If Jesus Is God

[bdp]

Not angry, not bitter.  Annoyed at another undereducated tehist who thinks he knows us without bothering to GET to know us.

[Ravenstar]

 

My dear Funguyrye,

 

You have stepped into a place where people have left christianity, mostly because we did read our bibles, extensively. Not because we are ignorant of it.

 

Studied... deeply. We've looked at all these things and have found them wanting. We debate the finer points all the time. Some of us were bible scholars, ministers and pastors.

 

Read Margee's post in the testimonials.  here:  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/44259-please-forgive-me/

That will tell you where we come from... and I think it holds true for most of us, at one time.

Hey thank you for that.  I read it and it is very stirring.  I am not a believer in Jesus shaking my finger at anyone. I will not get ignorant, petty, or condemn anyone.  Just thought I could share some insight into the bible for the doubting Thomas's.  I am sorry religion has made some angry, bitter and what not.  That is man though and religion, not God.

 

You are welcome.

 

BUT...I am not bitter, nor am I 'mad' at god.. I just don't believe in gods, or ghosts, or fairies..elves, dragons (except Komodo Dragons) or Santa Claus.

 

No one has provided evidence that a god, or gods exist... the default therefore, is non-belief.

 

Religion pisses me off though.

[bdp]

That's EXACTLY all it is, man and and religion - not 'god,'

[slave2six]

Just thought I could share some insight into the bible for the doubting Thomas's.

 

There are over 129 Million books currently in print around the world and the only one that Christians care about is the Bible (and occasionally C.S. Lewi's stuff). 

 

I just don't get it. 

[pawn]

Until the veracity of the Bible is proven, verses don't mean a thing. I can quote text also, quite lovely text.. here's a very small sample of holy texts from around the world and through the ages.

 

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

 

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

 

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

 

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

 

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

 

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

 

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

~ Rig Veda, Book 10 (not sure about how exact the translation is - but very interesting thoughts)

 

 

"Say. Do you disbelieve Him Who created the earth in two periods? Do you ascribe equals to Him. He is the Lord of the Worlds.

"He set in the (earth) mountains standing firm. He blessed it.

He measured therein its sustenance in four periods, in due proportion, in accordance with the needs of those who ask for (sustenance? or information?).

"Moreover (tumma) He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth: come willingly or unwillingly! They said: we come in willing obedience.

"Then He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and He assigned to each heaven its mandate by Revelation. And We adorned the lower heaven with luminaries and provided it a guard. Such is the decree of the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge."

 

~ Q'uran verses 9 to 12, sura 41:

 

 

Hail to thee, oh god who sends forth the Moment, who

presides over all the Secret things, and protects the utterance

of my words.

 

Here is a god displeased against me ; let wrong be over-

whelmed and let it fall upon the hands of the Lord of Law,

Remove the impediments which are in me and the evil and the

darkness, oh Lord of Law, and let that god be reconciled to me,

removing that which detains me from thee.

 

Oh, lord of offerings in Kenu (ear of corn - not sure what it signifies, maybe the offering?), let me offer to thee the

propitiary offering by which thou livest, and let me live by it and

be reconciled.

 

Let all the displeasure which is in thy heart against me be

removed.

 

CHAPTER XIV ~ Egyptian Book of the Dead

 

 

 

5. And therefore as Thou, O Ahura Mazda! didst think, speak, dispose, and do all things good (for us), so to Thee would we give, so would we assign to Thee our homage; so would we worship Thee with our sacrifices. So would we bow before Thee with these gifts, and so direct our prayers to Thee with confessions of our debt. 

6. By the kinship of the good kindred, by that of Righteousness the good (Thy righteous servant's nature) would we approach Thee, and by that of the good thrift-law, and of Piety the good. 

 

~ Zoroastrian Avesta - Yasna  13:5, 6

 

 

 

ANATHAPINDIKA rejoiced at the words of the Blessed One and said: I dwell at Savatthi, the capital of Kosala, a land rich in produce and enjoying peace. Pasenadi is the king of the country, and his name is renowned among our own people and our neighbors. Now I wish to found there a vihara which shall be a place of religious devotion for your brotherhood, and I pray you kindly to accept it."

 

The Buddha saw into the heart of the supporter of orphans; and knowing that unselfish charity was the moving cause of his offer, in acceptance of the gift, the Blessed One said: "The charitable man is loved by all; his friendship is prized highly; in death his heart is at rest and full of joy, for he suffers not from repentance; he receives the opening flower of his reward and the fruit that ripens from it. Hard it is to understand: By giving away our food, we get more strength, by bestowing clothing on others, we gain more beauty; by donating abodes of purity and truth, we acquire great treasures.

