Jesus The false prophet

quote:

---

I would add the Jews to this. I would change it to read -

​

I wonder what would happen if Jews,Christians and Muslims were locked up in a room and not allowed out till they resolve their absolute contradictory messages. It seems reasonable this should be demanded of these two systems, otherwise all their claims must go south.

---

Of course you would say this, but the equalist seeking demand has no substance and admits to only a lost case scenario. One stands out as an anomaly here: The Hebrew bible does not mention the other two, predates them by 2000 and 2500 years and is not a relacement theology attacking other belief systems with a usurping agenda. It is reasonable that if two systems attack another, they at least should first resolve their own contradictions in their claims. Consider how this would unfold when reduced to a legal action in a stolen car case: the judge would order both of you to get your acts together.

quote:

---

The bottom line says, if either one of Christianity or Islam is right - there will be disatser as a result; not so if Judaism is right.

​

I think it would be a disaster if any of them were right. It would mean that all humanity will forever have to live under a totalitarian regime. It will mean that everyone must either bend their knee to a God they may want to deny or be punished.

---

Not so with a closer zoom in. Christianity and Islam have used the chosen factor in the Hebrew bible as a justification of their wrath and deeds against the Jews thoughout their history, justifying robbery as mandated by a lord/allah who winks and nods at them for such crimes. They are aghast this nation has returned - it is an affront to all their beliefs and doctrines. But the Hebrew bible mandates being a light unto others 'by example only' [a light], not by claims all others are unbelievers and a blessing to kill, not via the rake and the sword - two of the most evil forms of chosen there is. The world is facing disaster tomorrow only via two covert forms of chosen which contradict the Hebrew and thereby seeks to negate equal justice for all and inalienable human rights. It's the difference between a system based on magestic laws and two hell bent on NAMES and lawlessness as their only claim to fame. Lets face it - a leap is required here and this is now almost impossible to do - it is akin to jumping off an abyss to resolve what Christianity and Islam have introduced - they are their own worst enemies, but attacking someone else for it.

quote:

---

from the Tenents of Faith -

​

I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, "Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions" (Psalms 33:15).
I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, rewards those who keep His commandments and punishes those that transgress them.

​

Another terrible thought is that the God we would all have to bend our knee to would be a horrible, uncaring, brutal God. He sat back and watched millions and millions of people dill and die for no reason without lifting a finger. And that is just the people who have suffered after the faith began. He would have had to sit back and watch every human who has ever lived prior to the religion forming die without any knowledge of him and with no way of knowing his rules. I would not bow to this god. He is an arsehole. If any of the three monotheistic faiths are proven true, then their god (who is supposed to be all powerful yet has allowed huge amounts of suffering without lifting a finger) is a merciless tyrant. A tyrant who will require our love.

​

That is a disaster for humanity in my book.

---

The truth appears when we step back from ourselves and watch the big picture. Those who commited great crimes are not anymore in the loop: Mighty Rome, history's greatest super ower, is dead and a pint sized Israel lives. Rocket science what that says. There are 1000's of bricks in the wall and Israel is returned - while Europe and Islam are in their final days of chaos driven from within themselves - not even a Zionist plot applies anymore.Christianity and Islam must cease being SUBJECT TO JEWS belief systems as the condition of their belief in God, and accept that Israel's destiny is not in their hands, nor the EU, UN, USA or any other entity but the one who established her. Nor is Israel existing an evil thing. Your own Pope canonised this factor for you that Israel has its own indeoendent mandate unrelated to Christianity and Islam. Instead of clinging to Jerusalem and Hebron, changing historical names of Samaria to WEST BANK and Arab Muslims to Palestinians, why not go and establish sacred places all over the world also?If someone comes to you and speaks in the name of Moses or God, altering their original message with two contradicting reports - you must demand proof by Moses or by God - as did the Jews when confronted with Moses - they demanded direct proof from the Creator - and they got it! Instead, you guys accepted the word of others in far removed third person reports as revelation - and you got slimed with both being mutually contradicted. Understand clearly what this means and who is right according to what all the world knows as right:"ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINS IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER."This is wrong:"ONLY THRUGH ME COMES SALVATION""NO GOD WITHOUT MOHAMMED AS HIS PROPHET"Both say the same thing - both can't be right. Rocket science.Had a Christian or Muslim been a Jew in Judea 2000 years ago, there would not be a remotest chance of accepting what is said in the Gospels or Quran. The stiff necks never did and they have been proven correct. How dare they! Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Did Jesus:Observe the first two commandments from Sinai?Agree a Trinity as one and divine man?Observe the Sabbath?Observe the Passover service - was it recited in Aramaic or Hebrew?Would he even respond to a latin name?Did he confront Rome's heresy decree - how?Why would he attack rowdy money changers performing a God given commandment for 2000 years - but be silent on Roman and Greek concubines and image worship in Jerusalem?OK, he never said anything of himself - we have no writings of Jesus - by Jesus. We do of all other prophets like Moses, David, Solomon, Iasiah, Micah, etc, etc. They have their full names as their authorships [as opposed just 'Mathew']; and we have scientific relics affirming a host of the Hebrew prophets as real historical figures. In contrast, none of the alledged apostles ever met Jesus and none can be proven as real historical figures - not a oner. They are the ones speaking in the name of Jesus, and the entire NT was compiled by Paul - who never met Jesus either and who was a bounty hunter for Rome, who was expelled from Jerusalem for his views - he stormed out in an anxst with a vengence - and the Gospels resulted.So Eurpe accepted the words of those who also wrote the most vile descriptions of Jews and their beliefs, fulfilling away what they also say is sacred stuff. It all boggles the mind - and it became the biggest belief in the world. This applies:THEREFORE YOU SHALL NOT FOLLOW A CORRUPTED MAJORITY.Someone is telling fibs.

