Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

My error, you are correct, and thanks. I should have said OT.The point of referring to this verse, was to show that one can see that the One-ness factor was a very genuine and fulcrum 2000 year belief in Judaism. This is a very long period, which also saw numerous existential wars to uphold it. The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here, when christianity emerged. What I feel occured, was that one group of peoples were compelled to see what the other could not - and vice versa.Equally, one can see a compulsion which was also very genuine with the christian group. I choose to see this occurence as alligning with the prophesy to Abraham, concerning many nations - rather than which group was a dis-believer in God, or which group went astray. This disolves the requirement of exclusivity factors, which is a wrong conclusion. This acts like a test unto humanity - to see how they will incline thenselves, thereby exposing a wanting trait.It is better that humanity agrees to follow a path which is free of wanting salvation by extricating themselves from others, all on the premise of which group they were born in or prefer. It is better to forego 90% of salvation to spread it round - this I see as a test factor, and again it is derived from Abraham - namely his brave striving with heaven to save Sodom, the most evil of cities. This requires much metle, and is usually not regarded with the intensity of meaning behind Abraham's deliberations. It means we must reject/refuse a Messiah who demands or advocates recognising any one belief - and opt for individual merits only. This gives it a realistic sense of proportion what it means - and is a most burdensome premise. Its analogy is having a well of water and not allowing another who thirsts to share it. These choices may be the wrong ones.

Totally, sincerely, genuinely - it makes no sense whatsoever. But I respect your belief all the same.

quote:

---

I am not sure what you mean by "One-ness factor". I think you are refering to monotheism. A "fulcrum" belief for 2000 years ? I guess you mean that for 2000 years there was a belief in monotheism.

---

The ONE GOD [Monotheism] differential was the fulcrum reason christianity was split from its mother religion - the trinity and human divinity was not accepted. The OT version of monotheism was followed for 2000 years previously when christianity emerged.

quote:

---

"Existential wars?" What is that ? What is an existential war ?

---

On the heels of christianity Israel had an existential war with Rome - the reason was Roman divine emperors and the charge of heresy decreed by Rome. Over a million Judeans perished, Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled to the European continent. Previously, the same wars occured with Greece [hellenism], babylon, ancient Egypt. Monotheism is a dangerous profession.

quote:

---

The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here,

​

What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?

---

No, at that time there was no issue of disbelievers. This occured when critianity and islam emerged - both accused others of being dis-believers. I say, exactly the reverse applies: there has never been a greater show of defence of a faith than with the war between Rome and the Jews. This was Rome's greatest war - by period of time, human toll and destruction. 1.1M, 2000 years ago, equals some 12 M today. The omission of this event is lacking in the NT, which IMHO is a grave error, and may be seen as a lie-by-omission.

quote:

---

What are the boundaries of the dates ? What do you mean can apply or cannot apply ??

​

What is it for it to apply ? How does it apply when it does ?

---

One simply cannot call Jews dis-believers. It is very presumptious - one must ask compared to whom and which measuring rod?

quote:

---

when christianity emerged. What I feel occured, was that one group of peoples were compelled to see what the other could not - and vice versa.

​

I am not sure what you mean here. It sounds like you mean that polytheists could not get monotheist to see thier view and vice versea.

---

Its quite obvious. Both believed what they believed genuinely - yet not in the same thing and same way. Thus one saw what they other did not - and vice versa. The other view only inclines to ego, belief and religious politicking.

quote:

---

A proper presentation of the Triun God is monotheistic.

---

Only with christianity - but which I see as a genuine belief, which is blatant and obvious. But of the three M/E religions - christianity does come out out-voted by 2:1. The mysterious aspect of this scenario is how it transpired: a christian has no choice to re-consider this premise, as it would fell the entire belief itself.

quote:

---

On the other side of the extreme of improper theology about the nature of God in the Bible is Modalism. Modalism would admit Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however only One of Each can be in existence at one time. The three are in successive modes which makes the simultaneous and concurrent existence of the Threee of the Trinity impossible. Modalism is also a heresy because that Bible surely shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-existent and co-inherent. They live within one another and are in existence at the same time essentially.

---

No - that still inclines with NT scenarios. The other side is Judaism and islam's version of ONE God, a very pristine and non-pliable kind.

quote:

---

The best and most biblical presentation of the nature of God in Christian theology is monotheistic. On either side of an improper presentation of God's nature is Tritheism on one side of the extreme and Modalism on the other side of the extreme.

---

I have read Jewish renderings of NT versions of monotheism, and it does sanction monotheism to it - but only just. I myself see it as a genuine beleif and Godly inclined - but I do see an over indulgence or exclusive focus on the son. If it's monotheism was really deep - it would long ago have evolved to ONE - the father. This has to happen and there is no alternative to it - but I guess its a slow process.

quote:

---

There is only one God. He is essentially three-one. And in the unfolding of His operation, His economy (meaning household management or household dispensation) He, shall we say, three in operation?

​

A thorough presentation of the Triune God is beyond the scope of this single post.

​

Equally, one can see a compulsion which was also very genuine with the christian group.

---

I accept it is based on a deeper understanding than can be made here, because I accept christian belef is genuine and Gdly inclined. It is amazing - a way was given to afford the west a pathway which they can vouch for mathematically and logically as monotheism, but which was and is a blasphemy for judaism and islam - because on previous instances - greece and rome failed this test. Thus a compromise occured, and appears heavenly sanctioned.

quote:

---

There are many mysterious passages about God which are in the Old Testament. For example "Let Us make man in Our image ..." cannot be called an invention of Christians by any stretch of the imagination. That is the Hebrew Bible speaking.

---

True, when I extend myself to see it from your POV. Its other side is it may be a testing to the OT adherants for more deliberation with the texts - and this was done, without arriving at the same conclusion. The OT is an intergrated work - and a conclusion made with one verse cannot contradict another verse elsewhere. What such verses tell me also, is this document has never been intentionally tampered with, and its autheticity preserved. This appears credible, because any tamperings would have first and foremost applied to all the negative stuff about Israel's failings - which is retained all the way.

quote:

---

I don't know about "compulsion" but if anyone wanted to embrace ALL that the Bible has to say about God he or she would have to embrace this mysterious passage. And there are a number like it all in the Old Testament.

---

It is not myserious when deliberated. Humans were created last - all other life forms, including heavenly beings - already existed at this point. But the action of creation is in the singular of that same verse. If you are trying to say, this action was resultant of a trinity - then it is a point of differences.

quote:

---

The verses are not there because of "compulsions" on the part of New Testament beleivers. The passages were there in the word of God before Christians existed.

