Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

What I see is that whatever any prophetic writing says, if it is good, it is made to connect with the gospels. This is a good thing in the sense it shows an inclination, or what one aspires to. However, as there is immense antisemitism and false charges in Europe's history, writings of Isaiah and other Jewish prophets have been misrepped - as though it did not apply to Jews.What I mean here is, it is fine to connect Isaiah to christian inclinations in the spirit those writings allign with what christians want and believe - but if it is at the expense of discardng others, specially the primal pointing of Isaiah, it is not a good thing. I find it odd that christian only point to isaiah if it connects with the gospels, as opposed to the general good things he says, but which cannot be connected to the gospels. This causes conflict and divisions within humanity.Isaiah would certainly not allign with a doctrine that says salvation is exclusive to the gospel path - he showed other good paths. There is here good and needed opportunities for christians to learn some things - specially since the Pope has already stated there are other paths to salvation, and that there is an independent covenant outside of the gospels [read, the past doctrines of the vatican were wrong]. I certainly would not follow a doctrine which says only signing up to a certain club begets salvation - I would fight Heaven against such a doctrine. But I see some would be happy to sit in glee lapping up such a salvation. They would have surely failed the Abraham test.'THERE IS WIDSOM AND RIGHTIOUSNESS IN ALL NATIONS''

quote:

---

Isaiah also wrote this:

​

"Turn to Me and be saved all the ends of the earth, For I am God and there is no one else." (Isa. 45:22)

---

Why can't you see this as a saving of Jews? After all, the European church persecuted the jews and barred them from returning to their land, but Israel was returned - in which case Isaiah can be seen as applying to Israel - is that a bad thought? Israel's return is the greatest miracle the last 2000 years, not in belief but in open form. But it is a great affront to two major religions, when the reverse should be the case: why so?So you only like Isaiah if it suits you?

quote:

---

If your complaint is that Christians regard Jews as atheists in general

---

LOL> Daftest thing I've ever heard! Your the new kid on the block, how can you even say such an ubsurd thing? Perhaps its because the gospels omit how the Jews confronted Mighty Rome in its midst - do you know of another people who sacrificed their nation, country and the loss of 1.1 million - rather than bow to the image of a Roman Emperor? Search hard, before posing your question. In fact, I have very close and genuine feeling to protect and save christians - after all they sprung up with the OT in hand, and this gives an onus to protect them in a spiritual sense. But it does not mean agreeing with the gospels or the church. The Pope has declared there is another covenant, and its best to have a Plan B.There is an irreconsiable difference in the core beliefs of all religions - and all cannot be right, nor can we say only one has a true belief, because all belief can be true, even when not right. Its not the belief which is the problem, but what one is made to believe - and villification and false charges are bad beliefs; salvation at the expense of other groups is a bad belief - it is a test unto you to see how you will turn: like Abraham did or like the church did. We may not believe what hindus and muslims believe, but it does not mean their belief is not genuine? Do you really like the position of shouting I am Saved and your not? Well you can keep it. I should say shove it, I would not take it if you threw in half of the universe as a free bonus.

quote:

---

You do not have remind me again and again based on the martyrdom of many Jews that they were not atheists. We know that of course they believed in God.

---

You are correct, I dont have to remind you. But I am. Guess why! Now you may not see any problem that the Gospels totally ignores the greatest martydom in all recorded history, while finding un-ending energy to tell the world Jews are disbelievers and revelled with beedy eyes of the death of a Jew: because you beleive the gospels as the word of God, and that's the end of the matter for you. But I ask you to show me any other example of Jews doing what the Gospels charges - or is that the only instance it happened?! I say it may be the first question any christian is asked as his ticket to salvation. Your belief and right to it comes not from the church, but in difference of the church doctrines, and from this exact point:'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR'You do need Gospels 11 for sure.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I say it is about all mankind, and I have always argued against it being only for Israel. I would even reject the notion that says, but the world is blessed via Abraham [Genesis], because this has to be seen to be so by others. It is, I believe, a test unto us. I say this while also acknowledging Israel surely requires a respite from the un-ending attacks from two religions without pause. The rule is, the hater, more than the hated, is the afflicted one.

quote:

---

All the ends of the earth means all the peoples of the earth.