IamJoseph, Regardless if any of this is true or not, it in no way makes your religion any better than anyone elses.Even if you could 100% prove that the writers of the OT were real people and if you could prove that many of the non miraculous events in the bible actually happenned, it does not in any way prove that your religion is better than anyone elses or that it is true.

You may just be right. I am certain Christianity and Islam will be the best when they resolve all the contradictions between them and cease quesioning magestic laws - the former is incumbent and the latter a loosing battle. The law sector has been cornered by the people of the book, especially:YOU SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS.

I mean people not regenerated, not born of Holy Spirit, not possessing the revelation that Jesus is the Son of the living God as Peter realized.I mean by "false Christians" men and women not having received justification or redemption or the new birth, who nonetheless nominally identify themselves as Christians.I would not consider a "tare" one who definitely confesses that he is not a follower of Jesus. But the unbeliever who considers himself a "real" disciple of Jesus. "The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field. But while the men slept, HIS ENEMY came a sowed tares in the midst of the wheat and went away.

​

And when the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the tares appeared also. And the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?

​

And he said to them, An enemy has done this." (Matt 13:24b-28a my emphasis)The purpose of the tares is specifically to steal nourishment from the wheat that they wheat not develop. Their planting was of the Devil. They are sometimes impossible to tell apart.But the harvest yields wheat a golden color. The tares darken and become distinctly different looking at maturity, I have read. Praise the Lord that the brotherhood is real and stands. And that because we have the same spiritual and divine life through faith in Christ primarily. And we must hold fast the living Head, the Person of Jesus.But if you do benefit from my posts I want to recommend to you the Recovery Version Bible with it extensive footnotes. Most of the time I am just studying the study notes of my Recovery Version. And they are always healthy and nourishing as well as cutting straight the word of God in convincing accurate expositions.The Holy Bible Recovery VersionNow this thread has suddenly become very active. I want to dedicate some time to Heretic's comments which he brought up to another poster. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Absolutely.Maybe we can fellowship more about that in the near future.
We are told of the deteriating degradation of the kingdom of the heavens in two of the parables of Matthew.That is the parable of the mustard seed which changed its nature and became a huge tree with the evil birds lodging in its branches (Matt. 13:31-32)That is also the parable of the woman mixing leaven with the meal until the whole became leavened (Matt. 13:33)Both of these should be regarded as negative parables teaching of the deteriation of the church in the age before the Lord's second coming.

hERICtic,Some of the problematic points you addressed to Buzsaw I would like to find the time to respond to in my way.I'll try to weed through them and select ones I think I can address.It may require some splicing and pasting. Just don't get posters mixed up.

