Page 1 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Feb 2010, 11:55 pm

Omerik wrote:
Again, that misses the whole point of Jesus, in my opinion. He would prefer it if you would come one with God, as I see it. Especially when he fought so much for the Jewish Bible and nation... I see it a bid odd to form a religion in order to honour the messiah of another religion. That's why the Evangelical view (which I don't 100% agree with) has some sense to me. If I'm not wrong, his acceptance by the gentiles even goes along with some prophecies about the messiah. I'm not against the idea of gentiles admiring Jesus, don't get me wrong.

Being one with God isn't against being part of the church.

I don't understand. Gentiles became part of a Jesus movement that was supposedly based upon some elements of Judaism as well as some elements of the teachings of Christ. I don't see how this is odd. The point is to honor this being, we call religions what we do based upon how these beliefs relate to each other, but there is no essence. In fact, the placement of some religions is going to be based upon interpretation.

Quote:
It explains it better, if you think God chose the cross for a reason.

I don't think so. I think that something from a momentous occasion can be symbolic enough.

Quote:
I'm against the whole consensus idea, as I think I explained. Do you personally think he is God?
If so, doesn't that contradict his referring to God as father? It should be noted that religious Jews tend to call God "our father", even without messianic claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinita ... scriptures
Jesus himself called God "my father and your father".

I am not religious.

No, there is no contradiction. The trinity is comprised of a "Father", a "Son" which is Christ, and a "Holy Spirit".

The Christians accept the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. He had no Earthly father in their eyes. To go further, they take statements of God as Christ's father more seriously.

Quote:
I admire him because of his message and acts. About the sermons, for example.
Do you agree with me that pay less attention to his message than they should?

Why should they pay any attention.

Quote:
So wouldn't it be more correct to say "he lived for our sins"?

No, the death is a central part of the atonement. (Grr.... I had a typo)

Christ's life isn't important unless he died.

Quote:
Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. Besides, the claims the he is the messiah are based on Judaism. Even his last supper was in Passover, a Jewish holiday, in Jerusalem, the capital, and on his cross it says Jesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. He was considered King of the Jews by other people, although didn't say so himself.

Ok, I am not denying that, but part of the problem is that Christian scriptures were written to a lot of non-Christian audiences and by non-Christians themselves.

Quote:
So what if the mainstream rejected him? You still cannot be Christian without having the fundamentals of Jewish belief...

The mainstream decides what will be in the mainstream.

Some Christians attempted to remove the Jewishness in the past, and some attempt to do so to this day.

That being said, while there is some element of Judaism in Christ, some scholars on both sides believe that Jesus came down to do his own thing.(others disagree, and so on)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Feb 2010, 11:58 pm

Omerik wrote:
Well, according to the religion itself, I'm still Jewish even if I decide to convert.

It was your question, and they get to decide the cut off points.

Quote:
By the way. I found that Jesus was quoted saying this:
Quote:
Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Which gets to my point - there's no reason in worshipping the messenger.

Ok? It is a pretty known verse.

It also has nothing to do with the trinity. If Christ is God, then worshiping Christ is valid.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

05 Feb 2010, 12:11 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Omerik wrote:
Again, that misses the whole point of Jesus, in my opinion. He would prefer it if you would come one with God, as I see it. Especially when he fought so much for the Jewish Bible and nation... I see it a bid odd to form a religion in order to honour the messiah of another religion. That's why the Evangelical view (which I don't 100% agree with) has some sense to me. If I'm not wrong, his acceptance by the gentiles even goes along with some prophecies about the messiah. I'm not against the idea of gentiles admiring Jesus, don't get me wrong.

Being one with God isn't against being part of the church.

I don't understand. Gentiles became part of a Jesus movement that was supposedly based upon some elements of Judaism as well as some elements of the teachings of Christ. I don't see how this is odd. The point is to honor this being, we call religions what we do based upon how these beliefs relate to each other, but there is no essence. In fact, the placement of some religions is going to be based upon interpretation.