 

"There is a proper time and a proper mode in charity; just as the vigorous warrior goes to battle, so is the man who is able to give. He is like an able warrior a champion strong and wise in action. Loving and compassionate he gives with reverence and banishes all hatred, envy, and anger.

 

"The charitable man has found the path of salvation. He is like the man who plants a sapling, securing thereby the shade, the flowers, and the fruit in future years. Even so is the result of charity, even so is the joy of him who helps those that are in need of assistance; even so is the great Nirvana. We reach the immortal path only by continuous acts of kindliness and we perfect our souls by compassion and charity."

Anathapindika invited Sariputta to accompany him on his return to Kosala and help him in selecting a pleasant site for the vihara.

 

~ Buddha, Sermon on Charity

 

 

 

1. Hearing I ask | from the holy races,

From Heimdall's sons, | both high and low;

Thou wilt, Valfather, | that well I relate

Old tales I remember | of men long ago.

 

2. I remember yet | the giants of yore,

Who gave me bread | in the days gone by;

Nine worlds I knew, | the nine in the tree

With mighty roots | beneath the mold.

 

 

3. Of old was the age | when Ymir lived;

Sea nor cool waves | nor sand there were;

Earth had not been, | nor heaven above,

But a yawning gap, | and grass nowhere.

 

4. Then Bur's sons lifted | the level land,

Mithgarth the mighty | there they made;

The sun from the south | warmed the stones of earth,

And green was the ground | with growing leeks.

 

5. The sun, the sister | of the moon, from the south

Her right hand cast | over heaven's rim;

No knowledge she had | where her home should be,

The moon knew not | what might was his,

The stars knew not | where their stations were.

 

~ Norse Poetic Eddas; Voluspo, 1 - 5

 

 

Yes, what about all these divinely inspired texts?  have you looked into these, funguyrye?  JUST like the bible, these are ancient texts written by holy men, priests and sages.  JUST like the bible, these holy scriptures contain wisdom, prophecy and amazing revelations of the Divine.  JUST like the bible, they are all fictional mythology written by primitive men...

 

 

If we are to take the words of the bible seriously, just because it contains prophecy, then why not all these other books?

 

 

(good post, and excellent argument Ravenstar...)

[mymistake]

Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, by way of their father's ancestry, not necessarily of their mother's.

 

 

Where does it say that Mary is a descendant of David?  Luke's genealogy is talking about Joseph.  For that matter so is Matthew's.

[Ravenstar]

I think christians would be surprised what's in other religions holy texts

 

Some of the Bible is almost directly derived from the Egyptian and Sumerian/Babylonian texts...

 

Book of Proverbs Some old material from the ancient sages, some later material from the 6th century BCE or later, some material borrowed from the ancient Egyptian text called the Instructions of Amenemopet

and the Rig Vedas are chock full of really neat philosophical and 'spiritual' concepts. Concerning the Vedas;

 

"It is one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 BC^[5](the early Vedic period). There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures of c. 2200 – 1600 BC."

 

Source - Wikipedia

 

On the other hand:

 

The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary). The oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus). The oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic text, which modern editions are based upon, date to the 9th century CE.^{[citation needed]} With the exception of a few biblical sections in the Prophets, virtually no biblical text is contemporaneous with the events it describes, and was subject to revision by later authors.^[1]

 

^{Just saying...}  

[Ravenstar]

 

Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, by way of their father's ancestry, not necessarily of their mother's.

 

 

Where does it say that Mary is a descendant of David?  Luke's genealogy is talking about Joseph.  For that matter so is Matthew's.

 

Mary had to be a descendent of David or the lineage would be broken... but I don't remember where the reference is.

[pawn]

Once I realized the bible is just like any other religious book... the whole religion collapsed for me.  Without the bible as the "revealed truth of god", then its just a book of myths.   And JESUS is just a mythological character.   The bible falls, Jesus falls....

 

Welcome to Ex-Christian.

[mymistake]

 I am sorry religion has made some angry, bitter and what not.  That is man though and religion, not God.

 

@everyone else.

 

We should give funguyrye credit here.  Men using religion have done a lot of harm through history.  There is nothing wrong with being mad or biter at men who used religion to do evil.  And since we see the Bible as nothing more than men using religion to do evil the Bible falls under that category as well.  I am happy to admit that I have at times been very angry and bitter over the evil done by men through religion.