IamJoseph, Some of this does not even make any sense. You are (mostly) using normal words but they do not actually form a sentence when you string them together. It looks like you are saying Judaism is older then Christianity and Islam so it is exempt from any debate with the other faiths as to its differing doctrines. If that is what you are saying, then I am saying that is bullshit. Just because it is older, it does not make it right. Einsteins theories of relativity came after Newton theory of Gravity, which one was better? Older does not mean better or more true, it just means older. You say that if two systems attack another, they at least should first resolve their own contradictions in their claims. I believe that all three should decide whose version of events is the correct one. Or they could mix at all up making a kind of monotheistic stew. I moved my face closer to the screen as suggested. Your arguement does not change. The rest of the paragraph following that statement makes little sense. It sounds like you are saying the followers of Judaism will not kill people. That is not what I was saying, I am saying that your God will punish people.
This is obvious - From the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith - If you dont do what he (God) says, you will be punished. I have no idea what this refers to. I would doubt that any Muslims or Christians believed their faith wwas subects to Jewish belief systems. I know that you beleive that God promised the state of Isreal to the Jews, but a lot of people beileve that this is bullshit. God didnt promise anything to anyone. If you thought that God promised you a large section of California, how do you think you would go. Is it not convenient that God promised some people a land close by. Would it not have been much nicer for God to promise them some land in an area that is a little less volitile? How about makeing them a nice island in the Medditeranian somewhere?I know why, because a group of people wanted the bit of land they had found. They basically said 'God bagsied this bit for us'.You refer to the pope as "your own pope". I dont have a pope. I am an athiest. I have mentioned this before. I care as much for the current pope as I do for Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. And thats not a lot. If someone came up to me and said they spoke in the name of Jesus or God, I would tell them I am an athiest and they can go peddle their bronze age bullshit elsewhere. This is what I do anytime a religious person comes to my door with a religious message. I would not ask for proof of their words because I am already aware they dont have any.You can stop making it sound like I accept any of the ranting of religious people, including you. I am an athiest. I do not believe there is a God. I accept none of it. The world does not know this is right. There are people in the world who have never even heard this. this is what the Jews believe is right. Noone KNOWS if this is right. Putting the whole sentence in capitals does not make it right. It just makes it look like you are shouting. In your case, this is probably what really happened. I would not be surprised if you were actually shrilly shreiking that phrase as you typed it. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Of course you would say this, but the equalist seeking demand has no substance and admits to only a lost case scenario. One stands out as an anomaly here: The Hebrew bible does not mention the other two, predates them by 2000 and 2500 years and is not a relacement theology attacking other belief systems with a usurping agenda. It is reasonable that if two systems attack another, they at least should first resolve their own contradictions in their claims. Consider how this would unfold when reduced to a legal action in a stolen car case: the judge would order both of you to get your acts together.

​

Some of this does not even make any sense. You are (mostly) using normal words but they do not actually form a sntence when you string them together. It looks like you are saying Judaism is older then Christianity and Islam so it is exempt from any debate with the other faiths as to its differing doctrines. If that what it i saying that is bullshit. Just because it is older, it does not make it right. Einsteins theories of relativity came after Newton theory of Gravity, which one was better? Older does not mean better or more true, it just means older. You say that if two systems attack another, they at least should first resolve their own contradictions in their claims. I believe that all three should decide whose version of events is the correct one. Or they could mix at all up making a kind of monotheistic stew.

---

Its very clear. As in those spot the odd one out exams. Something does not fit in the picture.

quote:

---

I would doubt that any Muslims or Christians believed their faith wwas subects to Jewish belief systems.

---

If you believe that Jews killed your lord [sic] and this has no inescapable shakles to Jews, than we must agree to disagree.

quote:

---

I know that you beleive that God promised the state of Isreal to the Jews, but a lot of people beileve that this is bullshit.

---

A lie by omission is still a lie. The God of Israel anticipated your dementia and also gave you 100% factual, historical, geographical and legal proof for your consideration. You should better explain why a 3-state in the same land is called a 2-state. That is BS math.

quote:

---

God didnt promise anything to anyone. If you thought that God promised you a large section of California, how do you think you would go. Is it not convenient that God promised some people a land close by. Would it not have been much nicer for God to promise them some land in an area that is a little less volitile? How about makeing them a nice island in the Medditeranian somewhere?

​

I know why, because a group of people wanted the bit of land they had found. They basically said 'God bagsied this bit for us'.

---

Your views of history does not connect with this planet. The term "RETURN" applies here with Jews and Israel. Deal with it.

quote:

---

If someone came up to me and said they spoke in the name of Jesus or God, I would tell them I am an athiest and they can go peddle their bronze age bullshit elsewhere. This is what I do anytime a religious person comes to my door with a religious message. I would not ask for proof of their words because I am already aware they dont have any.

---

Atheists are still subject to history and the laws of this planet. Maybe you prefer the Pretend Palestinians as your truth - but any reasonable atheist knows this name was applied on the Jewish homeland of Judea - not any Islamic land. The fundamental things apply.

quote:

---

You can stop making it sound like I accept any of the ranting of religious people, including you. I am an athiest. I do not believe there is a God. I accept none of it.

---

Using the term 'belief' says athesm is just another theological premise with a deity they worship called NATURE. You guys are even more fundamentalst than the Taliban today.

quote:

---

Understand clearly what this means and who is right according to what all the world knows as right:
"ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINS IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER."

​

The world does not know this is right. There are people in the world who have never even heard this. this is what the Jews believe is right. Noone KNOWS if this is right. Putting the whole sentence in capitals does not make it right. It just makes it look like you are shouting. In your case, this is probably what really happened. I would not be surprised if you were actually shrilly shreiking that phrase as you typed it.