---

I see it as a compulsion. A sudden one, because this attempt failed earlier numerously. The Hellenists made a proposal to Israel after Alexander died - that Moses be made a universal figure and both religions become enjoined. But this sublime premise fell when the greeks also wanted the images of Zeus and Hahweh enjoined; and that numerous OT laws be made obsolete. The greeks never forgave the jews for this rejection. Then came Paul - and he did have a waiting audience - at least, this is a logical possibility when the history of this space time is factored in.

quote:

---

I choose to see this occurence as alligning with the prophesy to Abraham, concerning many nations - rather than which group was a dis-believer in God, or which group went astray. This disolves the requirement of exclusivity factors, which is a wrong conclusion. This acts like a test unto humanity - to see how they will incline thenselves, thereby exposing a wanting trait.

​

It is not easy to follow your thinking here and its connection with what is written above.

---

I guess you have to zoom out and see a big picture here. Abraham's prophesy was that many religions would come from him - and this is vindicated. And it posits a contradiction for any religion saying it is the only exclusive path.

quote:

---

The ONE GOD [Monotheism] differential was the fulcrum reason christianity was split from its mother religion - the trinity and human divinity was not accepted. The OT version of monotheism was followed for 2000 years previously when christianity emerged.

​

It may be true that the Chirstian church split off from the mother religion of Judiasm. I would not argue that.

​

However, it is the prophet Isaiah of the the Hebrew Scriptures who predicts that the "child ... born" shall be called "Mighty God". It is Isaiah of the Hebrew Bible that predicts the "Son ... given" ... shall be called "Eternal Father". Refer to Isaiah 9:6.

---

I am surprised that in this forum there appears many well read participants, but still these known errors are still held. The Isaiah reference has now been agreed by all christian scholars as a misrep of the said passages, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT views. Aside from this error, one will see it blatant that almost every verse in Isaiah is in polar contradiction of the NT. The situation is that while no one can claim any means of belief as the only right one - the NT has to stand on its own. Isaiah was talking in past tense, and there is no reference there of words later translated by some christians, which began to spread via sermons only recently - some 200 to 300 years ago. isaoah, nor jeremia or any prophet before christianity, made no reference to a divine human at any time; all their writings contradict this premise. Yet christianty floourished int the world's most powerful religion. This factor is the stand-out here, as opposed any allignment by Prophetic writings: Christianity flourished despite the contradictions with Judaism.

quote:

---

The foundational passages for the "split" were ALREADY THERE in Judiasm's Bible which we Christians ALSO believe is the word of God.

---

Yes I agree, also that christian belief is 100% genuine and the same God inclined. It is also srange, although there is a closer tie between Judaism and islam via factors of fulcrum belief - it is closer with christianity - even as the core variance here is irreconsiable - these are not my personal pov's but factual occurences. I think the moral/ethical laws' commonalities does this, and from this we see that morality only has merit when it is preceded by laws of ethicalities. An enforced morality, eg of women's attire, does not become credible when it is enforced and without ethical rights as its precedent.The situation between judaism and christianity is not that these two belief systems agree with each other's core beliefs - but that they were inclined differently by a manifest premise. There have been numerous existential wars precedding christianity - the only variance being the NT posits that the differential is somehow condoned by a different understanding of the texts - namely that a divine roman emeror or pharoah was not divine but one Jew was. It is of course very strange what has occured here - in the very space-time when jews looked for a savior who never came - a branch from its own went out and said one did arrive - thus its credence has no other alternative but for the NT to say jews were un-believers or blind, etc. I see it differently - no one was an unbeliever or blind whatsoever - a mysterious compulsion occured, and had this not occured, christianity would never have taken off - it defied every logic imaginable. While a christian can say otherwise - it is pointless to negate the truth as Judaism holds it as well. There is no error or lack of credence in Judaism w/o the Jesus factor - the NT has to stand on its own independent premise, and it does that. Christians would not care if any proof was available its premise is wrong - this affirms the mysterious compulsion here. If the latter did not occur - the Abraham prophesy of many religions would not have occured; if Israel was not defeated by Mighty Rome, both christianity and islam would not occur: the temple would be still standing, no middle-east conflict would exist, Jews would not have been exiled to Europe, there would be no mosque on the temple site today. This makes this war a pivotal, history turning event.

quote:

---

To my asking you what you meant by an "existential war" you wrote:

​

On the heels of christianity Israel had an existential war with Rome - the reason was the decree of Roman divine emperors and the charge of heresy decreed by Rome. Over a million Judeans perished, Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled to the European continent. Previously, the same wars occured with Greece [hellenism], babylon, ancient Egypt. Monotheism is a dangerous profession.

​

Did you answer my question of what an "existential war" was ?

---

Of coz!? The war with Rome and the Jews was perhaps the most manifest existential war in history - greater than the holocaust or the atomic bombing of Japan, and by all logic Israel should not still be around. The reverse occured - Mighty Rome is not around, rendering the return of Israel the greatest open miracle the last 2000 years - a factual and open one, as opposed one of belief. Also, how and when this return occured is extra-ordinary, on the heels of the holocaust, when all nations shut their doors to Jews [including USA, UK & Australia], and while Europe's chimneys still fumed, and the arabs were hell-bent on its un-doing.

quote:

---

Me:

​

The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here,
What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?

---

The NT is pervasive with the inference jews were un-believers and rejecters - but when one sees it w/o bias and logically, the jews were only doing what they did for 2000 years, as illustrated by her existential wars to affirm its own version of Monotheism. This is best highlighted with the war with Rome - how can one be an un-believer while also sacrificing 1.1 million, its nation and everything, in refusing to worship the image of Ceasar in the temple? Clearly, this charge by the church and NT is w/o any credibility whatsoever. Better, a myterious thing occured here, else no christian would hold the notion of the jews being un-believers. The Vatican finally made canon changings Judaism has an independent covenant, which does not bind them with 'no salvation but through jesus'. It took a long time for the Pope to say so, after millions of innocent lives perished. It would be nice if muslims also said that - but this is clearly not in the horizon.

quote:

---

You:

​

No, at that time there was no issue of disbelievers. This occured when critianity and islam emerged

​

The Islamic religion came some four centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the Christian church.