​

It certainly does not exclude the Jews. It includes them. Yet it includes the Gentiles as well.

---

Not good enough, and manifestly not an honest answer. You have a gospel which villifies Isaiah's people for 2000 years, and never mentions what you now admit. My pursuit here is truthfulness, not the targeting of innocent believers. Your agenda is to defend against that appearing as false: because the gospels made the big error of alligning its core belief on a negation and villification of another - falsely. There is no excuse of a scripture omitting the greatest defense for belief in all recorded history. The reason is, as tuff as it may sound, is the focus on one jews' sacrifice - while omitting 1.1 million of his kin as dismissable.The problem is not what you say, but the contradicting, factual reality if this was included in the gospels, it would water down the element of sacrifice by one man. To get around this quagmire, the gospels went on to persecute Jesus' kin, and told the world grotesque distortions, presented as the word of God! When we examine the gospel claims further, we find that jesus did not sacrifice himself but was murdered by Romans [europeans], on the charge of heresy, and that there was no way out of this death - as was the case of all his kinfolk. In fact, the church continued the doctrine of Rome's decree of heresy - and went on to mass murder inncocent people for some 1500 years, and this culminated in the holocaust. It is ubsurd to call it a sacrifice of the son, when the decree of heresy was hovering: Rome would not relent on this issue, which cause the greatest war in its empire's history. The truth is, the only sacrifice which occured was by those jews who refused to worship Roman idols.

quote:

---

After all, the European church persecuted the jews and barred them from returning to their land, but Israel was returned - in which case Isaiah can be seen as applying to Israel - is that a bad thought?

​

What does that have to do with Isaiah 45:22?

---

It has much to do with isaiah's writings and his nation. Inseperable premises.

quote:

---

Other than to say that "Boy. That is lousy and dirty that the "European church" persecuted jews and barred them from their land ... I mean thanks a lot you dirty guys. You believe the Jewish Bible and yet you turn around and reward the jews that way? How lousy of the European church!"

​

Well you may have a point that that was really dirty. It still doesn't cause Isaiah 45:22 and hundreds of other passages like it to somehow disappear from the Bible as if God never said it.

---

Now if you said that many did bad things ocured in the past by all nations, I would not argue it. if you said what has it to do with Isaiah, I would say the question is a grotesque one. Isaiah was talking 100% Judaism, upholding the Mosaic laws. You say he was talking gospels and that's all you are concerned of. It is grotesque. But you have been quagmired in this position by the gospels - like a quicksand. This is borne by the history of the church - it massacred Isaiah's people same as did Rome - using the premise of 'love'.

quote:

---

Let God be true and every man a liar. The dirty deed of the European Christendom does not make God take back His words or actions.

---

Yes, 'God is not like man that he will change his mind' [Samuel]. But that is exactly what the gospels says - that a new covenant came, and the law is passe. This is totally false, and the gospels cannot say such, nor can Jesus alone.

quote:

---

Have you noticed the large number of evangelical Christians who are supportive of Israel in the US?

---

I like them, even though many jews are suspicious of their motives. What I like is, they advocate the awaiting of a messiah, thereby leaving it to a manifest revelation, hopefully, not reliant again on a 3rd part report! - otherwise, this is fine with me. The truth is, if a return of jesus occured - nothing would change and it would be the same as the first time: chaos. Better, the evengelists, and all christians, wished that either God, or via Moses, accompanied that Messiah - not Jesus alone. Ask yourself if you would harken to Buddha or Mohammed if a return occured with no JC? We learn from this, not to follow the doctrine, 'what is good for you do unto others'. The correct premise is, 'what is hateful to you - do not unto others'[ Hillel/100 BCE].

quote:

---

Israel's return is the greatest miracle the last 2000 years, not in belief but in open form. But it is a great affront to two major religions, when the reverse should be the case: why so?