---

Of course you are 100% incorrect. Try telling a judge a man must be convicted of murder because his kin commited a crime. Breaking news: this is what Jews are being told by Christianity and Islam. All humans, including atheists, intrinsically know the Hebrew law is right here.It seems you are in auto reject mode in a debating forum.

This is some of my reply to your post to Buzsaw. But you have to be willing to READ IT ALL. .I will try not to be too long winded. The transfiguration is an event not solely experienced by Christ but ALSO by those of His believers who are rewarded for their denying their soul life.Consider: The believers will be LIKE HIM. It is not YET manifested. But it will be. In the second coming Jesus Christ will be marveled at not only from above coming from heaven. He will be marveled at IN THOSE who have believed. He is GLORIFIED not only ABOVE His saints but from WITHIN them. They will enjoy a transfiguration as a reward pending on their denial of the soul life. The INDWELLING Jesus Christ, living in the believers in the church age, is also the hope of glory. Both the moral glory and the visible splendour from within the Christian is a reward for LIVING by Christ.And living by Christ involves enjoying Him now while denying the fallen Adamic soul life of independence from God. We lose our soulish enjoyment of the sinful self in order to enjoy Christ. When He returns the reward for this is to enjoy the transfiguration and the manifestation of the divine life.Christ in the Christian is the hope of glory.Now we come to the scene on the mount of transfiguration. Jesus gave Peter and John and James a preview. The hidden divine splendour was temporarily released from within the shell of his humanity. This was the "majesty" Peter said they were eyewitnesses to.And this splendour will also be a reward to the disciples who in this age, deny themselves to enjoy the Christ living within them.You wrote: Some of those standing by were given the priviledge of witnessing the coming glory that they will share with Christ.Recall Jesus also saying "Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt. 13:43a)This will be the saving of their SOUL. They deny the SOUL to enjoy the Lord in the church age. When He comes again that will be the time for them to enjoy the SOUL in the kingdom. And the transfiguration which Jesus showed them, will also be their reward. " ... the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will TRANSFIGURE the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of His glory, according to His operation by which He is able even to subject all things to Himself." (Phil. 3:20,21) The message of Matthew 16 is that it is far better to deny your soul life now and gain your soul in the end. It is inferior to SAVE your soul life now only to lose it in the end. The reward is concerning His believers. Eternal life is a gift.Splendour and glorification for the millennial kingdom is a REWARD. As a disciple today I do not HAVE to deny my soul if I choose not to. In that case I will still have eternal life but I may miss the REWARD of the 1,000 year kingdom.The Lord's word about reward to the disciples. They are the 'each man" in verse 27. "For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will repay each man according to his doings." (v.27)The "each man" concerns the Christians.
The "doings" concern whether or not they have denied their soul life.The reward includes the transfiguration of the body. And six days latter Jesus allowed three disciples who were standing there in His discourse to get a preview. They SAW the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom.It was a preview of the beauty of the kingdom that He and THEY TOO will enjoy in the future. None died before the six days latter.Peter, James, and John were three disciples who on three occasions the Lord Jesus took them aside to view something important. It was usually something that the other disciples were not privy to observe:1.) The house of Jairus to witness a resurrection from the dead.
2.) The mount of transfiguration for a preview of the kingdom's beauty.
3.) The garden of Gethsemane to witness His passionate prayers. He was refering to His coming in His kingdom. That includes the Second Coming. But it also includes His preview in which Moses and Elijah conversed visibly with the transfigured Christ. I don't know if I follow you here. However, the hope of a glorious transfiguration is one of any precious other promises, which encourage the Christians to cooperate with His plan.Christ wants to saturate and permeate His followers with Himself in their souls. To do this we have to deny the self and enjoy Christ filling up our personality.If we follow on to do this our transformed souls will also enjoy a transfigured body. Christ is in us as the hope of glory.Don't miss all this enjoyment. Receive Jesus within and begin to let Him spread His Spirit into your personality. Don't be hung up on no mentioning of angels in chapter 17.
Moses and Elijah were there.Whether angels were mentioned or not, the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom has a scope which includes His Second Coming as well as His giving some of the disciples a preview. As said before "He will repay each man according to His works" refers to the disciples of Jesus. And the works are the works of denying the soul life in order to enjoy the Lord Jesus.The unbeliever cannot really deny his soul life. If he does he has NOTHING left. The believer who denies his soul life has something leftover - the indwelling life of Christ that has been mingled with his being.To deny your soul life you have to become a follower of Jesus Christ. And once you are a follower of Jesus it is not inevitable that you WILL deny your soul life. Though you cannot put off such self denial forever, you can put it off for your life in the church age.If the disciples does not put off the self denial in order to enjoy the living and available Christ, he or she will be rewarded in the coming millennial kingdom.Transfiguration of the body with the beautiful splendour of the divinity of Christ is one aspect of that reward. Eternal life is a GIFT.
Eternal redemption is a GIFT.These are not the result of work. These are not earned. These are not recompense.But in the millennial kingdom, the transfigured body and the co-rulership with Christ the King are recompense and reward for the work of COOPERATION during the age of grace.You must know the difference between GIFT and RECOMPENSE.
You are confused about the distinction.Matthew 16 concerns RECOMPENSE, REPAYMENT - "The Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will REPAY each man according to his doings."Six days latter "some" got a preview of this recompense. Of course Jesus denied His soul life to follow the Father all throughout His life. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