 

 

@funguyrye

 

Rest assured that we are not mad at God.  People lose their anger at God when they stop believing in God.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

^^^Well said, mymistake.

[pawn]

 

 

 

Sure.  The bible was originally written in the Hebrew, not English, Mandarin, Greek, etc.  This was the original language and over the last 50 or so years, has brought out amzing insights into the bible, specifically about Jesus

 

 

The Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew.  The Roman scriptures were written in Greek.  They are not from the same religion.

 

They are the same believes.  Christianity has twisted the New Testament into believing the Old Testament was the old wineskin, and now Christianity is the new wineskin.  Nothing is further then the truth. 

 

I believe the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then quickly translated into Greek.  As all the NT writers were Jews, it makes sense the NT was not written in Greek.

 

Evidence?

 

1) Evidence that the new testament was written firstly in Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

2) Evidence that the New Testament writers were Jews.

 

(the authors saying they are jews, isnt evidence.  I can write a book and in that book say I am a two-headed monster, but my claim doesn't serve as evidence that I am in fact a two-headed monster.)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Okay Fungi (am I pronouncing that correctly?), you believe that god loves us and wants to bless us for a thousand generations or whatever the phrase was, right?  You also seem to believe that you have some new information that we aren't privy to and the fact that you write on another site somehow lends credibility to your case.  With that in mind, I have one question for you:

 

If god is all he's cracked up to be, then why didn't he provide your "information" to some pastor or deacon in each of our churches so that it could be passed on to us before we became ex-christians? 

 

Are you going to try to tell me that he moves in mysterious ways?  Are you going to try to convince me that his ways are higher than our ways?  Oh, please tell me about how god has a plan for everybody and this is just part of his plan to use you as a troll in sheep's clothing to redeem us godless heathens.

 

So far, you've offered meaningless drivel; it's time you brought your big-boy game.

 

So, Fungi, since you're back, perhaps you can answer my question.  Before you only deflected with your "bride of christ lost her way" speech.  You may have thought I didn't notice the deflection; I did, but was too polite to call you on it until adequate time had passed for you to provide a better answer.

[bdp]

...hmm...who was it that came up with the 'wineskin' analogy in the first place..?  And what did it mean?

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Sure.  The bible was originally written in the Hebrew, not English, Mandarin, Greek, etc.  This was the original language and over the last 50 or so years, has brought out amzing insights into the bible, specifically about Jesus

 

 

The Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew.  The Roman scriptures were written in Greek.  They are not from the same religion.

 

They are the same believes.  Christianity has twisted the New Testament into believing the Old Testament was the old wineskin, and now Christianity is the new wineskin.  Nothing is further then the truth. 

 

I believe the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then quickly translated into Greek.  As all the NT writers were Jews, it makes sense the NT was not written in Greek.

 

 

Paul was Jewish and Roman.  The author of James was Jewish.  Perhaps the author of Hebrews was Jewish.  The rest of the NT authors were not Jewish.  They were Roman or Greek.  The OT and NT are different religions and different beliefs.  The oldest manuscripts for the NT (aside from fragments) date to the fourth century so the originals might have been written in modern Russian for all we know.  However Christianity is a Roman religion that was started from Greek sources.  It makes more sense that the NT was written originally in Greek and then copied in Greek.

 

If you read the gospels the Jews were the bad guys.  That is why Christianity has created anti semitism through history.  It probably started innocently enough as Christians not wanting to be mistaken for Jews but promote it to the Word of God and people do silly things with the ideas.

[mymistake]

 

God's justice system demands a life for a life.  Adam and Eve were cursed to go back to the ground they came from.  We are dead to our sins.  The reason for all the OT sacrifices was to point us to that fact.  Because we deserved to die for our sin, an innocent little animal dies in our place.  We are all under the condemnation of death because of our sins.  We all have to face the firing squad, but Jesus pushed us out of the way and said I will die in your place instead.  A perfect sacrifice could only redeem us from the penalty of death, and no animal could do that.  That is why Jesus laid his life down willingly.

 

You know I use to believe that stuff too but if you think about it that is sick and barbaric.  Hurting innocent animals to please the gods - that is right up there with worshiping Zeus and Baal.  Demanding a life for a bite of fruit isn't justice.  Demanding billions of lives be redeemed for two bites of fruit is the opposite of justice.  And punishing a human being, even a willing human being, for religious reasons is totally sick.  The whole thing is silly.  If God made us so that we are robots to sin, so that our nature offends God then it is God's fault and not ours.  It's a house of cards.