​

I agree that it was a great event probably miraculous. But what does that have to do with Isaiah 45:22? How great a miracle the reformation of Israel has absolutely no effect to nullify Isaiah 45:22.

---

Isaiah, and all 55 OT prophets, write of the prophesized return of Israel - this was declared in the Mosaic. It has a lot to do with Isaiah. What has it to do with the gospels, and which prophesy has been manifestly vindicated here?

quote:

---

God is not a myopic in His vision as you are. He is able to do more than one thing at a time. He has yet even more splendid things He will do with Israel. This is the only the indication of the nearing of summer.

---

Yes, God can do many things simultainiously - even sustaining trillions of life forms simultainiously. God never sleeps. Why then do you not see Isaiah's primary message being applicable to Israel - even when it is come upon your sight as with a blunt axe? Here, true christians should be marching not for the Ozone layer, but the real pollution of humanity and history - the relentless obsession of negating Israel, as if this will change the will of God!

quote:

---

If you think the return to Israel has nothing to do with the second coming of Christ, then I think you have really missed the point to a large measure.

---

No, I would not be missing anything. I say, let the one who gave the first message say so - then I will not need anyone to tell me what to believe. But this never occured. As it turns out, Jews were proven right by default: they would be wrong if they harkened to the gospels or the quran - both have contradicting demands; neither proved themselves via Moses.

quote:

---

So you only like Isaiah if it suits you?

​

Of course not. In fact I think I embrace much more of the book than you do.

​

By the way, where do you live? Have you gone back to Israel yet? And if not why not ? I think the real steadfast Jews return to Israel. I hope you're not sitting comfortably in a rocking chair in some flesh pot bragging about other Jews going back to Israel.

​

What about IamJoseph ? Are YOU there?

---

Again, your reading of the OT and of the realities of life is wanting. It says, 'I WILL BRING ALL THE REMNANT TO THE LAND I PROMISED'. My arm is not that strong to do what I want. There was also no choice when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. My position is, christans should pray for Moses to return - at least to be as witness. Nothing will happen, aside from more bloodshed by force and the sword, in the absence of such. You have a histry of precedence as its proof, yet remain in blissful denial.

quote:

---

Not good enough, and manifestly not an honest answer. You have a gospel which villifies Isaiah's people for 2000 years, and never mentions what you now admit.

​

I don't agree that the gospel villifies the people of Isaiah. Here we have Jesus teaching that a true Jew is one in whom there is no guile:

​

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him and said concerning him, Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile!
(John 1:47)

​

So Jesus did not villify the Israelites. Of course He did point out their cases of rebellion. But the Old Testament prophets already did plenty of that and you don't charge them with "villifying" the Jews.

