|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Divinity of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The only prophesy the last 2000 years, in OPEN form [as opposed shrouded] - is that of Israel's resurrection. This was prophesized, and it happened - before the world, when it was least plausable. Israel is not gone but returned - both its exile and its return was prophesized, which is a double whammy. The lost tribes were also prophesized to be dispersed, but also to be returned. Today's conflict is that this real resurrection is seen as an affront for those who erred and said Israel is gone, and even named Judea as Palestine. These were proven wrong - but admitting this is a dire issue for those who erred: these obviously did not read the spiritual occurences with any accuracy. I see an irony that those who placed this name Palestine on Israel 2000 years ago - are today saying this name does not belong to Israel. What is really gone is Mighty Rome, which said all roads will lead to it. I think it is appropriate that Israel was returned - she lost her land and a million citizens were sacrificed for the most noblest of reasonings, and one which humanity owes her a great debt. It is shocking that this event is not accounted in the NT and Quran, which occured in their midst: WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR. There is no bigger event than the war between the depraved Roman Empire and Judea - it is the first Holocaust [1 Million jews 2000 years ago ]. It is greater than any other destruction or sacrifice in Geo-History. Israel returning is a paradigm alterer of biblical proportions. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I would never call the Jews as frauds, and this is evidenced that Muslims call christians frauds: because you rejected Mohammed. So you cannot have it both ways, calling all others as frauds when christians did the same they accuse others of. The fact is, only the God who gave the laws at Sinai - can speak for himself. And thus far - none have been able to perform that feat. Thus you have *CONFLICT* and opposing beliefs. If jesus or Mohammed were to re-emerge, it would not prove anything. But if there was a Sinai revelation, in the presence of all humanity - then no one could raise a whimper. Isee you awaiting a futile occurence - it would only result in more chaos as before. EVENTUALLY - ALL ROADS LEAD TO *ONE*.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Absolutely and unquestioningly. Of all the impossible asks imaginable by the human mind, the christians came up with the only one which was guaranteed to cause disaster: it replaced Rome's divine emperors with a European one. This after witnessing numerous wars for 2000 years. To boot, the name of depraved Rome was attached to emerge as Roman Catholicism - as if this was a commendable title. today, billions of otherwise sincere humans are quagmired - because over-turning this grotesque situation has become nigh impossible. This is a lesson that a religion must never attach its core beliefs on the negation of another for its viability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Would you say that if jesus came to Europe and all its peoples were genocided, and someone claimed to be saved because someone walked on water? A Savior is Moses - who confronted the Pharoah - even as he found a barbaric tribe of Hebrews. The NT targets hapless money changers. Why notlist what you claim Jesus did - and measure it against what had to be done?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Resurrection.
Who says that this is validated to its concluded meaning, if it occurs for 3 days, even if it were true and as reported by third parties? And if the subject is said to be divine - where is the feat - as opposed to resurrecting the people, as was postulated by Isaiah? And why the people never asked for proof - as did those stiff necked Hebrews - remains a mystery of biblical proportions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It is wholly foreign and alien, involving numerous wars with numerous nations: one which occured in the midst of the emerging christianity, 2000 years ago. 1.1 Million Jews sacrificed their lives rejecting a divine roman emperor. It is also the core reason christianity seperated from its once mother religion. Why is this even debated? AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT BEATS A DISHONEST AGREEMENT. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The question of understanding Isaiah should not be based on selective quotes - which have now been acknowledged as a bad translation even by christian scholars, but better to look at the texts comprehensively: there is absolutely no way it can allign with the gospels. Almost every sentence says that.
It is not a slant on any of the two religions to acknowledge an irreconciable variance in core doctrines: both are sincere and Gdly inclined - but without that core difference, one would not exist today, and this would be christianity - it would be another denomination of Judaism. A religion can only prevail if it has a core doctrine which cannot allign with another - else there would be no reason for that religion's emergence. Its not like choosing a favourite car color. If a christian observed the OT for 2000 years prior to the gospels, they would never accept the gospels, and the jews rejected similar doctrines numerously throughout history. We see this syndrome with christianity rejected Islam, even with a less variance towards the Gospels than Judaism. A religion cannot be followed by a sequal - this has never occured, and negates the reason for one of them. Thus the non-confusing: 'YOU SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS'. And: 'ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS [RELIGIONS]' And MANY contradicts sequals. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Absolutely, I agree. This is established with the assurence of many nations via Abraham [nation also refers to religion, as in 'The nation of Israel']. Other statutes give the same meaning, including HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE; HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE OF MAN; ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY; etc.