​

Islam's opposition to the Gospel of Jesus is as intense as its opposition to Judiasm. In fact it is probably more concerned with proclaiming that God never had and never will have a Son.

​

The rest of Islame is pretty much inventing another Moses figure who is Arab rather than Jewish with another set of divine laws.

​

Islam's strigent opposition to the idea of a Triune God Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should cause you to link Islam together with Judiams much more readily than linking Islam together with Christianity.

​

Mohammed thought any teaching that God has a Son or sons is a violation of monotheism. So your trying to lump Islam with Christianity is artificial and I think not intellectually accurate as far as the one god verses many gods dispute is concerned.

​

You like to make the link. You are fond of the link. But in this case you don't have a good reason for the link. If you want to make a argument about unorthodox views about god verses gods you should be linking Islam and Judiasm togther over against the Christian Gospel.

---

I am not making a link. Islam did not say what you allocate it - this was first and foremost a factor in Judaism. I mentioned Islam to indicate there were others in the same space-time which did not agree with the NT. In fact, Islam condones the imaculate birth - Judaism does not even do that. There is a puzzle here, and it is clearly a taunting one for all three religions: christianity is closer with Judaism than islam with regard moral and ethicl laws [Freedom of speech, liberty, equal rights, democrasy, etc], while being in polar opposite in core belief; Judaism is closer with islam in the core belief - but far apart on all moral/ethical premises. What does this mean? The reason Israel is singularly villified today, is that 5 Billion believers would be proven wrong if Judaism is right: here, if a divine human and imac birth is not correct or true, both christianity and islam fall in one stroke - this factor underlies all the politics.

quote:

---

- both accused others of being dis-believers. I say, exactly the reverse applies: there has never been a greater show of defence of a faith than with the war between Rome and the Jews. This was Rome's greatest war - by period of time, human toll and destruction. 1.1M, 2000 years ago, equals some 12 M today. The omission of this event is lacking in the NT, which IMHO is a grave error, and may be seen as a lie-by-omission.

​

I have no comment on this because you still have not defined what an "existential war" is.

---

Maybe you should give another example of it - I already gave you what is a blatant and historical example. I also said, it was a great error and an unacceptable one, that this factor has not been mentioned in the gospels or in christian teachings.

quote:

---

And your repeated reference to how many people died is a good emotional appeal to the indecency of war. I don't see how or why you always force these statistics into this discussion on Bible interpretations of passages in Genesis.

---

This is not about a normal war, and remains the most potent example of true beliefs. Its about:WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.This showed the world that jews are believers in a most unconfusing way. That you are not aware of this, says you have not been told it in sermons. Why is that? There is a clear lack of credibility here, when we see films like Passion [not a frame of historicity here], and the total disregard of the greatest show of faith against Rome's divine emperor.

quote:

---

It is as if I were to repeatedly refer to the numbers of people who died in the slave trade either being transported from Africa or while slaves in America. Or it is like me refering again and againt to the horrendous number of young French boys who died in World War One. France nearly lost all her young marriagable men in that war.

---

You are totally out of whck here. Slave trade occured for 1000s of years before and after christianity emerged - but it had nothing to do with what the slaves believed. They were not enslaved because they refused to worship ceasar's image. jews held prominant places in both Roman and Greek establishments, and would have been a prime ally of rome had she only agreed to place a Roman Eperor's statue even in the temple's outer courts, as a compromise offered by Rome - not to shame Rome and create other nations following suit. Israel said no, and was the only nation which refused and challenged Rome in this factor - even while an assured and toal destruction was the price factor. No nation or so-called believers emulated Israel here any place. This is very clearly documented in Flavius Josephus and Roman archives; it is factual as opposed a belief story. So we have a contradictory premise of belief and un-believers here.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

On your say so accept Isaiah 9:6 as not refering to the Messiah to come? Not a chance. Not a chance at all.

---

I don't see anything which you seem to attach to this verse [unless you gave wrong refs]:

quote:

---

Isaiah 9/6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. {P}

---

I know there are words such as son, and maiden [wrongly translated as virgin], but those verses are vested in the 'past' tense, and are clearly connected with historically evidenced events in that time: a host of prominant christian scholars have now acknowledged this error - why should you dspute it? Christianity can well prevail without having to rely on what may not be correct.I think an honest disagreement beats a dishonest agreement - and there are heaps of other verses in isaiah which are disregarded - the real reason I even debate the issue. It is ok to disagree - as long as it is a justifiable and credible disagreement, and this says, one must not be selective. I have no other reason to dispute it - its not like I want to offend you.This is the final verse Isaiah culminated his writings - what do you make of it?

quote:

---

21 And of them also will I take for the priests and for the Levites, saith the LORD. 22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the LORD.

---

Yes, I posted 9/6 in my last post, so why are we not on the same page? It has no connection with the NT - except that christians also cherish these exquisite writings as divinely inspired.Like the OT is for Judaism, the NT is best seen that way for christians also, namely, these are bridges for elevation. This means, ultimately, all the revered ones will be pointers, and they will stand down with the rest of humanity and harken to the Father/One God. The issue of the son or any other agent will be replaced and corrected, but with no loss or demeaning to the sincere seekers whatsoever, and no amount of manourverings will allow or require any equivalencing with the ONE. Son does not transcend father, nor are these two on one equal plane - ultimately. When the agent transcends the message, it goes into paganism, a goodly intended wrong path.You will see that both Judaism and Islam beget their vindication from Monotheism and ONE God. The NT depends on all its merit on the OT - without which it would become part of hellinism, a syndrome which takes a very long time to discard. All other belief systems also will arrive to Monotheism eventually. But in its due time. In the interim, none have immunity of special merit outside of their deeds and actions. A bad christian, for example, is not saved before a good hindu - this is the basis of the OT laws.Thus was Moses commanded to stand down with the people. This allows no immunity to anyone else, and is a good and correct advocation. Christianity will ultimately see this light.

The word virgin is wrongly translated. And son does not point to the NT premise: if you look with honest and unbiased lens, you will find 1000s of verses which negate this premise in a non-confusing mode.

quote:

---

At best all you can do is show that the word can take on OTHER meanings. You cannot prove that it can never mean "virgin".