I didn't exactly say it's against it.

And yes, it's about interpretation. Wrong interpretation, as I see it. Jesus didn't take "some elements" of Judaism, he was absolutely about Judaism. I don't think there was any Jew devouted and loyal to Judaism as he was until this day. His teachings were based on quotes from the bible, he was a political and social leader, committed to Israel. That doesn't contradict gentiles accepting him, as previously said. I just think it's odd to accept the greatest Jew ever, and his Jewish teachings, without considering yourself Jewish.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
I'm against the whole consensus idea, as I think I explained. Do you personally think he is God?
If so, doesn't that contradict his referring to God as father? It should be noted that religious Jews tend to call God "our father", even without messianic claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinita ... scriptures
Jesus himself called God "my father and your father".

I am not religious.

No, there is no contradiction. The trinity is comprised of a "Father", a "Son" which is Christ, and a "Holy Spirit".

The Christians accept the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. He had no Earthly father in their eyes. To go further, they take statements of God as Christ's father more seriously.

There is contradiction in my opinion, because they don't understand the Jewish practice of calling God "father". He called God "my father and your father". They don't take it too seriously, in my opinion, they take it too literally.

For example, a famous Jewish song:
Quote:
We are believers, sons of believers
And we have none to lean on, but our Father that's in the sky

The second line is a common Jewish saying, "We have none to lean on but our father".

I don't think Jesus himself ever referred to his mother as a supposed virgin. The Messiah is supposed to be a direct offspring of David by parental heritage. Not all Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus idea, although most do. It was just dogmatised and people didn't ask questions. By it seems irrational to me, and the same way as Maimonides rejected the Kabalah and is still considered an important and respected Jew, I don't see how the rejection of the virgin theory is anti-Jesus, or even anti-Christian.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Omerik wrote:
So what if the mainstream rejected him? You still cannot be Christian without having the fundamentals of Jewish belief...

The mainstream decides what will be in the mainstream.

Some Christians attempted to remove the Jewishness in the past, and some attempt to do so to this day.

That being said, while there is some element of Judaism in Christ, some scholars on both sides believe that Jesus came down to do his own thing.(others disagree, and so on)

Basically you're telling me what I already know here.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Omerik wrote:
By the way. I found that Jesus was quoted saying this:
Quote:
Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Which gets to my point - there's no reason in worshipping the messenger.

Ok? It is a pretty known verse.

It also has nothing to do with the trinity. If Christ is God, then worshiping Christ is valid.

But it is a message from Jesus that he shouldn't be worshipped, rather God should be the one followed.
He distincts himself from God here. So it has to do with the trinity myth.



WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

05 Feb 2010, 12:56 pm

mjs82 wrote:
ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote:
That explains why he's turning the other cheek one minute and bringing not peace but a sword the next


Okay I may be half asleep, but is there a specific example where Jesus advocated violence? I remember the story about the money lenders in the church but I don't think it was as bad as murder etc.


This bit from Mt 10 certainly predicts violence, whether or not it is precisely advocated is I guess up to each reader...

Quote:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm

32
14 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
33
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
35
For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36
and one's enemies will be those of his household.'
37
"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
38
and whoever does not take up his cross 15 and follow after me is not worthy of me.
39
16 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

05 Feb 2010, 1:05 pm

To me it seems more like a prophecy.
Somewhat like the "last war" that the Marxists advocated...
He knew that this change shall include violence, but did not advocate using it.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2010, 1:17 pm

Omerik wrote:
I didn't exactly say it's against it.

And yes, it's about interpretation. Wrong interpretation, as I see it. Jesus didn't take "some elements" of Judaism, he was absolutely about Judaism. I don't think there was any Jew devouted and loyal to Judaism as he was until this day. His teachings were based on quotes from the bible, he was a political and social leader, committed to Israel. That doesn't contradict gentiles accepting him, as previously said. I just think it's odd to accept the greatest Jew ever, and his Jewish teachings, without considering yourself Jewish.