---

This is not about your belief, which is true, nor does it concern Jesus - but what is said in the Gospels which I fully reject. Here, there is no way you can admit what I say has validity even if you wanted to. Siting one man, the reason you allocate no guile, is ridiculous - the Gospels introduced antisemitism, and caused the deaths of millions of Jews and other peoples throughout its 1500 history on the charge of heresy - it was far worse than Rome, Greece and the ancient Egyptians.90% of all European christians were converted by force; even those Jews who seccumbed to save their families were persecuted and called moranos, believers in God in silence, their children sent to christian orphans. The idea was to destroy their bodies and save their souls.There is only a guile of the Gospel writers which has no choice but to disdain the Jews or any anyone who rejected its doctrines, for its position to be validated - it emulated Rome. Having no guile has nothing to do with a Jew not accepting anything in the gospels: he has that right, and adhered to a belief which was 2000 years older and prevailed over numerous other wars with Rome - right under the Gospel writer's noses. Rather it must be directed only and solely to those who alligned with Rome, and dismissed the OT. Get it right - the Gospels villified those who really believed in god, and massacred them for not accepting divine man and devine romans?The jews were 100% right for rejecting every verse in the gospels, its premise of divine man, the charge of heresy on jews who rejected this premise, and its introduction of raceism [it villifies all Jews in genereal terms]. One century later, it was confronted with islam - a different people from jews, but who also rejected the Gospel doctrines.Your forgetting that europe also wrote the Protocols - which is today held as historical truth in the muslim world - and the Vatican is silent of it: what does that tell you? If there was any validity in the Gospel adherants, they would have stood up and told the world which is the Jewish homeland, who robbed it, why and when: they were, if anything, appointed historical witness to the truth - but they lie from every cell in their beings today, with the most imaginatve manouvers to turn a lie into the truth. They do the reverse of the truth, and hide behind Palestinians - a name they themselves dumped on Jews. Its so insane, an ET would never believe all this.One cannot be villified for not accepting a divine man, specially not Jews, and those who wrote such things must have been dead blind for demanding such - or worse. How can you take the word of the same europeans who genocided a nation which sacrificed their entire people for refusing to bow to a Roman, Greek or Egyptian king - then go on to call them names for not accepting a Gospel one? Think about it from a lens outside the one you speak from.

quote:

---

presented as the word of God! When we examine the gospel claims further, we find that jesus did not sacrifice himself but was murdered by Romans [europeans], on the charge of heresy, and that there was no way out of this death - as was the case of all his kinfolk.

​

Partially accurate you are in terms of the Jews handing Him over to the Romans.

​

The signs placed above His head on the cross were in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek (John 19:20). I think the significance of this is that the whole religious world and political world and social world was against Christ. All three realms of society were responsible for persecuting Him.

---

What diabolical nonsense. The signs were in those languages on 'ALL' Jews crucified. A tombstone epitaph says only that person is dead - period. There can be no notion of sacrifice here when Rome issued a heresy charge and was crucifying 100s of 1000s of jews. Jesus would have no choice here - only the millions of Jews had a choice, and they sacrificed themselves rather than worship a Roman Emperor - nothing else occured here. Only those who rejected Rome can be said to have sacrificed themselves, but proclaiming one as divine was a heresy to both Rome and Jews: what then did Jesus say of and to the depraved nazi-like Romans, who crucified entire families, its general Titus watching on with cuncubines while they died, upto 800 a day? The Gospels is silent of a nation's sacrifice against Rome - what does that tell you - why do you leap to one Jesus here? Its insane. You people have been taken for the biggest ride in history, and been imprisoned. Of course we need a Messiah - who or what else can save 2 Billion christians in such a deep abyss - no man can.

quote:

---

Until you objectively acknowledge that both the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church launched terrible persecutions against disciples of Jesus Christ as well as Jews, I don't think I will ever be impressed by your sincereity to really find the truth in history or in the Bible.

---

No impact on anything. A regime which massared more innocent humans than any other in history, does not become valided because it also killed some deciples. Its still an evil regime. The nazis also killed some christian preists: does it mean we should not accuse them of the holocaust? The fulcrum factor here is not jesus, but a depraved empire which was confronted solely by one small nation, over a period of 150 years, from Caligula to the destruction of Jerusalem - with the charge of heresy: 1.1 million Jews gave their lives for *YOUR* freedom of belief. That is the fulcrum factor here. Upto only a few decades ago, this was the Vatican's position:'We will never support the return of the jews to *THEIR HOMELAND* - because they rejected Jesus' - Pope oh so Pious.Do you stand by that decision? - it was before the Holocaust? Does that not tell you what went on when jews were exiled in Europe, and how the Vatican mindset worked? How can one persecute a people, and also refuse to let them go where they came from: how does one describe purposeful genocide? Who has taken the vatican to task yet - instead that Pope is beautified! You may be surprised what issues will be demanded of the vatican when a Messiah comes - he may not even utter the name jesus - a false, Roman name in the first place - and a messiah cannot repeat or sanction a falsehood. At least, there would be 1000s of questions before we get to your favourite verses.In fact, the church continued the doctrine of Rome's decree of heresy - and went on to mass murder millions of inncocent people for some 1500 years, and this culminated in the holocaust. Which christian stood up against this office thus far, and why is it still standing? A Messiah may demand this of you too.