 

Instead realize that Christianity is a way for a few scam artists to get a whole lot of money without doing much work.  That is what it always has been.  Why be a tent maker when you can accept cash offerings for God?  The Bible was written so that priests and pastors would get a free ride.

[centauri]

 

God's justice system demands a life for a life.  Adam and Eve were cursed to go back to the ground they came from.  We are dead to our sins.  The reason for all the OT sacrifices was to point us to that fact.  Because we deserved to die for our sin, an innocent little animal dies in our place.  We are all under the condemnation of death because of our sins.  We all have to face the firing squad, but Jesus pushed us out of the way and said I will die in your place instead.  A perfect sacrifice could only redeem us from the penalty of death, and no animal could do that.  That is why Jesus laid his life down willingly.

 

Yes that was preaching.

Animal sin sacrifices in the OT were for unintentional sins.

Sin sacrifices weren't limited to animals but also included things like fine flour.

Intentional sins can be forgiven without an animal sin sacrifice.

The character "Jesus" did not conform to any of the regulations for an animal sin sacrifice, which yields his death as useless for atonement of sin.

[midniterider]

 

You can be an ex-christian and still believe in Jesus.  Some people take serious objections to being called a christian, even though they believe in Jesus.  Do you reject Christianity?  I can't defend that.  The Christian church has strayed very far from its Jewish roots.  Jesus did not come to this earth to begin a new movement called Christianity.  Christianity arose as a result of separating themselves from their Jewish roots.  Do we share the same message of Jesus dying for us?  Yes.  But after that, is a different story.  In the process, Christianity has lost a bunch of stuff from their roots. 

 

So is it Jesus you have an issue with?  Or is it Christianity?

 

 

There isn't much difference between someone who reads the bible and believes in Jesus and someone who calls their self a Christian, cuz well, Christians do the same things and act the same way as the Jesus believers. The other silly thing I hear is "it's not a religion, it's a relationship." Calling it something else doesn't make it something else. You're just making euphemisms.

 

I bet there are some 'progressive' Muslims out there that don't want to be called Muslims, but followers of Allah or Mohammed. And they still read the Koran and do all the same shit that every other Muslim does...but they are 'different' .... they are the chosen few. :-)

 

Anyway, I did the Jesus thing. It was fun at first, but then it sucked later on. I got tired of thinking up Jesus' half of the dialogue. Now, if I decide to split off a chunk of my personality again and have a dialogue with it, it sure as hell won't be Jesus. It will be a cute little piece of ass with no restrictive sexual rules. :-)

[centauri]

 

...Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, but the bible doesn't go into detail.  Although tribal heritage was usually passed through the father's heritage.  Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and Davd, by way of their father's ancestry, not necessarily of their mother's.

Just curious, where in the Bible do you find the genealogy of Mary that shows her being descended from David?

The genealogy in Luke never mentions Mary at all.

In any case, women cannot pass kingships and adoption doesn't meet the requirement for direct blood connection to David and Solomon.

Jewish identity is passed maternally but tribal affiliation is passed paternally.

Jesus had no biological father, which cuts the connection to David.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Okay Fungi (am I pronouncing that correctly?), you believe that god loves us and wants to bless us for a thousand generations or whatever the phrase was, right?  You also seem to believe that you have some new information that we aren't privy to and the fact that you write on another site somehow lends credibility to your case.  With that in mind, I have one question for you:

 

If god is all he's cracked up to be, then why didn't he provide your "information" to some pastor or deacon in each of our churches so that it could be passed on to us before we became ex-christians? 

 

Are you going to try to tell me that he moves in mysterious ways?  Are you going to try to convince me that his ways are higher than our ways?  Oh, please tell me about how god has a plan for everybody and this is just part of his plan to use you as a troll in sheep's clothing to redeem us godless heathens.

 

So far, you've offered meaningless drivel; it's time you brought your big-boy game.

Personal testimony time.

 

Raised to go to church twice on Sunday's and the whole 9 yards, I walked away for almost 20 years.  Doing my own thing, marriage, kids, work, etc with little regard for God other than going onto some sites about being "raptureready" and that sort of thing.  I still believed in God, but hey, wasn't ready to give my heart to the Lord.

 

So after some personal trials, all self imposed, I gave myself to Jesus and became born again almost 2 years ago.  So now that I became born again, what do I do now.  Going on the internet to decide which denomination or church to attend was a nightmare.  Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical, on and on it went.  So I prayed and asked God to lead me in the right direction.