Jesus did his own thing to a significant extent. Allowing labor on the Sabbath? Allowing the consumption of any food item? Universalizing the belief? Not caring about circumcision? The doctrine of Original Sin? The notion of an atonement?

I mean, Jesus did take "some elements" of Judaism, and he was absolutely about his own ideas, which in some cases didn't seem Jewish. I mean, maybe you might be talking about an "original Jesus", but this is an unknown Jesus, as we only have scriptures written by others.

Quotes from the Bible doesn't mean much, a lot of usage of the Bible in the New Testament was poor exegesis in some sense or another.

As for committed to Israel? You mean a spiritual Israel? He showed no interest in a promised land. He also showed little interest in a specifically Jewish people.

Quote:
There is contradiction in my opinion, because they don't understand the Jewish practice of calling God "father". He called God "my father and your father". They don't take it too seriously, in my opinion, they take it too literally.

For example, a famous Jewish song:
Quote:
We are believers, sons of believers
And we have none to lean on, but our Father that's in the sky

The second line is a common Jewish saying, "We have none to lean on but our father".

I don't think Jesus himself ever referred to his mother as a supposed virgin. The Messiah is supposed to be a direct offspring of David by parental heritage. Not all Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus idea, although most do. It was just dogmatised and people didn't ask questions. By it seems irrational to me, and the same way as Maimonides rejected the Kabalah and is still considered an important and respected Jew, I don't see how the rejection of the virgin theory is anti-Jesus, or even anti-Christian.

Look, the idea that Jesus was unlike other sons is clear:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son"

1 John 4:9 "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him."

Romans 8:3 "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man"

"only Son", "own Son", and so on really suggest that Jesus isn't like other men.

I don't see a contradiction here, Jesus was the son of God very clearly in the minds of Christians.

As for the virgin birth, it is clearly in the scriptures:

Luk 1:30-35 "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

It isn't dogmatised, it is in the scriptures that Christians accept, along with the Church history that the rest trust. The only Christians who could disbelieve it are liberal Christians, and they might do so based upon cynicism towards the New Testament and knowledge of an interpretation that emerged only because of the Septuagint.

You might consider it irrational, but you are rejecting doctrines that Christians often consider very central to the belief system.

Quote:
But it is a message from Jesus that he shouldn't be worshipped, rather God should be the one followed.
He distincts himself from God here. So it has to do with the trinity myth.

Actually, that's just your interpretation. Most people take it as a sign that good works are essential for real faith, not that Jesus shouldn't be worshiped, as to many this just ties in with claims in James that "works without faith is dead".

Umm.... he distinguishes himself from the Father. Not from God. The trinity holds that Jesus is distinctly different than the Father, but that he is part of God.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

05 Feb 2010, 2:35 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Omerik wrote:
I didn't exactly say it's against it.

And yes, it's about interpretation. Wrong interpretation, as I see it. Jesus didn't take "some elements" of Judaism, he was absolutely about Judaism. I don't think there was any Jew devouted and loyal to Judaism as he was until this day. His teachings were based on quotes from the bible, he was a political and social leader, committed to Israel. That doesn't contradict gentiles accepting him, as previously said. I just think it's odd to accept the greatest Jew ever, and his Jewish teachings, without considering yourself Jewish.

Jesus did his own thing to a significant extent. Allowing labor on the Sabbath? Allowing the consumption of any food item? Universalizing the belief? Not caring about circumcision? The doctrine of Original Sin? The notion of an atonement?

I mean, Jesus did take "some elements" of Judaism, and he was absolutely about his own ideas, which in some cases didn't seem Jewish. I mean, maybe you might be talking about an "original Jesus", but this is an unknown Jesus, as we only have scriptures written by others.

Quotes from the Bible doesn't mean much, a lot of usage of the Bible in the New Testament was poor exegesis in some sense or another.

As for committed to Israel? You mean a spiritual Israel? He showed no interest in a promised land. He also showed little interest in a specifically Jewish people.