quote:

---

The murders of Christiandom are a horrendous and tragic fact of history. The religious establishment of Roman Catholicism was vicious against the Jews. This is true. However, it is also true that at the same time they were viciously persecuting true disciples of Christ.

---

I put it to you, this vindicates the Jews, and makes the charges of hapless money changers surrounded by Roman garrisons, and deicide -one insane joke. It does not mean, as you mean to present it - it means only that the jews were right. Period. No one can save christians but the Jews - by the factor of truth and true belief. Be thankful a few are still around - Plan A is alive, despite every obsession to villify and kill of the witness. I see the founding of America, by Jews, as a means to save christianity - from medevial Europe. In a sense, Columbus and his mapsters were not lost, but driven to an unknown land. It was a jew who penned the hymn, Gd Bless America. You may be genuine - but it does not mean what you believe is thereby also genuine. All life has a connection to their Creator source - and this is also the easiest thing to exploit - because all are searching for that.

quote:

---

So you do a poor job to defend Judaism by denying the Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible that His salvation is extended to "many nations".

---

I could'nt deny that, even if I tried. I do not subscribe to any premise which does not accord all of humanity equally, nor do I derive this understanding from Isaiah. The OT, and the true Abrahamic belief, does not allow any special treat based on one's beliefs, and accords equal rights to all: it does not contain existential negations of those with a different belief, and I see this unique among the three M/E produced religions.And there is nothing wrong with any sector of humanity applying Isaiah to themselves, I fully understand this is done with great beliefs in God and that they see a distinct pathway which fully alligns with their own belief paths. It is a very positive thing, and makes it a powerful counter to all other sectors which cause conflict and divisions.But there is also a premise of negation, when rampant omissions and distortions which foster the negation of others - this is the only negative factor here, and it is real, and in denial. There is a clear contradiction in your good views Isaiah is talking about humanity - while exemplifying it in a small, historical setting; and that there is no salvation but through one pathway. It will be interesting to see verses in all scriptures which gives equal rights to people of all beliefs - a factor which distinquishes the OT from all other middle-east derived religions.

quote:

---

Sometimes when the Israelites were disobediant to Jehovah He had to remind them that He also dealt with other nations besides them. For example through Amos the prophet God reminds Israel that they are not the only people He delivered from bondage:

---

Best said in the Jonah story, which most only read as a story of a whale, while it is pointedly about God's control for all nations. This story is also an indication that the Jews were also wrong how they thought. However, the Gospels not only says it continues a sequal to the OT, it also advocates the negation of Judaism in almost all examples. This too is fine, because a religion cannot subsist as second best or posit alternatives to itself.But with NT interpretations of writings as of Isaiah, my position is it did not in any way relate to Jesus, and words such as spirit does not automatically allign with only one conclusion. Isaiah would have been rejected if he made such advocations. The NT belief is independent, new and its own respected position. Isaiah did not negate any OT laws, change the Sabbath, annul the covenant of circumsizion, nor teach the coming of a divine man, and his advocations are unshakably vested in today's Judaistic version of Monotheism. None of Isaiah's crieria for a Messiah has ever been fullfiled. The future will judge this conclusion: a reason I applaud the Evengelists for leaving it to a revelation to come, rather than holding a sword their belief is the only acceptable position. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In the Hebrew Bible in Psalm 2 it says:

​

"Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

​

KISS THE SON ... Lest He be angry and you perish from the way, For His anger may suddenly be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in Him. (Psalm 2:11,12 my emphasis)

​

Here is God advizing the peoples to "kiss the Son". That is the Son of God - a divine man. How can He not be divine since He is God's Son?