---

Your wrong, hanging on to incorrect teachings made w/o proper knowledge of the Hebrew. But many christian scholars have agreed that 'all' of the Isaiah translations as slanting to a NT setting were incorrect. Anyway, a belief becomes a force of its own, and it is not debatable by reasonings.My point to you was, the first and foremost understanding of Isaiah is of his religion, nation and people, and a Godly incline in strict keeping of the OT and Mosaic laws; this means there is really no understsnding of his writings's actual texts or that it is not important to you - not in your radar. Reading all your posts makes it sound aside from inclining to the Gospels and Jesus - Isaiah has nothing to say.The problem of analysing a text from such a belief premise, in contrast to what the texts is saying, has to also deal with Islam which says Mohammed knew Adam and born before him too. I cannot see how that is irrelevent, unless you agreed that a manifest historical rendition of identifiable narratives must at all times transcend a belief. Else there is no such thing as truth anymore - it becomes subject to whatever one wants to read of it, while ignoring all it is saying.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And that dispute is about Isaiah 7:14 rather than 9:6.

---

I know the verse. I also know it is preambled with historical and contemporary characters, making it's inclining with the NT without any basis. Read all the preceding and follow-up verses.

quote:

---

Isaiah Chapter 7
1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. 2 And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.' And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind. {S} 3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah: 'Go forth

​

14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

---

The word son also appears in v 4:

quote:

---

now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field; 4 and say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Aram hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying: 6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel; {P}

---

quote:

---

I take then that 7:14 had some contemorary significance to its audience. But a mightier and more transcendent application God reserved for it latter.

---

This also fosters the situation disregardimg the primary text, and it becomes a religious debate, as opposed anaylsing what the text says in prima facie. As I mentioned, we have also other scriptures, such as the quran, which has its own views on what Isaiah meant, retrospectively and after 2000 years, and which you do not agree with - despite that this too is borne of a strong belief. Prima facie, isaiah has not 'some contemporary significance' to his nation and people, but total; the rest is secondary; the same would apply to the gospels - it is not secondary of its own adherants.Its like someone telling you that Paul's writings had secondary application to his contemporary surrounds and people 2000 years ago, and is only prima facie relevent today, and from the pov of another belief system: would you accept that? Thus to understand isaiah, in truth and in context, one has to know the contemporary meaning of his writings, without omissions, then decide if it had secondary relevance to his people.With regard the connecting of this writings as if it had first and foremost application to the gospels, I can post you christian scholars who have debunked this premise - it was an over zealous and wring translation and allocation, while this acknowkedgement still does not suffer any loss of belief in the gospels. There is no factor in Isaiah following anything other than the Mosaic, in line with some 55 other Hebrew prophets and the psalms - but these writings are also cherished by christians. This is the true situation.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Jay, you will see my deliberation with you is not w/o substance. Here you see two verses from the same writings and author; one says maiden, the other says virgin, and these are two different words in the hebrew.7/14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.62/5 For as a young man espouseth a virgin, so shall thy sons espouse thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.Edited by Admin, : Delete portion that had possibly been Hebrew but had somehow gotten trashed.

quote:

---

As I understand it the Hebrew Bibles today come from the Masoretic Text. This Text was finished in 1008 by people who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

---

We have the dead sea scrolls, which is not greek but Hebrew. Nor does it mean if one quoted the Masoteric that one can deem this to be the Creator, not does it mean that anyone not subsubscribing to the gospels is an unbeliever in God. The greatest proof of belief is not contained in the gospels. This is the defense and sacrifice of 1.1 million Jews who stood up against Rome - unforgivably absent in the gospels. In contrast, the church emulated divine emperors and heresy, murdering millions on charges they did not accept the gospels - nothing to do with calling someone God, or that others have no belief.The interpretation of Isaiah as having nothing worth mentioning outside of a lame, discredited interpretation of his verses as pertaining to the gosepls is also shameful.

quote:

---

No it does not disregard the primary text. Behind the Bible is the living God. And he has used His word again at a latter time in His ongoing move to carry out His eternal purpose.

---

You did it again! If you want to see what is behind the Bible, you would have referred to the return of Israel - as prophesized. Instead, you want to see the reverse of what Isaiah was saying. How can you claim to see behind the bible when you cannot see what is in front of it? - how can you talk about belief when factual history is omited? Where did you connect anything of isaiah than what that book is all about - as totally non relevant [read, elimination of a people and their history], condoned because you mentioned jesus. Your interpretation of isaiah has nothing to do with Isaiah - you are talking only about the gospels.

quote:

---

As I mentioned, we have also other scriptures, such as the quran, which has its own views on what Isaiah meant, retrospectively and after 2000 years, and which you do not agree with - despite that this too is borne of a strong belief.

​

You have to decide who you are going to believe.

---

You have to decide who and what you are not going to mention, namely the prima facie writings of Isaiah which is historical and first hand, as opposed a belated belief as its sole claim. Sometimes, one is best understood by what they don't say. Deciding whether to belive the gospels or the quran is not the issue - it still leaves humanity and history in total chaos - as is evidenced from medevial Europe's history what happens when the church says one who does not believe is of satan and to be slaughtered. Nor is a report of rising from the dead, made by 3rd parties, and then it died again in 3 days - anything called RESURRECTION. You pose it as such an honoruable and sublime premise: is it? FYI, Isaiah referred to the people, not a Messiahh, rising from the dead: a far greater feat than what you are talking about. A Messiah does not need saving.

quote:

---

In human history there is ONE outstanding figure who was born of a virgin

---

You are quite wrong. How one is born has no merit of that child. Merit is earned when one is totally cognant and able to make a decision, take responsibility for his own actions. Nor is one born lame or blind a bad person. Likewise, a prophet is one who saves - not one who destroys.

quote:

---

And Moses and Aaron came to Pharoah , and they did just as Jehovah had commanded; and Aaron threw down his staff before Pharoah and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
Then Pharoah also called for the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret spells.

​

That each one threw doen is staff, and they became serpents. But Aaton's staff swallowed up their staffs.

​

(Exo. 7:10-12)

​

Because Pharoah had magicians who by thier occult arts could imitate the miracle of God, Pharoah's heart was hardened. He thought "What is so special about what Moses does. My magicians can do the same."

​

Again in the miracle of water turned to blood at the command of Moses and Aaron on behalf of God, the Egyptian magicians did the same with their secret spells (Exo. 7:22)

​

Do not be fooled by imitation.