After all, what merit in getting a reward for belonging to a certain religious group - as the only claim for merit? What is required of humanity, IMHO, is what was exemplified in Abraham. He strived with God in a manner not seen any place. Normally, in revelation, a person becomes so awe struck, that there is no possibility of striving, only to perform the will. But with Abraham, he argued for the saving of even the most evil city of Sodom -a markedly different religious group from his. He was blessed even as he was wrong, because of his good intention. This says, humanity has to strive with heaven for all humanity, and reject the notion of preferences of any kind. IOW, if a savior or messiah came along today, and chose any certain peoples as meriting special bonus - that particular peoples wshould reject that gift, or strive against it, and stay instead till all can be saved. Sometimes, a law is given to test us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Correct. It refers to maiden, which has been acknowledged by numerous christian scholars. However, even if there was a mention of a virgin, it would still not equate to the conclusion of allignment with the gospels, by a basic reading of all its other texts.
I see christianity as a belief system which acknowledges the OT, but is still a new and different religion from Judaism, and this is fine - it need not have to be a follow-up or culmination, and can stand on its own. Because its adherents have a sincere and genuine belief in it - and this belief is not associated by Jews or who follow the OT only, for 2000 years before christianity emerged. Both religions can stand on their own - without the need of minimising or negating the other. This is what is required of each religion and how it is tested. If there was to be one single religion, this would have been very easily maintained by God - but it does seem this is not the case, and the premise of exclusivity can only be seen as a form of politicking and ego - a common trait throughout humanity's history. The order of laws is seen in the 10 Commandments, whereby the factor of honesty comes before all other moral/ethical laws [NOT TO TAKE THE NAME IN VAIN refers to honesty]. Honesty is different from truth, which is a subject and elusive premise; honesty refers to truthfullness as opposed truth. The next factor is not love, but respect [HONOR THY PARENTS]. Thus there is very little merit in love, when not preceded by those two factors. Although christians say their belief is based on virgin birth purity and sacrifice, it's true reasoning may lie elsewhere, such as a mysterious compulsion, which made some see what others did not - and vice versa. Without this compulsion factor, no amount of virgin births, resurrections and turning water to wine would have had any impact: it did not with jews and the muslims. Further, if sacrifice was the name of the game - then the greatest sacrifice was seen by 1.1 million Jews who willingly sacrificed themselves, their families and their nation in defense of ther belief against Rome's depraved decrees - and they have been doing the same for 2000 years, against far greater opposition forces than any other. Thus the compultion mystery applies here. None were bad, non-believers or anything of the sort: each would give their lives for their beliefs - and nothing more can be asked of any of them. Thus it says, not just to love thy neighbour [which can be a self interest motive], but to LOVE THE STRANGER. Therein is the rub.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I dont see it as shallow, nor from a lack of belief in God or anything of that nature. It would make no difference to any believer in God if they were made to understand another religion's understandings - nor would it dent their status of belief. There is another dynamic operating here. Its not like a maths problem whereby the pointing of a certain factor makes everything correct. We are in a realm where differing and genuine beliefs exist - with no impact of any relevent factors. Christianity is the greatest and most powerful religious group - and the most advanced. It's adherents are fully advanced in mental ability, and they control the world in all most important aspects - but their beief is not based on this factor; in fact it is absolutely antithesied here: chrstianity is the easiest religion to knock - I dont do this - instead, I say there is a mysterious dynamic here which clearly defies every coherence. Asking Jews to worship a divine human - when their nation was twice destroyed on its refusal - in the European peoples' midst - is nothing other than placing a death sentence on that peoples, then accusing them of being disbelievers. Jerusalem and over a million people sacrficed their lives because the refused to worship Roman emperors - please factor that in each time you make any reference to sacrifice and belief. Then sincerely ask yourself how you would act had you been a jew with 2000 years of such history and belief in your genes. Else it becomes a lie-by-omission. That every religion believes theirs the only correct path is a generic syndrome, and thus cannot be claimed by anyone. Every mother loves her child too.