IamJoseph,Sometimes I read a post by you and think, that one has to be the biggest load of shit I will ever read. Then you manage to surprise me. Spot the odd one out between the three big monotheistic faiths?They all have similarities and differences. None is more the odd one out than the other two. Are you suggesting that out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Judaism is the odd one out because it is older? Perhaps you should rephrase your original comment, the one about Christians and Muslims faith being subject to a Jewsih belief system. Your reply does not really make sense to me so perhaps I misunderstood your original comment. God gave me 100% factual, historical, geographical and legal proof that the he promised the Jews the state of Israel? Can you let me know what this proof is, I must have mis placed it. That is a bit of a surprise really. If God had given me something, I would have thought I would rmember. I know your holy books says that god promised this. But if I write up a will tomorrow and in that will it says my grandfather promised me his fortune, then I give it to my family when he dies, I am sure they are going to take umbrage. Is it not a bit of a lucky coincidence that your favourite holy book promised a bit of land to your favourite group of people? Does anyone elses holy book promise that land to anyone else? What would you do if we found another holy book tomorrow that said that God promised that section of land to Australians. How much credibility would it have? None, because it would be bullshit. Are you saying God did not promise the Jews Israel? (source: Does the Land of Israel belong to the Jewish People ?)Certainly sounds like God promised Israel to the Jews to me. Laws, history and truth are different things. There are no laws that govern the entire planet either. I accept the Palestinians version of the Truth as much as I accept the Jews version. That is to say, none at all. This is assuming we are speaking of Truth, with a capital 'T'. Your comprehension is fucking terrible. I have told you many times that you incorrectly use the word nature. Many people have pointed this out to you. I wrote up a whole post giving you an English lesson for your own benefit so that you would be more able to communitcate. By continueing to use it incorrectly, you only show willfull ignorance. That is the worst kind of ignorance you know. The absolute worst kind.As to the second error in your statement. That using the word belief in a sentence automatically means that the sentence has a theological connotation.Let me break the sentence down for you with brackets to illustrate your error.I do not [believe there is a god].That is different from saying I believe there is no God.The action in the first sentence is to [believe there is a God].You can either [believe there is a God] or not [believe there is a God].Do you see the difference between saying 'I believe there is no God' and 'I do not believe there is a God'The subject being discussed in the sentence is belief in God, you either do, or you do not. It is a positive or a negative. The subject itself is belief. Do you get it now? You said the world. Not what is happening in a court of law. In the real world family members are ill treated because of their kins crimes. This happens all the time. You kill me, my brother kills you, your dad kills my brother, my other brothers burn your fucking house down and kill everyone. Sound familiar. But, even though you want to move the goal posts to try to be right. I will prove you wrong again with regards to the quote applying to law courts.Hebrew law : "ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINS IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER."Here is a US example of parents paying for their childrens crimes.Page not found - National Crime Prevention CouncilAnd it has been proven to be effective.it is also happening in Sweden...Just a moment...Australia...iviewThe United Kingdom...Should parents be punished for their children's crimes?Laws have been introduced in those nation so that parents pay for the crimes of their children.So "All humans, including atheists, intrinsically know the Hebrew law is right here", that is apart from Americans, Swedes, Australians and British people. Is over 400 million people in 4 Western nations on 3 different continents enough? You said that "all humans know the Hebrew law is right". I have provided 400 million humans who dont.I will continue to point out all of the huge and glaring problems with your posts regardless of how little they have to do with the thread you are on.I will finish up with the same comments as you choose to ambush people with your drivel in posts where it does not belong and you do not have the courage to start your own thread to defend your comments.You are an intellectual coward.Your arguements are worthless.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

quote:

---

IamJoseph,
Sometimes I read a post by you and think, that one has to be the biggest load of shit I will ever read. Then you manage to surprise me.