---

It is you who is fooled, and shows no understanding of sacred texts - or grammar. The first of every three plagues were made in a mode where Pharoah's preists could emulate it, the third of each set he could not - intentionally [the text]. This was to give him power and reason to change his mind - as an exposing of his true intent. The nile turning red is a case in point - here, even the water in a glass turned red in all of Egypt - but not so in Goshen. The other is the plague of darkness - the town of Goshen did not blacken. Also what you obviously cannot see in the text, is the plagues upon egypt were all outside of nature: frogs did what they never do; boils appeared to the cleanest of peoples; etc.Is it not ubsurd, you ridicule the power of the Father, which you seem not to understand at all or mention even in passing reluctantly and negatively, except to show how the son was triumphant? Now any fool would know, if one could turn a country into darkness and leave one sector in its midst not effected - then the feat of a staff and a serpant may have some other reason aside from not having that ability. I suggest you focus on Moses - he did save. And if you say jesus did not save his own people because they were so bad - I suggest you study some history of the Medevial church, and know that the Hebrews Moses saved were far more bad than the Jews in Judea 2000 years ago.You cannot 'choose' what you want to from Isaiah or the church's history when deciding what is good. Heaven does not omit as it pleases you. This too is behind the gospels, immediately after it took over from Rome, and which has nothing to do with a jew who's name even is not stated correctly. Learn to walk humbly before your God - the following has nothing whatsoever to do with belief, but factual history of one who should have known better. What do you imagine Jesus would have to say of the church:

quote:

---

A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust

​

From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium
Prepared by Jerry Darring