quote: That is what I mean by easy to knock back. Here, an arms length is needed to exemplify an appropriate metaphor. Jesus did not sacrifice himself - 1.1 million Jews sacrificed themselves - many in a manner far more amazing manner than jesus. The charge of heresy was a roman one - mimmicked later by the church - millions of innocent and rightious souls perished. In 70 CE, their blood flow reached the shoulders of the Roman horses - yet all refused to bow to the roman emperor's statue - even refusing a compromise to house the statue in the outer court of the Temple. One Akiva had his skin flayed while alive - a far more terrible death than cricifixion - he died laughing after six days. What occured at Masada was the same what occured to 140,000 remaining Jews in the temple - they died along with their families, while chanting their Passover prayers - and none can ask any more than that - not the NT, and not the Creator either. The Roman General Titus spewed himself sick at their power of belief, and refused to accept the crown of victory for the brave defense of their faith. Its not even mentioned in the NT. Without meaning to lessen christian belief - can you also see the other side of this coin? Here, christians should be hailing those jews for negating hellenism and romanism, and sustaining Monotheism - in what is the greatest defense of faith anywhere. But this is not the case, because the NT alligned its core belief on the premise Jews were bad - solely because they remained steadfast to their beliefs, and could not agree with the new NT premise. Rome was a brutal nazi like force - it appointed Roman selected secular Jews from elsewhere, did a micky mouse conversion and called them Jews, like Herod and Agrippa - just as depraved as themselves - and appointed them rulers of Judea. They did the same when they conquered Greece - eliminating any hope of that nation ever rising again, except as subserviants. There was also an existential motive for not putting blame on the Romans when writing anything - this was also seen in the writings of the roman appointed jewish scribe Josephus: he glorified Rome, but he also managed to slip in some inferring truths about what was the greatest defense of a faith in all recorded history. Here, speaking of a sacrifice of one jew - with all due respect - becomes a different perspective when cast upon the real scenario. t is made with great omissions.
quote: Spotless from who's pov - and what was done whch makes you say so? Certainly, the most pivotal factor was not confronted: Rome. You must understand the OT premise correctly, while saying how you better understand the NY premise. None are sinless - not even spiritual beings, except the creator. There is thus no example how one must behave from the NT story - all it says is sign up and your saved. The OT says laws and deeds apply - regardless of which belief one follows. Thus: LOVE THE STRANGER, and ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY: no mention of any religious alliance here? This puts all merit only on how one behaves *AFTER* one sins - no benefit if one does not or cannot sin - and the only definition of sin is vested in 613 Commandments. The one human who came closest to the core ['Presence to presence'] was Moses - he did commit a sin. King David also commited a sin. Both these spent the rest of their lives repenting - and were fully vindicated as no other: thus is a far greater feat than 'NOT SINNING'. Moses is today the most believed human; david wrote the psalms - a first person treatise between a human and the creator; thus the statute: 'WHERE A REPENTENT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT. All merit, forgiveness and glory is described as those relating to effort after falling - none without falling. This is validated even in the judicial courts today. I doubt jesus would condone all of the NT premises - and we have no Hebrew, contempory documents - in a space time when writings were commonplace [eg the Scrolls, dating between 300 bce to 100 ce]. You also fail to define what constitutes sin, and what constitutes sacrifice. There are millions of humans who will and do sacrifice themselves, for far lesser causes than for salvation - including christians, including others, and for such purposes of war, nation, a point of justice, for love, for fame, to save a helpless soul, for so many reasons. We've become numb to it today.
quote: This is a generic statement applying to all. Jesus was not a christian - always factor that in when you mention a book of 'HEBREWS'. He would have been totally emersed every year in Jewish observances, but not elaborated in your book. After the age of five, he would have been wearing religious jewish garb, praying in Hebrew the passover, eating matza, celebrating some 30 other Jewish festivals, and fasting twice a year after his bar mitzva at age 13. The gospels may have inferred he desicrated or flaunted the sabbath because the whole of Europe could not adhere to some of the OT laws [fact]. In any case - no one can present flaunting the sabbath law a merit. There are real, non-fictional problems with the NT which suffers credibility when seen from an arms length view. You just have to imagine how christians or muslims today would react to one over-turning a law they believe from God even today - then imagine how it would be in Judea 2000 years ago. This was a most fundamental religious time, whereby the jews were in defense mode of their faith against the depraved romans - 1000s of jews would have been not just reported to Rome, but stoned to death for non obervence in the temple precinct - and it would have nothing to do with Jesus nor could it be seen as a bad thing - in that space time. Contrast it with how many were killed by the medevial chrch on false charges of heresy? In the final count, why should one be villified for belief in the Creator - subject to which path one takes? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I could respond to every sentence negatively, effectively and in a manner which is not subject to dispute. But I respect sincere belefief, and this to me transcends the facts of the matter. The higher view is when an issue or report is viewed objectively, not subjectively, and here one must play devil's advocate, even seeing it from the other's POV.