---

How do you get that? This is a true hebrew/english translation:

quote:

---

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2602.htm

​

Psalm 2/
, — —; , . 10 Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.

​

‘ - ‘; ’—, ‘. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

​

‘ -‘, - ‘ -- -‘ :
, —- ‘. 12 Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. {N}
Happy are all they that take refuge in Him. {P}

---

Jonah, who got himself into a whale's belly?

Let me put it this way, when I read some excerpts of mathew, I was in deep shock this is considered Gdly scriptures. I cant blame christians if they are subjected to such stuff. Why else would I feel that way - I am very closely alligned with christians, and wish such stuff did not exist?

Why does'nt someone start a thread about commonalities and points of agreement, between religions, as opposed the differences? The later cannot be corrected - humanity is not at that sage yet.

It would be far from the thread subject, unless we can find a loophole how it connects with 'US'. But seriously, is your Q real, and which side of the coin are you reading?!

Prior to the 'US' mentioned in genesis, the following list of beings existed, all of which have souls, purposeful activities, and know their creator source. And we cannot forget there are some 20 OT laws specifically related to the rights and welfare of animals ['Feed your animal before yourself; do not overload an animal; etc], birds ['Not to take the mother and the offspring together', etc], vegetation ['not to destroy a food bearing tree even during a war']:'US' can apply to all of these living beings, from a contextual and grammatical view:Heaven was created before the earth, as well as the heavenly beings enumerated throughout the OT. This means the serpent predated Adam and Eve.Vegetation.Water lifeFowlMammalsAnimalsMicrobes ['dust'].Why would these beings be created, laws attributed for them, and they not be included in the 'US' - is this because they do not have speech? We know that all of those life forms have communication faculties, at times their perceptions being far more acute than humans' - thus it is reasonable and logical, if animals were given instincts and communication techniques - the Creator, who established these faculties would know their usage. Seen from a big picture view, it would be an anomoly if there was absolutely no reference of them by the Creator. One of the messages here is - we are not the only beings, but only stweardship and caretakers with responsibilities.Imagine a zoo caretaker - should he care only for some selected animals and disregard some of them? The first dialogue in recorded history was not with mankind.

quote:

---

I am aware of these laws and of the fact that the animals have souls. But when God says "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ..." (Gen. 1:26) I do not believe "Us" refers to God plus the grass, the fish, the fowl, the cattle, and the other animals. This does not make good sense.

---

Obviously, that cannot be the import. Both factors occur here: the act of disclosing what is next; and the act of creating it. The later act of creting, as you will know, is in the singular, and was only performed by God. The act of creating is not shared with anyone, and is only possible by the Creator; all else is post-creation, created stuff.

quote:

---

Where else in the Bible is there a hint that the animals assisted or accompanied God in the creation of man?

---

It does not, and is not required; this does not impact on expressing to the animals God's next act. That's my point. Note, there is a verse in Genesis, where God says he cannot destroy Sodom without telling Abraham about this action - because at this time, God was in contact with Abraham.None assisted God in Creation - there was no one and nothing around. The first 4 words of Genesis says so:'IN THE BEGINNING GOD'

It is tied up with the non-negotiable GOD IS ONE. The OT is right here, and is ultimately the best advocation. All the rest are bridges; all will stand down when a real Revelation of the ultimate kind occurs. But it does not mean those who climb via bridges are lacking or wanting; here, the law of equality and deeds kick in. Every life form knows inherently there is ONE God - and many roads - all roads thereto.In the final count, all roads lead not to Rome, but to ONE. There is the long route and the direct one - both are ultimately heading to the same destination.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.