​

Catholic Timeline on Antisemitism

​

c. 240 Origen of Alexandria writes that the Jews "have committed the most abominable of crimes" in conspiring against Christ, and for that reason "the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election"
248 St. Cyprian writes that the Jews have fallen under the heavy wrath of God, because they have departed from the Lord, and have followed idols
306 The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together
325 Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicaea
4th century Christian emperors of Rome decree that Christians converting to Judaism, and Jews obstructing the conversion of other Jews to Christianity, will incur the death penalty; Jews can not marry Christians, or hold public office, or own slaves
c. 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa refers to the Jews as "murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels and detesters of God,... companions of the devil, race of vipers, informers, calumniators, darkeners of the mind, pharisaic leaven, Sanhedrin of demons, accursed, detested,... enemies of all that is beautiful"
c. 380 St. Ambrose calls the synagogue "a place of unbelief, a home of impiety, a refuge of insanity, damned by God Himself"
388 A mob of Christians, at the instigation of their bishop, looted and burned the synagogue in Callinicum, a town on the Euphrates. The Emperor Theodosius wants those responsible punished and the synagogue rebuilt at the expense of the bishop, but St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, pressures him to relent and condone the action
400 St. Augustine writes: "the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they will not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in reading the Old Testament is not taken away... the Jewish people, like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal observance of the law, which does not yield to them its strength, because they do not perceive in it the grace of Christ"
c. 400 Calling the synagogue "brothel and theater" and "a cave of pirates and the lair of wild beasts," St. John Chrysostom writes that "the Jews behave no better than hogs and goats in their lewd grossness and the excesses of their gluttony"
413 A group of monks sweep through Palestine, destroying synagogues and massacring Jews at the Western Wall
414 St. Cyril of Alexandria expels Jews from his city
425 Jews are required by law to observe Christian feasts and fasts and to listen to sermons designed to persuade them to convert
442 The synagogue in Constantinople is turned into a church
529-553 The Code of the emperor Justinian decrees that in Christian Byzantine society Jews cannot read their sacred books in Hebrew in their synagogues, and the Mishnah and other rabbinic interpretations are banned
538 The Third Synod of Orléans decrees that Jews cannot show themselves in the streets during Passover Week
591 Pope St. Gregory the Great decrees that Jews are not to be forced into baptism "lest they return to their former superstition and die the worse for having been born again"
600 Pope St. Gregory the Great decrees that Jews should not have excessive freedom, but also "in no way should they suffer a violation of their rights"
681 The Synod of Toledo orders the burning of the Talmud and other books
768 Pope Stephen IV decries ownership of hereditary estates by "the Jewish people, ever rebellious against God and derogatory of our rites"
c. 830 Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, writes anti-Jewish pamphlets in which he refers to Jews as "sons of darkness"
c. 937 Pope Leo VII encourages his newly appointed archbishop of Mainz to expel all Jews who refuse to be baptized
c. 1010-1020 In Rouen, Orléans, Limoges, Mainz, and probably also in Rome, Jews are converted by force, massacred, or expelled
1050 The Synod of Narbonne decrees that Christians are not permitted to live in Jewish homes
c. 1070 Pope Alexander II warns the bishops of Spain to prevent violence against the Jews because, unlike the Saracens, they "are prepared to live in servitude"
1078 The Synod of Gerona decrees that Jews must pay the same taxes as Christians to support the church
1081 Pope Gregory VII writes to King Alphonso of Spain telling him that if he allows Jews to be lords over Christians, he is oppressing the Church and exalting "the Synagogue of Satan"
1084 Rdiger, bishop of Speyer, grants the Jews a charter allowing them to keep Christian servants and serfs, own fields and vineyards, and carry arms
1096 Massacres of Jews takes place in the First Crusade, destroying entire Jewish communities in Mainz, Speyer, Worms, Cologne and other cities. The Jewish chronicler reports: "The enemies stripped them naked and dragged them off, granting quarter to none, save those few who accepted baptism. The number of the slain was eight hundred in these two days." The chronicler Guibert de Nogent reports that the Rouen Crusaders said: "We desire to go and fight God's enemies in the East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews, a race more inimical to God than any other"
1182 Jews are expelled from France, all their property is confiscated, and Christians' debts to them are cancelled with the payment of one-fifth of their value to the treasury
1190 The Third Crusade, led by Richard the Lion-Heart, stirs anti-Jewish fervor and results in the mass suicide of the York Jews in Clifford's Tower on March 16
1198 Jews are allowed to return to France
1199 Pope Innocent III decrees that Jews are to be allowed to worship in their synagogues, they are not to be coerced into baptism, and that Jewish cemeteries are not to be mutilated
1215 The Fourth Lateran Council decrees that Jews are to wear distinctive clothing, and on the three days before Easter they are not to go out in public
1222 The Council of Oxford prohibits the construction of new synagogues
1227 The Council of Narbonne orders Jews to wear a round patch
1230 Jews in France are forbidden to lend money on interest
1234 The Council of Arles orders Jews to wear a round patch
1235 Thirty-four Jews are burned to death in Fulda on a blood-libel charge
1246 The Council of Béziers orders Jews to wear a round patch
1247 Pope Innocent IV defends the Jews: "they are wrongly accused of partaking of the heart of a murdered child at the Passover... Whenever a corpse is found somewhere, it is to the Jews that the murder is wickedly imputed. They are persecuted on the pretext of such fables... they are deprived of trial and of regular judgment; in mockery of all justice, they are stripped of their belongings, starved, imprisoned and tortured"
1254 The Council of Albi orders Jews to wear a round patch
1260 The Council of Arles orders Jews to wear a round patch, but not when traveling
1267 The Synod of Vienna decrees that Christians cannot attend Jewish ceremonies, and Jews cannot dispute with simple Christian people about the Catholic religion
1267 The Synod of Breslau decrees compulsory ghettos for Jews
1267 Pope Clement IV instructs the Franciscans and Dominicans to deal with the "new Christians" who had reverted to Judaism
c. 1270 St. Thomas Aquinas writes that the Jews sin more in their unbelief than do pagans because they have abandoned the way of justice "after knowing it in some way"
1272 Pope Gregory X defends the Jews: "It happens sometimes that Christians lose their children and that the enemies of the Jews accuse them of having kidnaped and killed these children in order to offer sacrifices with their heart and blood, and it also happens that the parents themselves, or other Christians who are enemies to the Jews, hide the children and attack the Jews, demanding of them, as ransom, a certain sum of money, on the entirely false pretext that these children had been kidnaped and killed by the Jews"
1275 Jews in England are forbidden to lend money on interest
1279 The Synod of Ofen decrees that Christians cannot sell or rent real estate to Jews
1283 Jews in France are forbidden to live in the countryside
1284 The Council of Nmes orders Jews to wear a round patch
1289 The Council of Vienna orders Jews to wear a round patch
1290 Jews are expelled from England and southern Italy
1294 Jews in France are restricted to special quarters of the cities
1294 Jews are expelled from Bern
1298 The Jews of Rttingen, charged with profaning the Host, are massacred and burned down to the last one
1320 The "Shepherds' Crusade." A Christian chronicler records: "The shepherds laid siege to all the Jews who had come from all sides to take refuge... the Jews defended themselves heroically... but their resistance served no purpose, for the shepherds slaughtered a great number of the besieged Jews by smoke and by fire... The Jews, realizing that they would not escape alive, preferred to kill themselves... They chose one of their number (and) this man put some five hundred of them to death, with their consent. He then descended from the castle tower with the few Jewish children who still remained alive... They killed him by quartering. They spared the children, whom they made Catholics by baptism"
1326 The Council of Avignon orders Jews to wear a round patch, but not when traveling
1345 King John authorizes his subjects in Liegnitz and Breslau to destroy the Jewish cemeteries in order to use the tombstones to repair the city walls
1347-1350 During the Black Death, Jews are accused of poisoning wells in order to overthrow Christendom, and many thousands of Jews are killed. Pope Clement VI defends the Jews against these charges
1350 Jews are expelled from many parts of Germany
1367 Jews are expelled from Hungary
1368 The Council of Vabres orders Jews to wear a round patch
1381 Jews are expelled from Strasbourg
1394 The expulsion of Jews from France, begun in 1306, is completed with an edict promulgated on the Jewish Day of Atonement
1420 Jews are expelled from Mainz by the archbishop
1421 Jews are expelled from Austria
1424 Jews are expelled from Fribourg and Zurich
c. 1425 Pope Martin V denounces anti-Jewish preaching and forbids the forced baptism of Jewish children under the age of twelve
1426 Jews are expelled from Cologne
1432 Jews are expelled from Saxony
1434 The Council of Basel decrees that Jews cannot obtain academic degrees
1435 King Alfonso orders the Jews of Sicily to attach a round patch to their clothing and over their shops
1438 Jews are expelled from Mainz by the town councilors
1439 Jews are expelled from Augsburg
1453 Jews are expelled from Wurzburg
1454 Jews are expelled from Breslau
1456 Pope Callistus III bans all social communication between Christians and Jews
1462 Jews are expelled from Mainz following a conflict between two candidates for the archepiscopal seat
1467 Jews are expelled from Tlemcen
1471 Jews are expelled from Mainz by the archbishop
1475 The entire Jewish community in Trent, northern Italy, is put to death on the allegation that it had murdered a boy for religious purposes
1485 Jews are expelled from Warsaw and Cracow
1492 After forcing many Jews to be baptized and then referring to them as Marranos (swine), and after an Inquisition in which some 700 Marranos were burnt at the stake for showing signs of "Jewish" taint, Spain expels all Jews from the country
1497 Jews are expelled from Portugal
1519 Jews are expelled from Regensburg
1553 Cardinal Carafa instigates a public burning of copies of the Talmud and other Jewish religious works in a square in Rome
1555-1559 Pope Paul IV restricts Jews to ghettos and decrees that they are to wear distinctive headgear
1566-1572 Pope St. Pius V expels Jews from the Papal States, allowing some to remain in Rome's ghettos and in Ancona for commercial reasons
1592-1605 Pope Clement VIII includes a ban on all Jewish books in the expanded Index of Forbidden Books
1826 Pope Leo XII decrees that Jews are to be confined to ghettos and their property is to be confiscated
1858 Edgardo Mortara, 6-year old son of a Jewish family in Bologna, is abducted by the papal police and brought to Rome. He had been secretly baptized five years earlier by a domestic servant who thought he was about to die. The parents try to get the boy back, and there is a universal outcry, but Pope Pius IX rejects all petitions submitted to him
1904 In an interview with Zionist leader Theodor Hertzl, Pope St. Pius X says: "I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do... The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people... If you go to Palestine and your people settle there, you will find us clergy and churches ready to baptize you all"
1919 Newly independent Poland passes a law making Sunday a compulsory day of rest in Poland. The law is intended to force Jews to observe the Christian sabbath in addition to their own
1921 Speaking for Pope Benedict XV, a Vatican spokesman informed representatives of the Zionist Movement htat they did not wish to assist "the Jewish race, which is permeated with a revolutionary and rebellious spirit" to gain control over the Holy Land