 

My dad became involved with Messianic Judaism about 8-9 years ago, and I looked into it.  Well it just clicked.  The bible started to make sense, Paul's writings started to mesh with the Torah.  And hey, the Sabbath was always supposed to be on Saturday, not Sunday.  God still wanted us to observe Passover and the Feast of Trumpets, not Easter or Christmas.  And God had a name.  It was Yahweh.  The Torah is a fountain of information, and i wanted to share it with fellow Christians.  Well, to say it was well received was an understatement.  Get called names, heretic, etc, etc.  The majority of Christianity doesn't want to study Torah and that is a shame.  So much depth and richness to it.  The love of Torah has been lost.  So why did your pastor or deacon not give you insight into Torah before.  It is because they have rejected it as the model to live our lives, or they don't have the knowledge.  It is a tough pill to swallow when what you have known for all your life, some of what you know is not true.  Most Christians don't want to hear that.

 

So nonetheless, I hear it from Christians, I hear it from Atheists, and I hear it from Jews.  But that's OK, I am getting used to being in the Lion's Den.

 

So the drivel I have brought forward, you have still not analyzed and done any retort to it.  Will you?

 

Whether you disagree with me or not, that is up to you.  I wouldn't mind sticking around, so no, I won't troll and belittle you if you do the same to me.

 

 

The question was "why did god not provide these insights to our pastors?"  Your answer does speak to why our pastors may not have searched out your insights on their own, which I appreciate.  But an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god, like the god of your torah, surely could have done so, if your insights were going to be the trick that kept us believing.

 

It is unfair for you to say that I have not analyzed or retorted to the drivel you have brought forward; I have done, so many times that, to be perfectly honest, I'm tired of doing so.  Granted, I haven't responded to you personally on these matters; but having been a christian for 30 years and an atheist for 10, I've heard just about everything out there.  I've heard it; I've analyzed it; I've gotten down and dirty over it too many times to count.  Besides, there are others here who are far better at the point-by-point debate than I, and I am satisfied to let them take the helm.

 

I hope you will stick around, though you should realize, the doubting thomases you are worried about--well, if jesus is all he's cracked up to be, he ought to be able to bring them back into the fold with or without your efforts.  So relax and enjoy the journey.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

 

Sure.  The bible was originally written in the Hebrew, not English, Mandarin, Greek, etc.  This was the original language and over the last 50 or so years, has brought out amzing insights into the bible, specifically about Jesus

 

 

The Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew.  The Roman scriptures were written in Greek.  They are not from the same religion.

 

They are the same believes.  Christianity has twisted the New Testament into believing the Old Testament was the old wineskin, and now Christianity is the new wineskin.  Nothing is further then the truth. 

 

I believe the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then quickly translated into Greek.  As all the NT writers were Jews, it makes sense the NT was not written in Greek.

 

What?  Why?  No they weren't.. and Paul was a flippin' ROMAN, a GENTILE, he didn't write Hebrew... prove it. Holy cow your ignorance is showing. Why do you think he opened the way for GENTILES?  Oh goodness.

 

If you believe that the OT stands then I've got some news for you... there are 613 commandments, and to be righteous you have to keep  them all... no cherry-picking allowed. This includes Jubilees and all that other fun stuff.. graven images, etc... 

 

Now, please tell me how you plan to stone sorcerers, unruly children and give 'suspected' adulterous wives abortions (might have a hard time finding noxious dust from the temple floor these days though). Tell me how you eshew pork, shellfish and clothing made of mixed fabrics.. and menstruating women, tell me how you atone for sin without a priesthood of Levites and a shitload of lambs and rams and goats and cattle? Do you get your slaves from neighbouring countries? Do you let the poor glean from your fields? Are you a Jew?

 

How about selling your daughters? Or just handing them over to rapists... it's done all the time in the OT.

 

 

Paul was a Roman.. NOT a Jew.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

It was prophecied the Jews would reject Jesus. 

 

Uh no, it wasn't prophesied.  In fact nothing was prophesied about Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

Now Deuteronomy was written about 1500-2000 BC.  But if you don't believe that, we know the Tanakh was translated into Greek about 200 BC.  So there is this prophecy that Israel would be scattered everywhere.  Did that not happen the last 2000 years.  Interesting it was after Israel rejected their Messiah, or Jesus.  Now against all odds, after WWII Israel became a nation again.  That is truly against all logic and possibility, a whole bunch of Jews returning back to the land that was to be their own as God promised then.  Yet their return was again prophecied.