I truely fail to see what sacrifces were made by Jesus - it must be compared with those living in that space time, and my knowledge of history says, 1.1 million Jews gave their lives in defense of their faith - with no recognition by christians of this greatest of sacrifices in humanity. I see the omission of this historical truth in the gospels as shameful, and has no means of justification whatsoever. It means, a christian must imagine himself as a Jew, and then give his reaction as a jew: he will surely not condone the Gospels view. This history has been surpressed, but those Hebrews/Jews who gave their lives, nation and country to defend their faith against Rome - constutute the greatest sacrifice ever recorded in history: 1.1 million = 12 M today; the historical record [Josephus] says the blood flow of the victums reached the Roman horses' shoulders; they could have saved themselves by worshiping Roman statues, as all other nations did, but refused it. So the gospels is reporting one jews' sacrifice as transcendent - ask yourself if you would do so with 4000 years of belief structured in your dna, and numerous existential wars in its defense? In fact, christians rejected Mohammed after only two centuries of belief! Surely a Jew sacrificing himself and his entire family and community in refusing Rome's decree constitutes a far greater sacrifice than what the gospels writers project of one Jew - it makes no sense at all, and casts an awkward shadow on this story, does it not? It does appear the gospel writers had an agenda here. I say, Jesus did not portray love and kindness - except as a jew, and that the jewish nation is one that is, relatively at least, a kind and non-violent people: best they can do is debate you to death! So here, Jesus would examply only what was a Jewish attribute, which includes disputing and rebelling: the OT shows that even under God, the Hebrews made dire opposition counters to Moses - some 11,000 Hebrews fell in a battle in the desert - all for a POV differential - so how does Jesus disputing or rebelling a POV constitute something special? By unilaterally posing a jew as more than a human, does not in any wise effect the factual history here - the laws and reality still applies, as it would with any other religion's adherants. The applicable question is not what the gospel says, but what you would do if a muslim, hindu or jew approached you and over-turned all your beliefs - that is the $64 Q. The notion of listing the factors the Judeans of that time persecuted or conspired against Jesus is ridiculous. The term persecuted or conspired does not factor here - while some christians project the premise Jesus openly desecrated the most sacred rituals and laws of his nation, as a good thing. One need only test this issue by desecrating the sacred laws of muslims in Mecca today, or of Hindus, or any other people - they will most probably be comitting suicide. I dont see it as a good thing when the Jesus story is portrayed this way - it only damages the sincere believing christians to a wrong path. Seen in this light, there cannot be any semblance of conspiracy, as has been portrayed - in fact if a Jew openly desecrates the sabbath in Jerusalem today - it would cause a big riot; never mind what is would entail if one desecrated laws in other religious capitals. Yet I see many christians boasting of this factor: this is hardly a credible boast - correct me please if I'm wrong! The issue of persecuting or conspiring only kicks in when there is an innocent party maligned, and here, if this story is even true, it is wrong by its own context: consider what the medevial church did to those who even mildly opposed its views? Millions of innocent people were tortured and killed on the rake on the charges of heresy. The issue of the gospels on desecrating the sabbath cannot in any wise be applied to one deemed innocent. Of course, I don't believe the gospel reporting, and doubt one Jew named Jesus would have done so; after all, since there is no such written record by one named Jesus, why should I point the finger at him? The report is made by the Gospels many centuries later, in another country, and thus that country's credibility must be examined: it is an horrific one. Everything they said, which is subject to proof, was proven false - including deicide, blood libels, the Protocols, jews are disbelievers, etc, etc. Here, the severe pain of these reports hover over christians - and I do feel for sincere christians of such a plight. I see America being discovered by jews, inadvertantly, when they were almost anihilated by Isabela of spain; I see this as a reason for America to save christianity - from Europe. I see this as a mysterious spiritual occurence, to save a belief via its mother religion, as appropriate and good, and thus as a squaring off of the prophesy, MANY NATIONS SHALL EMERGE FROM ABRAHAM - I do not see that all religions have to comply with one path only, and that being their only salvation. It would be likewise ridiculous to expect all Norwegions to focus their belief on a family in Canaan 4000 