1925 At a conference of Catholic academicians in Innsbruck, Austria, Bishop Sigismund Waitz calls the Jews an "alien people" who had corrupted England, France, Italy, and especially America
1933 In a series of Advent sermons, Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich defends the Old Testament against Nazi attacks but emphasizes that it is not his intention to defend contemporary Jewry, saying that a distinction has to be drawn between Jews living before and after the crucifixion of Jesus
1933 In a pastoral letter on January 23, Bishop Johannes Maria Gfllner of Linz, Austria, declares that while the radical anti-Semitism preached by Nazism is completely incompatible with Christianity, it is the right and duty of Christians to fight and break the harmful influences of Jewry in all areas of modern cultural life. The Austrian episcopate condemns the letter in December for causing racial hatred and conflict
1933-1939 The general consensus among the Catholic papers in Poland is that Jewish influence should be reduced in all areas of life, that the Polish and Jewish communities should be separated as much as possible, and that the most desirable option is mass emigration of the Jews from Poland. St. Maximilian Kolbe is an active promoter of antisemitic literature
1935-1936 The Polish Catholic Church gives full support to a government policy encouraging Jewish emigration from Poland
1936 Cardinal August Hlond, the primate of Poland, issues a pastoral letter, stating: "I warn you against that ethical attitude that is fundamentally and uncompromisingly anti-Jewish. It is contradictory to Catholic ethics. It is permissible to love your nation more than others, but it is not permissible to hate anyone. Not even the Jews... You should close yourselves to the harmful influence of Jewry... But you may not attack Jews, beat them, hurt them, slander them. In a Jew you should also respect and love a human being and your neighbor"
1937 Austrian bishop Alois Hudal publishes a book defending Nazi racial ideology, supporting laws preventing a flood of Jewish immigrants, and criticizing the "Jewish" press for playing off Austrians against Germans. His book receives the support of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Theodor Innitzer of Vienna
1938 In a speech before Belgian pilgrims, Pope Pius XI denounces antisemitism and says: "Spiritually we are all Semites." His comments are reported in various newspapers but not in the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano
1939 Josef Tiso, a Catholic priest with a doctorate in theology, became president of independent Slovakia. An extremist hater of Jews, he allied Slovakia with Nazi Germany and, with strong objections from the Vatican, deported most Slovakian Jews to their deaths in the camps. He declared: "It is a Christian action to expel the Jews, because it is for the good of the people, which is thus getting rid of its pests." Monsignor Tiso was executed after the war as a war criminal
1941-1945 The "Final Solution" takes place in Nazi-occupied Europe. This Holocaust, the killing of some six million Jews, "happened in the 'heartland' of Western Christian Europe... It happened with the passive acquiescence or active collaboration of most European Christians, and no decisive protest from church leadership, Catholic or protestant" (Rosemary Radford Ruether)
1941 In Croatia, Bishop Ivan Saric of Sarajevo appropriates Jewish property for his own use. His diocesan newspaper declares that "Jewish greed increases. The Jews have led Europe and the world towards disaster, moral and economic disaster. Their appetite grows till only domination of the whole world will satisfy it." Bishop Aksamovic of Djakovic teaches that "today it is the sacred duty of every citizen to prove his Aryan origins." Meanwhile, Archbishop Aloys Stepinac of Zagreb preaches in a sermon that "it is forbidden to exterminate Gypsies and Jews because they are said to belong to an inferior race"
1941 Provost Bernard Lichtenberg of Berlin's St. Hedwig Cathedral publicly declares that he will include Jews in his daily prayers. On October 23 he is arrested and sent to Dauchau, but dies on the way
1941 The German Bishops' Conference issues a pastoral letter secretly distributed and read from all pulpits. It outlines in detail the Nazi assault on the Catholic Church, but makes no mention of the Jews
1941 In Operational Situation Report USSR No. 54, the German Einsatzgruppen A reports from Kaunas, Lithuania: "The attitude of the Church regarding the Jewish question is, in general, clear. In addition, Bishop Brisgys has forbidden all clergymen to help Jews in any form whatsoever. He rejected several Jewish delegations who approached him personally and asked for his intervention with the German authorities. In the future he will not meet with any Jews at all"
1942 The French Assembly of Cardinals and Archbishops sends a letter to Marshal Pétain, head of the Vichy government, protesting against the mass arrests and cruel treatment of the French Jews
1942 Protest against the persecution of Dutch Jews is read from the pulpit of all churches in Holland
1942 In August and September, messages to be read out in their churches protesting the deportation of Jews from France are written by Archbishop Salige of Toulouse, Bishop Théas of Montauban, Bishop Delay of Marseilles, Cardinal Gerlier of Lyon, Bishop Vanstenbergher of Bayonne, and Archbishop Moussaron of Albi
1942 Great Britain, the Polish Government-in-exile, Brazil, the United States, and Uruguay press Pope Pius XII to condemn the Nazi treatment of Jews. The Pope responds to this international appeal with his Christmas radio address, but does not specifically mention the Jews
1942-1945 Cardinal Adolf Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau and head of the German Bishops' Conference, opposes all public protest against the deportation and massacre of the Jews. He maintains a cordial relationship with Hitler, and in May 1945 he orders requiem masses for Hitler be offered in all his parishes
1943 At their annual meeting in Fulda, the German Catholic bishops debate whether to speak out about the Holocaust and confront Hitler with a direct accusation. They decide not to do so
1943 Slovakia's Catholic Bishops protest the deportation of Jews in a pastoral letter read in Latin from the pulpits. Many priests refuse to read it or insert their own negative comments
1945 Addressing the College of Cardinals after the end of the European war, Pope Pius XII speaks of the hundreds of priests and religious who died in Nazi concentration camps, but makes no mention of the Jews
1965 The Second Vatican Council issues its Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions: "True, authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today... The Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God... The Church decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone"
1967 The Catholic bishops in the United States establish an Office on Catholic-Jewish Relations, and promptly issues Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish Relations
1967 In an interview with a Los Angeles rabbi, Cardinal Frings of Cologne, Germany, states that the Jews had been economically too powerful in the 1920s, and he doubts if six million Jews had actually been killed under Hitler
1974 The Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issues its Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish Relations: "The spiritual ties and historical relations between the Church and Judaism are enough to condemn, as contrary to the spirit of Christianity, all forms of anti-Semitism and discrimination"
1979 Pope John Paul II visits Auschwitz and refers to the Holocaust as "the Golgotha of our century"
1980 The German Bishops Conference declares: "A serious dialogue of reciprocal love and understanding must replace the 'anti-Semitism' which, to some extent, still lives on in Christians. The spiritual bonds and historical statements that bind the Church and Judaism condemn any form of anti-Semitism as contradictory to the spirit of Christianity"
1984 The National Conference of Brazilian Bishops declares: "All forms of anti-Semitism must be condemned. Every unfavorable word and expression must be erased from Christian speech. All campaigns of physical or moral violence must cease. The Jew must not be considered a deicide people"
1985 The Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issues the document Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church: "Our two traditions are so related that they cannot ignore each other. Mutual knowledge must be encouraged at every level. There is evident in particular a painful ignorance of the history and traditions of Judaism, of which only negative aspects and often caricature seem to form part of the stock ideas of many Christians"
1987 Pope John Paul II holds a controversial Vatican meeting with Kurt Waldheim, President of Austria. The meeting causes an international uproar because of Waldheim's reputation as a willing bureaucratic accomplice under the Nazis
1988 The Pontifical Commission "Justice and Peace" issues a document on racism: "Amongst the manifestations of systematic racial distrust, specific mention must once again be made of anti-Semitism. If anti-Semitism has been the most tragic form that racist ideology has assumed in our century, with the horrors of the Jewish 'Holocaust,' it has unfortunately not yet entirely disappeared"
1989 Reacting to Jewish efforts to remove a Carmelite convent established at Auschwitz, Cardinal Glemp, the Primate of Poland, says in an August homily: "Dear Jews, do not talk with us from the position of a nation raised beyond all others and do not dictate terms that are impossible to fulfill. Don't you see, esteemed Jews, that openly opposing the Carmelite nuns hurts the feelings of all Poles and violates our hard-won sovereignty. Your power is in the mass media, at your immediate disposal in many countries. Do not use it to spread anti-Polonism." The convent was eventually removed.
1993 The Holy See establishes diplomatic relations with the State of Israel
1994 Pope John Paul II hosts a concert at the Vatican to commemorate the Holocaust. It is the first time that the Chief Rabbi of Rome is invited to co-officiate at a public function in the Vatican; the first time a Jewish cantor sings at the Vatican; the first time the Vatican choir sings a Hebrew text in performance
1994-1995 Bishops in Hungary, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, and the United States issue documents condemning antisemitism on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Holocaust
1997 The French Catholic Bishops issue a Declaration of Repentance: "The end result is that the attempt to exterminate the Jewish people, instead of being perceived as a central question in human and spiritual terms, remained a secondary consideration. In the face of so great and utter a tragedy, too many of the Church's pastors committed an offense, by their silence, against the Church itself and its mission. Today we confess that such a silence was a sin. In so doing, we recognize that the Church of France failed in her mission as teacher of consciences"
1997 The Swiss Catholic Bishops' Conference issue a document on the role of Switzerland during the Second World War: "For centuries, Christians and ecclesiastical teachings were guilty of persecuting and marginalizing Jews, thus giving rise to antisemitic sentiments... It is in reference to these past acts of churches for which we proclaim ourselves culpable and ask pardon of the descendants of the victims"
1998 The Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issues the document We Remember: A Reflection on the 'Shoah': "We wish to turn awareness of past sins into a firm resolve to build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Judaism among Christians or anti-Christian sentiment among Jews, but rather a shared mutual respect as befits those who adore the one Creator and Lord and have a common father in faith, Abraham"
1998 The Italian Bishops address a letter to the Jewish community of Italy, expressing the "hope that the maleficent plant of antisemitism will be extinguished forever from history, beginning with our cultural and linguistic habits"
2000 Pope John Paul II visits Israel. He pays tribute to the victims of the Holocaust at Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority), and he leaves the following prayer between the ancient stones of the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Most of the housing plans include the home lighting as well as the flooring arrangements. A popular choice is laminate flooring. Then majority is getting garden furniture as well these days.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