---

Zoom out again and you will see the enormous falsehoods directed at the Jews by European Christianity and Islam. I'm not atheistic but also not religious, so my pursuit is simply for the truth, no matter where it points. I found the greatest distruths emanating from Europe and Muslims: there are billions of humans inculcated with the vilest falsehoods today: Moses was a Muslim, the Jewish temple is a zionist myth, Jews are not Jews, Jews are guilty of occupying their motherland, they murder lords and prophets, control banks and the media, drink children's blood, they are apartheiders and genociders, cause AIDS & Tsunamies, etc, etc. Wow - such powers beats even Superman and Spiderman. So let's put the term BS in some perspective here and where it comes from. I find the Hebrew writings the most credible and honest among the three religions - by a margin which is varied in kind and degree.

quote:

---

Spot the odd one out between the three big monotheistic faiths?

---

I already responded to this. Two are attacking Judaism, each claiming ownership while also obsessed in negating the Hebrew bible, its only relevence being if it can be connected to the Gospels - as if! What is more grotesque than accusing someone of killing their lord - and what is the proof of any Jew being killed by Jews - we need two credible witnesses else the charge gets reversed - that's Hebrew and International law? Turn left and you have Muslims charging Jews killed the prohet Jesus - because they cannot accept divine man, but they still have no proof Jews killed or conspired such a thing. To think that Jews in Judea could impress Rome, is like Jews impressing the Nazis in W.W.II. Both charges are obscene and billions of humans cherish these lies as sacred. There are 55 Jewish prophets and they are all cherished and revered - why would they kill a Messiah when death is at the door? Your not an honest atheist.

quote:

---

They all have similarities and differences. None is more the odd one out than the other two. Are you suggesting that out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Judaism is the odd one out because it is older?

---

You will fail this test.

quote:

---

my comment - I would doubt that any Muslims or Christians believed their faith was subect to Jewish belief systems.
your reply - If you believe that Jews killed your lord [sic] and this has no inescapable shakles to Jews, than we must agree to disagree.

​

Perhaps you should rephrase your original comment, the one about Christians and Muslims faith being subject to a Jewsih belief system. Your reply does not really make sense to me so perhaps I misunderstood your original comment.

---

It makes perfect credible sense. Take out Judas and Isaac from the Gospels and quran and what have you got - both fall down? The Hebrew bible is a book of laws - there are no laws in the Gospels or Quran.

quote:

---

If you thought that God promised you a large section of California, how do you think you would go. Is it not convenient that God promised some people a land close by.

---

Whoah there! The difference in Europeans invading California and the Jews in Israel is this: "RETURN". Europeans did not "RETURN" to California. My history lessons say the Jews have never occupied/stolen another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history - despite being exiled throughout the nations. In fact occupying even a cubit of another peoples' land is firbidden in the Hebrew bible - you could not beg of Jews to occupy Califoria! I know there are many honest Christians around who know I am giving you a truthful account. Your 'God gave you this land' is used with wrong pespectives, it appears intentionally: who asked Muslims to dump a Mosque in Jerusalem and in India - they at all times knew these were not their lands?.Christians remain silent of this most unGodly violation of another peoples rights because they erected a church here first [FK the Jews!] - and Islam destroyed the church and dumped a huge mosque there. I don't hear you fussed by it - even that they did this claiming their lord and allah said so? So you point to some things which are clearly false, while omitting all truthful and impacting factors. Why is that - as an atheist you have to at least be honest about your views? Most atheists I found are even more honest than religionists.

quote:

---

Would it not have been much nicer for God to promise them some land in an area that is a little less volitile? How about makeing them a nice island in the Medditeranian somewhere? I know why, because a group of people wanted the bit of land they had found. They basically said 'God bagsied this bit for us'.
your reply - Your views of history does not connect with this planet. The term "RETURN" applies here with Jews and Israel. Deal with it.

---

There we go again. Jews must not have their homeland where they were created and incepted! FYI - Jews predate both Islam and Arabs in Arabia, as do the Copts and the Kurds. The Islamic regimes are new - most never existed 100 years ago, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, all the Gulf states, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, etc - these states have fictional borders based on oil deposits. Jews have documented proof of their land backed by scientficaly verifiable relics and ancient writings from a host of nations. The Middle-east is not Islamic!

quote:

---

Are you saying God did not promise the Jews Israel?

---

You are trying to be provocative to cause a redicule of manifest truths and facts of history. Better you admit whether Jews have historical, legal and factually rights - you don't believe in God, remember?

quote:

---

"The Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'To your descendants I will give this Land'" (Genesis 12:7). God further said to Abraham: "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Genesis 17:7-8)
and

​

Years later the Lord God appeared to Isaac and said, "to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. And I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and will give your descendants all these lands

​

and

​

"The Lord said to Abram after Lot had separated from him, 'Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever... Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you'" (Genesis 13:14-17). "The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this Land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates'" (Genesis 15:18-21). "I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates" (Exodus 23:31).