 

That prophesy was probably written by one of Ezra's men.  It was fulfilled by Ezra returning from Babylon.  It has nothing to do with Britain giving refugees land in the Middle East and those refugees picking a name with a lot of baggage.  Modern Israel is a secular democracy, not a Jewish monarchy or theocracy.  There is nothing against logic about creating a nation and choosing a name for it.

 

 

What a huge ginormous coincidence the nation of Israel and the Jewish people being returned back to the land which was essentially uninhabitable for the last 1900 years.

 

Actually the Palestinians lived there that whole time.  It's why they are at war with the nation that started in 1948.  The displaced people think they own the land because their parents and grandparents owned it.

 

 

Another coincidence you won't find in the english bible is the Hebrew year is 5708 which was 1948 when Israel became a nation again.

 

The original Bible didn't have verses.  Yes coincidence is right.

 

 

Jesus laid down his life on his own accord, it wasn't a human sacrifice per say bringing Jesus to the temple and sacrificing him.  The later verses in Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 53 speak to this.

 

Paul created a blood cult.  Paul's theology was washing in the blood.  And Paul made Christ the source of that blood.  Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.  Christ hasn't been invented when Isaiah was written.

 

If you read Isaiah 52 and 53 you will see that the suffering servant is not the Lord and not God.  However certainly this passage along with the Roman Jewish war inspired New Testament writers.

 

Don't know how to quote, but I will do my best.

 

First point about Israel and the Jews rejecting Jesus being prophecied:

 

"The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One,

   To Him whom man despises,

   To Him whom the nation abhors."

   (Isaiah 49:7)

 

Second point about the nation of Israel.  Yes it was lived in, but we could argue about who controlled it.  But even Mark Twain in the 1860's wrote about a desolate country which was Israel, which was prophecied in other places but start in Deuteronomy 29:23 and Israel would be inhabited by its enemies Leviticus 26:31-32

 

 

And yes, the texts didn't have verse numbers until I have no idea when.  But in the 5706 verse of the Masoretic Texts is the return of Israel prophecied in the Hebrew year of 5706.  This wasn't forced.

 

Isaiah 52 and 53 have always been sticking points for Jews.  It just couldn't be him

 

 

Yes but you are using a book that none of us recognize as adequate evidence.  No one knows who wrote the bible, or how many times it was rewritten, edited, and revised.  We do know that the oldest bible ever found dates back to around 400CE and that the gospel according to st. mark is 10,000 words shorter than the current gospel.  That alone should tell you something about the book you keep quoting from.

[mymistake]

 

 

First point about Israel and the Jews rejecting Jesus being prophecied:

 

"The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One,

   To Him whom man despises,

   To Him whom the nation abhors."

   (Isaiah 49:7)

 

 

 

It doesn't say 

"To Yeshua son of Mary whom man despises,

To Yeshua son of Mary whom the nation abhors."

 

It uses vague wording that could be anybody, anybody at all.  And a prophesy that could mean anything isn't a prophesy.

[pawn]

 

 

 

 

First point about Israel and the Jews rejecting Jesus being prophecied:

 

"The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One,

To Him whom man despises,

To Him whom the nation abhors."

(Isaiah 49:7)

 

 

It doesn't say

"To Yeshua son of Mary whom man despises,

To Yeshua son of Mary whom the nation abhors."

 

It uses vague wording that could be anybody, anybody at all. And a prophesy that could mean anything isn't a prophesy.

Yeah, but you are forgetting one critical aspect.....

.... This guy worships the book. So pointing out its flaws and fallacies won't help. You may as well be insulting "YHWH" himself. Since YHWH doesn't really exist outside of the fiction we know as "bible", criticizing the bible is equated with criticizing the Jewish/Christian god.

[chrisstavrous]

 

 

It's what all christians do, bend, distort and force ancient mythological ideas to fit the scientific facts of our day, and they do it without adhering to any scientific method scientists uses today to test their theories.

With all due respect Chris, you haven't disproven what I have proposed.

It was not my aim to disprove you, just to state that all the christians I have met distort the bibles doctrines and mythological ideas to fit in with our current scientific understanding. As for comparing water with the trinity of god, since your using a known scientific fact of water to demonstrate that god and water are comparable in nature, you would still have to classify who and what god is by testing gods components and demonstrating scientifically how in fact the trinity of god and water are the same.