years ago: thus the message must transcend any messenger here -else it descends into paganism. I tried but could not find any positive messages from the jesus story, because there is an onus to do so, with 2 Billion people supporting it. Love is not an exclusive or new invention of the Gospels, and positing it generically is not even a good description of love. Love must be preceded by honesty, then respect - else it does not conclude in love. We find that one must HONOR [respect] parents, and here love has no merit, being biological. Thus the great law of love is not love thy neighbour, but LOVE THE STRANGER. Therein is the rub. Love of God does not depend on a free bonus of salvation - it is best shown when one is persecuted for a long time - with no loss of love of God. While I respect christian beliefs, despite its many flaws, there is also a mystery here how certain paradigms which are clearly wrong and bad - are hailed and boasted. This does not constitute a good path. Sometimes,a law or belief is sanctioned only as a testing. Consider that Abraham was tested - but when he was told the most evil city, Sodom, was to be destroyed, what was his reaction? He surely did not rejoice it or villify that people - in fact he strived with Heaven in words that shook both the earth and heaven: 'WILL THE JUDGE OF ALL JUDGES DESTROY THE INNOCENT WITH THE GUILTY - THIS EVIL BE FAR AWAY FROM YOU' I do see christians tested here. I do see christians being saved - but by the OT factors of love and kindness and other majestic laws therein - because I see a change from medevial Europe's falsehoods, and one which incurred so many crimes and false reportings for so long, it is hardly wirth debate. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Correction: the Gospels says that. If God said so - then there would have been a Sinai scale revelation - at least, if not a global mode of the same. God would say so - and no need for a son here. Factor in, christians rejected Mohammed because they demanded that Jesus return to say so. You cannot have it both ways, and still proclaim it as a absolute truth. Further, I guarantee you, had you been a jew in that space-time, you would gladly surrender your life, and that of your family and nation, rejecting such a view - this is not hypothetical, it did happen, resulting in the now acknowledged canon adhustments by the vatican, Jews have their own covenant which stands, and need not depend on the Gospels for salvation. Even muslims, a people more closely associated with this space-time and vicinity, rejected the Gospels. The law for salvation is thus: THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL WHICH SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' [OT]. Thereafter, there are some 100s of other factors where one can be saved after sinning. This says, in dire opposition of the NT and Quran, a good chritian is better than a bad jew, and visa versa twice, applying equally to muslims and christians. All christians should be suspicious there are no hebrew writings by Jesus: has there ever been an OT prophet who did not perform his own writings? Even God did so at Sinai with the first two commandmands - these were given directly. How much more so if one claims to change the laws in a fundamental manner [GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN/Samuel], and every other verse given by God? I see this as the reason the stiff-necks were chosen: they demanded proof, and when they got it - and now they remain the world's most fastedious observers of God's word - by period of time and by impact. Thus it constitutes a falsity to pose the gospels as representing Jesus. This can in fact be a saving grace for christians: be more stiff necked - it shows the best pursuit for truth. So if you would not accept Mohammed w/o Jesus - you cannot use the reasoning of the Gospels over-turning a belief held fastidious for 2000 years. In fact, if you were .01% genuine, you would demand that God says so. If you failed to do so - it would exemplify a blasphemy to negate anything declared by God. Thus you should not allocate those words to a jew named jesus - but to the Gospels only. You would lose the case in any court trail, be in on earth or in heaven. Think it over deeply - because the final premise is not who is more right, but the pursuit of truth. Further, there is no Satan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This is fine to have as a belief, and I know it is genuine, and that its rejection is a negation of fulcrum pillars of christianity. But IMHO, an OPEN Revelation transcends a third party reporting, and only the one who revealed Himself at Sinai can speak for himself. I gave you clear reasons: you rejected Mohammed because you would not harken to anyone but Jesus - you cannot in any wise apply any other criteria on others than your own.
quote: I know Jeremia backwards, as well as what the new covenant is all about. I suggest you read carefully ALL of Jeremia and Isaiah - and not be selective.
quote: The only manifestation is that Abraham shall be the father of *MANY* nations.