​

another comment, not scripture from that page -

​

Therefore we must conclude that the entire Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank"), Gaza, the Golan Heights, and all of Jerusalem, was given by the God of Israel to the people of Israel in perpetuity. We, and we alone, have been given the title to the Land of Israel as a permanent inheritance by the Lord. No human government or coalition of governments has the right or authority to cede portions of the Land of Israel to anyone else.

​

(source: Does the Land of Israel belong to the Jewish People ?)

​

Certainly sounds like God promised Israel to the Jews to me.

---

Is Hebron the birthplace of Judaism? Who established and built Jerusalem? Why did the UN recognise the 'HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS OF THE JEWS WITH PALESTINE'? Was there a sovereign country called Israel 3000 years ago? Was Israel legally established via the UN and all nations voting in the Motion?

quote:

---

my comment - If someone came up to me and said they spoke in the name of Jesus or God, I would tell them I am an athiest and they can go peddle their bronze age bullshit elsewhere. This is what I do anytime a religious person comes to my door with a religious message. I would not ask for proof of their words because I am already aware they dont have any.

---

I doubt it. You would be burnt at the stake. Europeans never had any choice about becoming Christians. Read up on the church rule the first 1000 years of Christianity. Read up what was done to the natives of invaded lands who refused to become Christian or Muslim? You wouldn't stand a chance as an athiest with Islam either.

quote:

---

your reply - Atheists are still subject to history and the laws of this planet. Maybe you prefer the Pretend Palestinians as your truth - but any reasonable atheist knows this name was applied on the Jewish homeland of Judea - not any Islamic land. The fundamental things apply.

​

Laws, history and truth are different things. There are no laws that govern the entire planet either.

---

Laws do govern thisnplanet, and not all laws are globally accepted. But the Hebrew laws are so; those who do not accept it are outside the law. I won't play with words.

quote:

---

I accept the Palestinians version of the Truth as much as I accept the Jews version. That is to say, none at all. This is assuming we are speaking of Truth, with a capital 'T'.

---

Muslim Palestinians is a hoax. Please produce one before Arafat emerged? A Muslim Palestinian national anthem, a flag, a coin, an independence day - anything at all? Those who call Muslims as Palestinians are also supporting genocide of the Jews. At least the Nazis were honest about it.

So let me understand this. You will completely ignore the fact Jesus states that those standing in front of him, some disciples shall be alive, some shall be dead (of those standing right in front of him) when they see the "son of man coming in his kingdom" and will stick with the Transfiguration although it completely contradicts this premise? Ok, fair enough. "This generation" refers to the one they are presently in. Jesus is comparing it to other ones. You didnt address the issue I presented in most of your replies "This generation" is used quite a few times in scripture. Not once is "this generation" used for anything other than the time frame they are in. Not once. You presented scripture that does not use "this generation" instead.Also, lets look at the context of Matthew 23 and 24. Whom is Jesus speaking to? Be honest here. Is he talking to you, today or those standing in front of him? It most certainly does refer to his return.For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matt 16:27Does this sound like the return of Jesus? Yes or no? Why or why not?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew 10: 9 Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.Whom is Jesus speaking to? When are "they" suppose to do what Jesus asks?

