha Stewart becomes authorized by God.

 

It's Amazing...Martha Stewart Fulfilled Old Testament Prophecy

 

The beauty of it is that you can't prove it wrong, and that it works both ways.

 

You can find numerous Jewish midrashes on Isaish 24 where they claim it is describing Christianity, as in the following

 

Isaiah 24 and Christianity

 

I would like to point that the NT does not make a distinction between a literal fulfillment or typological fulfillment. If one's checks out the verses that the NT cites as fulfillment, one can see nearly all of them wil have to classified as typological since they nearly a good number are taken out of their context or mistranslated. Some are just plain made up So what happened to the great 300 literal fulfillment by Jesus, which are so boldly advertised by Christians?

 

Fundamentalists like Holding/Miller stress the literal interpretation of scripture as long as it supports their views. If it serves their agenda to employ typological or non-literal interpretations, then they'll set aside their strict literal stipulations.

 

Uriyosef:Thirdly, if Christians would bother READING the entire story, they would see it was fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3.

 

You: Isaiah 7:14: 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'

 

Isaiah 8:3: 'And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.'

 

Thank for proving my previous point. If you want get hyper-literal and claim Isaiah 8:3 was not fulfilled by Isaiah wife, then the same goes for Jesus, since he was never called Immanuel

 

The point the article was trying to make was that God did fulfill the promise of birth of a child during the time of Ahaz.

 

However you have yet to answer some of the key questions from the article

 

1) If God kept his promise to to Ahaz, then what scriptural evidence can you provide me from Isaiah that this prophecy will happen again? Where is the biblical evidence for "dual fulfillment" in the Hebrew Bible?

 

2)Which part of Isaiah 7:15 did Jesus fulfill?

 

If you want I can check on the Jewish forums as to the exact meaning of Mahershalalhashbaz, but I believe it is similar to Immanuel.

 

It's possible the prophecy didn't primarily refer to Jesus, but it's also possible the sign was intended for the 'house of David'

 

Which was fulfilled during the time of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:9) and the child.

 

I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants

 

Miller does not know Hebrew. The Jewish author in my article does. He clearly explains that the Jeconiah curse was not lifted . Please present a valid bible translation (Jewish or Christian) which remotely shows that the prophecy was short term

 

Also I would like to highlight a point from Miller's own article

 

Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate/non-physical descendants of Jeconiah)

 

More acccurately, the physical descendents of Solomon/David/Asa

 

You ought to read my article carefully if you want me to read yours.

 

Otherwise you are wasting my time. This point of Miller has been addressed

 

The Jewish Messiah's lineage is not restricted to either of these two allegedly "problematic" branches of monarchs. As has been demonstrated, and according to the Hebrew Bible, the promised Messiah may emerge from ANY royal branch that leads to David through Solomon.

 

So no, Jeriamiah was not blind, that he saw the curse as a end of line for King David. Remember Solomon had 700 wives, who could have sired him legitimate sons, which could make any one of them as potential messianic verse. Just because it is omitted does not mean it is problem for Jews.

 

Me: One good example of Matthew ignorance - His misinterpretation of hebrew parralellism of Zech 9:9 by stating Jesus needed two donkeys instead of one.

 

You: See here.

 

First of all, half of his links don't work

 

Second of all, would you mind telling me which part of his essay actually rebuts the point that "Matthew misinterpretated the Zech prophecy, because he failed to read the parallelism in the actual text." All I see the answers to point that Kesler(whoever that is) raised is this

 

If Kesler wants to play this roundup, let him go out and find some evaluations of Matthew's knowledge of the Hebrew text and as a whole and stop playing boo games with the generalities. The question is unbegged until he gets down and dirty with specifics; otherwise it's Kesler who does the begging: "Well, we know that's true for Matt as a whole, but maybe, for the convenience of my thesis, this time it's an exception!"

 

.......................

 

I agree with all of this with one exception: Grotesque to whom, we'd like to know?

 

Otherwise know as Ad hominums. Kessler did gave a very specific evaluation of Matthew knowledge(or lack of) of the Hebrew text, yet Holding just danced around the issue. Even the Miller article which he cited does not address this specific issue.