quote: Isaiah does not talk of a Messiah resurrecting *himself*. Please read ALL of it, and deal with the tough verses - there are plenty. IMHO< the christians shold not await Jesus - nothing will change, as at before. They should instead pray for Moses or the God of Sinai. This will work wonders - for all humanity. Think it over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This was also said by many europeans when the holocaust occured - ve vere not avare; others say it never happened; who does one *believe* anymore! The raped must be the guilty party - its less disruptive. But there is nothing wrong in being a stiff-necked for the good reason - there is nothing wrong in asking for the source who gave the laws to negate them: it just happens that no one could perform this feat - subtle point. ANALOGY: you rob a car from some one, then kill the owner, then claim the previous owner was a bad person anyway because he refused to give you his car. I say - there must be an arms length distance here [OT Law] - which is lacking. The judge, prosecutor and jury cannot be the same. All that has happened, is the car thief was mistaken about the owner's state of death - the witness for the prosecution has been resurrected - and this is an affront. It should be seen as a good tiding - but this cannot be so because you have attached all your beliefs on the death of the car owner. In fact it was Mighty Rome that died - subtle point again. Why can't you beieve in God w/o attaching this belief on the death of another? I think we will be asked questions in the hereafter which are clearly not anticipated. I think one beautified Pope Pious will be taken up for sure with this: 'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' This will mean, I imagine the next question to be: 'RIGHT - SO YOU REJECTED MOHAMMED - THUS ALL YOUR LANDS MUST BE TAKEN AND YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM RETURN' But you don't see it that way - you feel all laws must incline with you being right, no matter how incoherent. Now if those Jews sided with christianity - they would be the bad guys for the Muslims anyway. Because both of you cannot be right - another suble point. So I see no way around for humanity other than christians and muslims acknowledge they have no law NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT - and this is no typo. Because there is no end in sight once you change - it goes cyclical, and it's real meaning and inference is the original command was faulty or lacking - a self destructive premise if there ever was one. Either way - everyone is doomed and sunk - no exceptions - unless this verse is ratified: 'I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [Ex]. In actual fact, the laws have not changed. All 613 OT Laws stand today w/o exception. The nations turn by these laws - exclusively. Not one of the OT or Quran laws have been accepted by the world at large - any institution which negates it, operates outside of the law. So all we have is a belief - and a mysterious one, followed by the world's most powerful religious group, hell bent on negating its mother religion as its sole claim to fame. It is a fine belief - when it is not cushioned against the negation of another. Thus I say, christianity can be saved only by America - saved from medevial Europe. Now Jesus, by any other name - was not a christian. The alphabet 'J' was not even contained in any European language till the 17th Century. While I don't accept the gospels version of history or truth - I also do not believe all that it has subscribed to Jesus has any truth in i: Jesus left no writings. Jews do not revel with beedy eyes and hooked noses over the death of another jews - specially so where Rome is concerned. If in doubt - please present such an occurence outside of the Gospels - you have 4000 years of history and more prophets than anywhere else to choose from. Fulfilling = observing, not negating. Truth is an indestructable force - it always bops up in the end to make one affronted. Whatever is thr manifested truth all will follow - but shrouded revelations cannot negate an OPEN revelation - and one minus the original giver of the truth. Why are you guys not more stiff-necked?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Read again. The first two commands were given by God, wherein the people asked Moses to cease the direct revelation [least their souls leave them and aspire to the source]. All the rest were given via Moses, as per the texts. So there was in fact a DIRECT and OPEN Revalation - a factor which does not make the Hebrews or Jews wrong/bad for asking the same MANNER OF REVELATION - specially if there is to be any variance from it. This was my point to you. if you feel comfy via the JC path and can be saved from there - good luck to you, I dont see why it has to be via mine or any other person's path. 'HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' applies.
quote: No OT texts reflect NT texts - this is a retorspective, subjective view. I think you must rely on the NT - as opposed a scripture which preceded 2000 years ago. Read ALL of jeremia - and you will find it is only a reflection of the OT.
quote: Not so. All 3 million witnessed the first two C's - including a mixed multitude of non-hebrews. In fact, Moses was asked to stand down with the people. The latter vindicates the stiff-necks.
quote: Of coz I beieve only one God [pristine, strict Monotheism] - but with many paths thereto. IMHO, it is the NT which forbids this premise, with its exclusive kingdom keys doctrine, one reflected by muslims in its no Gd w/o Mohammed and all else are infidels. The OT is very clear on this issue: equal rights; only the soul that sinneth it shall pay. No qualifications of which religion one belongs to. And I think that is absolutely correct. But it won't dent a belief.