Where do you read that some standing there will die ? All I read there is - "Truly I say to you, There are some of those standing here who shall by no means taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (v.27) Were Peter, James, and John among that some? Yes.
Did Peter, James, and John taste death before what Jesus showed them. No? Good enough.I don't need to ask "But who died?". They were IN a moral generation in which people reject the one sent by God for this reason and for that reason and are never satisfied, ie. John was a madman eating locusts and honey. We can't trust him. Jesus is a glutton eating feasts with tax collectors and harlots. We can't trust Him either.This excuse making generation - "damned if you do, damned if you don't" continues today.Ie. Skeptical unbelievers complain:"The New Testament teaching is TOO old. People were ignorant then" is the excuse from one side. Then from the other side "The teaching is NOT OLD ENOUGH. They probably copycated it from much older Egyptian dying and rising gods."God's message for their salvation is rejected one basis and rejected the opposite basis too. These rationals are evil excuses.The evil excuse making generation is still with us.
The evil moral "generation" continues even though that audience has died. The "timeframe" sometimes means as long as that moral condition exists at large. That's what you don't get. It refers to His coming in His kingdom. That includes what they witnessed six days latter as well as the Second Coming whenever that is to be. It sounds like the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom. It includes the preview as a foretaste to be demonstrated to some of the disciples and the full taste at the Second Coming. That is another passage. We were discussing Matthew 16. And the passage you REALLY need to help you grasp it is Second Peter 1:16,17. This proves that what appeared six days latter was truly the coming of the kingdom of the Son of Man. "Shall in no wise taste of death, till they see" - These words are spoken by the Lord because these three disciples are to see the manifestation of the kingdom glory beforehand.Now in a separate passage in Matthew 24 we have the matter of a "generation" which shall not pass away until the events of the great tribulation and the second coming of Christ are to come to pass.I said that the generation which shall not pass away should be understood as a generation characterized by moral condition. For proof of this I present the entire previous chapter 23.The seven woes of indictment (Matt. 23:13-36) help lay the ground work for characterizing the generation that will remain until the end of the age.Matthew 12 is the chapter using the phrase "this generation" the most. Three times it refers to leaders who refused to believe that Jesus was "the Son of David" (Messiah).The chonological factor is important since those alive witnessed Christ's ministry. They will receive stricter judgment at the end of the age. However, others chronologically alive are [ not included] in the condemnation of the "evil generation" - "This is the way it will also be with THIS EVIL GENERATION" (Matt. 12:41-45)Since some chonologically alive were believers in Jesus, they could not be included in the moral denunciation of "this evil generation".The generation there is characterized by a moral condition not shared by ALL who are chronologically contemporaries. "An adulterous and evil generation seeks after a sign" (Matt 16:4a) . But latter Paul wrote that \[b\]" ... indeed the Jews ask for signs, and the Greek seek wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:22,23). The one sign offered by God was still a major issue. The sign seeking of unbelieving Jews still present as a moral condition.The "generation" of Matthew 21:34 is better understood as a moral generation as I have explained. The major characteristic of it is the rejection of the Messiah in Jesus by the leaders of Israel and the national refusal to accept Him as the Messiah.Luke 9:40-45 also shows "generation" in a morally perjoritive sense. "O unbelieving and perverted generation". The unbelieving disciples are sharing in that unbelieving disciples:The failure of the disciples to cast out the demon causes Jesus to link His own disciples with the "unbelieving and perverted generation". However the disciples did not remain with that generation characterized with unbelief. They became believers in Christ.Chronologically they were contemporaries with the unbelievers. But morally, spiritually they were no longer of that generation through their acceptance of Christ after His resurrection. The "unbelieving ... generation" is one that does not perceive the nature of Christ's Person and mission.The generation of Matthew 23:34-36 is moral because it chonologically spans from the murder of Abel to the murder of Zechariah, the son of Beechiah. The condemnation transcends chronological limitations. Not only does Jesus refer to future messengers He will send whom the leaders of Israel will reject. He includes the Jewish leadership in the guilt of all who before them, persecuted those sent by God.The issue therefore was not strictly chronological. The current judges epitomize the moral wickedness of rejecting God's prophets. All those involved in the rejection of those whom God sent, past, present, and future are included in "this generation" .The phrase is therefore used qualitatively sometimes rather than chronologically. Mark 8:38 - "For whoever us ashamed of Me and My words IN THIS ADULTEROUS AND SINFUL GENERATION, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Here Jesus did not say "generations" plural. From the time of His earthly ministry the warning applies to everyone of all chronological spans who are ashamed of Him and His words. Luke 9:26 makes the warning universal: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words, of this one will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His gloy and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." .We should understand "this ... generation" to be qualitative rather than chronological. "SOME STANDING HERE WHO SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH ..."We come now to Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16:28. Here it is right to understand a chronological limitation in the words "there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God having come in power. (Mark 9:1 comp Matt. 16:28)Here a chronological limit is certainly to be understood. But we have to notice what wording Jesus uses in what situation.He says "some of those standing here" not in Matthew 24:34 but in Matt. 16:28. He does not use the phrase "this generation" in Matthew 16:28 in either regard.It is puzzling why some skeptics do not notice that immediately following the prediction we read the record of the transfiguration. It is perculiar that they do not grasp the significance of the words "AND AFTER SIX DAYS ..." .Is it just coincidence that Matthew deems it important to tell us that "AND AFTER SIX DAYS" from this promise to some standing around, the transfiguration was witnessed by Peter, James, and John ?A "generation" characterized by a moral condition can also be seen in Peter's words in his message in Acts: "And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation!" (Acts 2:40) We should not construe Peter's words to mean "Be saved from all Jewish people now alive."The perverse generation was mainly characterized by the Jewish leadersship who had rejected and crucified the Messiah. All those who believed in Peter's gospel, though chronologically still present, were indeed saved from that perverse generation.This discussion should not be misunderstood to be anti-Semitic.
The only purpose is to prove that "generation" is sometimes not related to chronology but moral characteristic.For length's sake I will stop here.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The bad typo I corrected wrongly above should read This concerns an evil generation of which the believing disciples could not be thought of as a part of for moral reasons, though they are chronologically present. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.