My idea of debating a text is, while not dsmissing beliefs, should be first and foremost reliant of its texts - even when it does not allign with one's belief wish list. Prophesies depicted should also be debated of its whole body of texts - not a selected verse which has been denounced. This is important because there are many divergent interpretations via beliefs, and they are all mutually exclusive. Relying only on one's particular belief makes the text a chaos or worse - that it has nothing to say outside one's belief.But even in a religion thread, a belief cannot over-turn a factual occurence: one can believe where there is no proof or ambiguity - one cannot believe a factual occurence in divergence of its texts - it is superflous or worse. One can believe all humanity will only be saved by Jesus and no one can question it - but one cannot believe the sun did not rise yesterday. Factual history transcends belief, and this differential cannot be dislodged by merely citing one's particular beliefs as its proof or reasoning.I am uncertain how the Isaiah debate evolved in a thread about Genesis - but I suspect the same syndrome applies: aside from alligning the 'US' in genesis to the Gospels, there is nothing else in genesis worth anything. But my reading of isaiah says different - he had everything to say outside of the Gospels, including non-confusing names, dates, places, wars and events - and all of these are referenced solely with the OT. Fact.

It is not nice that the history of the war between Rome and Israel, 2000 years ago, is not included in christian teachings. This refers to the 7 year war in 70 AD/CE, resultant when the Jews refused to house a statue of Rome's Emperors in the Temple for worship, when the Romans regarded they emperor as divine. As the Jews had a law forbidding such an act of wirshipping a human, they became the only nation which challenged the Roman empire. Ironically, Rome was replaced by a similar demand by the Roman Catholic church, which entail 1500 years of the same but with different names: the church would have had 20/20 vision their demand would not be acceptable, but its the only one it came up with. This entailed a neccessaity to create a bad guy - and thus far 1000s of false charges have been made throughout the last 2000 - altogether making a mockery of its majestic slogan, 'the truth will set you free'. But saying this today may cause offence to many, but it is a factual item no less. Point is, if the jews did accept Rome's decree - there would be no christianity today: but was not Abraham prophesized to father many nations?Jerusalem was destroyed, with the loss of 1.1 million Jews, they were exiled to Europe, and the name of their country changed to Palestine - the name of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines [Josephus Documents]. Such a defense for faith is hardly a reason for anyone to accuse Jews of non-belief in God or that their salvation depends on what is believed by others: compared with whom? Such false misreps of history sometimes make interpretations which are nothing to do with reality. Isaiah was not a christian, and was first and foremost seeking the salvation of his own people - its a natural thing for a prophet to first prophesize of and to his own nation, as opposed one which would emerge some 2000 years later, followed by another one 2400 years later. Its like totally disregarding the Buddhists while discussing what Buddha said - all justitifed by one's preferred beliefs.I will leave at that, and maybe the thread will continue as with its topic.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.