[quote]
Now if you believe that God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah as He also spoke through the prophet Moses then you should consider who most qualifies to be suspected as the central figure in this [b]"new covenant" promised by God.[/quote] New covenant can only come from the one who gave the original covenant. If you stick to this - you wont/cant go astray. Jeremaia does not say what you think he says. As of now, numerous christian scholars have agreed even Isaiah was misrepped by christian priests - but this belief still continues. It is a retrosective conclusion. Christians do not want to believe anything else - because they fear it will cause a serious dent in their beliefs; its undertsnadable and blatant. There is a full stop after the OT; the follow-up prophetic writings are affirmations of the OT laws and statutes. A new covenant has not been given - there are no new laws post OT. Name me one?
quote: I entreat you also - will you uphold a thing which contradicts your belief? I dont expect you to. The problem is not your belief - clearly, christians were made to see what others were bared from - and vise verse. The problem comes when politics and ego kicks in: all who do not believe the NT or Quran - are bad guys, and will go to a very hot place for a very long time. I humbly reject that doctrine.
quote: As I said - show me where they did the same to another jew? The pharisees, far from the lone Gospel story, gave their lives and were massacred in the temple, along with their families - yet they did not desecrate the first two commands of Sinai: this part is missing from your description. It is feasable to accuse the gospels here of a lie by omission. Let me put it very clearly to you: there is no nation or peoples anywhere in geo-History, who put up a greater defense of their faith than with the war between Rome and Judea. This is not based on belief but on an open historical fact, confirmable by many nations' writings. The gospels does not even mention it - yet it is obsessed with hapless money changers doing what they did for 2000 years. Yes - they may have been rowdy, maybe even less than perfect - but its still small fry compared to Rome and Roman catholocism. There is no sense of prioroty or relevence here, and I fail to understand this, except that the NT erred when it positioned its fulcrum beliefs in villifying the Jews. This has become a stumbling block, and will be cleared up - till then - the NT rests on thin ice. We know from factual history, not a single charge of the European church has not been proven false accusations. The blood libels and the Protocols are the work of very decietful and brazenly lying European christians - it does reflect a stain on all other accusations. Both thse false stories are today pervasive in the islamic world - but christians are silent of it - even as it came from the vatican's own backyard - this says a lot, dont you think - namely it is against the premise of the truth shall set you free?
quote: What did Jesus do or say which is special or new?
quote: That can apply to millions of gentle folk. There are 1000s of verses which the NT contradicts - why do you mention only what can be spinned - why do you not compare it with those portions of the OT which it clearly contradicts? This shows, the OT laws were rejected because it contradicts many NT doctrines, and not because those laws were not majestic and profound.
quote: Paul is an outsider here - he never even met Jesus, and we have no writings from jesus to negate Monotheism or the Sinai laws, as did Paul - erronously. The Nasserites, the first group who revered Jesus - booted out Paul. You never mentioned that! It is a fact that Paul failed in Jesus' neck of the woods.
quote: But he did sanction much of the Gospels, such as imaculate birth, but he soundly rejected the resurrection and divine man. It can be argued, the Europeans believed Paul - a greek, secular citizen - because he told them what they wanted to hear. If Paul upheld the OT laws - he would have failed. There is historical precedence to this.
quote: Its not twisted from the POV of the first two commands of Sinai, and the muslims can correctly be deemed a better witness, being from the same vicinity. Here, we are talking of a people who were pagan till islam arrived - and if they rejected the NT's divine man - it is quite an irony. The point here is, you should not see someone who believes in God via strict monotheism as disbelievers. I don't think such of christians - I see them as Godly inclined, but by another path. I would never allign myself with those who would say, that path makes them dis-believers. I know a christin will give his life for Jesus, and that's all that can be asked. The problem comes with the insertion of ego and politics. The NT is afflicted with a guilt factor - it wants to negate the jews for being jews. But this wont fix anything - you still have to contend with islam, Buddhism, etc - and none of these are wrong/bad because they dont believe in the gospels!
quote: Annointed does not relate to what you say it does: David was *ANNOINTED* by the prophet Samuel. In that psalm, David was the annointed, and the spalms reflect Moses and the OT teachings pervasively.
quote: But it cannot be aughed at by the gospels. If God does so - let it be via God - not anyone else. Here, only the Sinai revelation applies. Now if there is a need to make people believe in God - then one must pray for God to do so - with no agents whatsoever. Any other means is hell-bent on destruction of millions of souls. And the result will be only greater chaos. If you want the gospels to be vindicated - you should ask for the father to reveal himself - why don't you!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024