 

I found this quote extremely dishonest or it could be due to ignorance

 

I found this quote extremely dishonest or due to ignorance

 

that of the LXX does in fact correspond word for word with the Hebrew. But it is very unlikely, given that Matthew (or, for that matter, whoever is responsible for the formula quotations) shows an excellent command of Hebrew in the other quotations he presents

 

On the contrary the author of "Matthew" did use the septuiguint when he was writing his book. This has been accepted even by Christians (Catholic and Protestant alike)

 

SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT [/url (Catholic Website)

 

So why would a hebrew fluent scholar like "Matthew" use the LXX to write his book?

 

Just because the LXX translation of Zech 9:9, is a word to word the same, that doesn't make someone immune from misinterpretating the translated text. Even I did not understood what Hebrew Parrellism is untill I read a Christian web article on it.

 

Btw when Zech 9 is read in context, it is clear Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy at all, especially Zech 9:10-11, which is talking about the same king.

 

Messianic Prophecies - Zech 9:9

 

Zechariah 9 teaches us that King Messiah's worldwide reign coincides with war ending and peace established. Missionaries incorrectly credit Jesus with fulfilling Zechariah 9:9, because the New Testament says Jesus rode into a Jerusalem on a donkey. Besides being an extremely unimpressive achievement in ancient Jerusalem, Jesus' ride failed to fulfill 9:10 which promises peace on earth.

 

Other passages referring to the Messiah as King and/or David are: Numbers 24, Isaiah 55, Jeremiah 23, Jeremiah 30, Ezekiel 34. Micah 4:8, Micah 5, Amos 9 and Daniel 7.

 

Zechariah 9.10-15

 

So if Zech 9 is a messianic prophecy, then Jesus has not fulfilled it yet

 

Me:Show me the verse in the book of Genesis where it states that Eve was seduced by the Devil.

 

You:Is this how you treat all history? 'Because book A says something about topic X which book B doesn't say on the same topic, A is irrelevant!'

 

Ok, let's expand the parameters of the task. Find me a verse from the Hebrew Bible(your Old Testament) that the snake was the devil.

 

On the contrary as I understand from the Hebrew Scriptures, is that,there is no mentions of any angelic entity who is the enemy of God and is a source of evil. Which is one of the reason why Jews don't believe in the Devil

 

Jews believe in Satan not Devil

 

Nor do they believe in "Hell" for the same reasons.

 

Ask a Rabbi - Fiery Viewpoint on Hell

 

These informations is convientently present only in the NT, just like in the book of Mormon, it is convientently mentioned that it is possible for humans to attain Godlike status. Have you ruled out the possiblity that the NT might have been influenced by Pagan theology?

 

 

Holding:I think this makes it clear that you can't trust this Drashi or anyone who recommends him.

 

......

 

Odd. I'd rather trust an English expert with a university degree in German language & culture to explain German words than someone living in some village of Germany. To each his own

 

Once again I rather trust Hebrew speaking orthodox Jews, rather than a person who uses a dictionary to translate and only refers to biased opinion all the time for his points

 

However I would not qualify the Jewish authors that I refer to, as village idiots. They have dedicated their life to study the Hebrew Sciptures in it's original form, learn about intricasies of their religion and are bilingual speakers. If there is something wrong with their academic/theological credentials then please present the evidence for it. You know where to contact them. Otherwise it is known as engaging as ad hominum

 

On the other hand I have demonstrated that neither Holding nor Miller hold any academic credential nor working knowledge of Hebrew language, and definately have no knowledge about what Judaism is about, let alone about the Judaism during the time of Jesus. I'll concede atleast Miller attempts to research, even though his findings are extremely biased. Holding just mooches off his work.

 

This doesn't mean there are no Christian scholars who have deep knowledge and expertise in the Hebrew language, Jewish culture/laws (present and during time of Jesus) However Holding and Miller are not one of them. IMHO If you are paying to their ministeries then you are wasting your money.

 

Also I have no idea why it took you 2 months to reply to me. If one doesn't reply for 2 weeks, then I presume one is not interested in the arguement. Were you researching?

 

In any case, it seems that you have a open mind and are seek the truth. I would highly recommend you to join any of the Jewish Counter Missionary forums such as the following

 

Kosher Judaism

 

Messiah Truth

 

I hope you will discover the real reasons for the Jews rejecting Christianity and the Jesus as their messiah, not the ones given by Paul or modern Christians

 

Although I would like to remind you that evangelising is strictly forbidden in these forums, so try to keep it in a form of discussion rather than blankly asserting things, J P Holding style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.