Jesus did his own thing for sure - he gave an individual interpertation that was not common. If you know the Reform movement in Judaism, they are quite alike. They regard the biblical law as guidelines, and think they should be modernised according to culture, question traditional interpertations, and insist that it's okay to "defy" them in some instances (even the bible says that it's okay in some instances, they take it further).

Some example - religious mainstream Jews in Israel don't use electricity in Sabbath. Some individuals claim it makes no sense, because it's not labour. People I know reason that the restriction on lighting fire was because of the work that had to be done. Plus, it is a social rule, to make people have a day-off for themselves, to rest, and to think things. If I do this anyday, I don't think it shall anger God if I work on a Sabbath.

Another example - some reformists wonder how the hell it was decided that meat and milk are not permitted to eat together, as the bible only says "don't cook a kid goat in his mother's milk" (my translation from Hebrew). There can be thousands of interpretations - how come this one became mainstream? It has no more logic than others.

Jesus was just ahead of his time. Even in the Old Testament, the prophets spoke against people who hurt others, but then came to worship God as if it makes them okay. Judaism differentiates commands that are between a person and other people, and commands that are between himself and God. I can tell you that even rabbinical Jews I know agree that being a good person in means of helping others, etc., is more important than observing rules that are between a person and God only.

Quotes from the bible mean a lot - because he used them as reasoning.

As for commited to Israel - well, I don't remember the exact quote from the New Testament, and am too tired to search for it - but there was the case where a gentile woman asked for help, and he answered that he is only interested in helping people of Israel - but in the end he helped her, because she had belief in what he was saying, which probably meant belief in his Judaism.

He was killed because the Romans were afraid of his growing popularity and the possibility of a revolt, as I understand it - and the Sanhedrin didn't want him to become the "Jewish authority", as he criticised them and was an individual, plus they were appointed by the Romans, and wanted good relations with them - they were afraid that he would spark a revolt of the Judeans, and it would make the Romans treat them badly or to move them out of their land.

So basically, the Jewish official leadership was made of coward puppets who kissed the Romans' ass, and Jesus was the one who didn't accept the invaders as an authority, and was hailed as King of the Jews by his followers. How can you say he had no relation to Israel/Judaism?

Quote:
Quote:
There is contradiction in my opinion, because they don't understand the Jewish practice of calling God "father". He called God "my father and your father". They don't take it too seriously, in my opinion, they take it too literally.

For example, a famous Jewish song:
Quote:
We are believers, sons of believers
And we have none to lean on, but our Father that's in the sky

The second line is a common Jewish saying, "We have none to lean on but our father".

I don't think Jesus himself ever referred to his mother as a supposed virgin. The Messiah is supposed to be a direct offspring of David by parental heritage. Not all Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus idea, although most do. It was just dogmatised and people didn't ask questions. By it seems irrational to me, and the same way as Maimonides rejected the Kabalah and is still considered an important and respected Jew, I don't see how the rejection of the virgin theory is anti-Jesus, or even anti-Christian.

Look, the idea that Jesus was unlike other sons is clear:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son"

1 John 4:9 "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him."

Romans 8:3 "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man"

"only Son", "own Son", and so on really suggest that Jesus isn't like other men.

I don't see a contradiction here, Jesus was the son of God very clearly in the minds of Christians.

As for the virgin birth, it is clearly in the scriptures:

Luk 1:30-35 "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

It isn't dogmatised, it is in the scriptures that Christians accept, along with the Church history that the rest trust. The only Christians who could disbelieve it are liberal Christians, and they might do so based upon cynicism towards the New Testament and knowledge of an interpretation that emerged only because of the Septuagint.

Are liberal Christians less Christian...?

Quotes don't always say much. Even religious mainstream Jews know that some Old Testament scriptures are biased many times. For example when Judea is hailed, and the separate tribes and their kingdom are criticised - well, we take in mind that they written by a Judean who wasn't very objective.

God wasn't the one who wrote the New Testament, and Jesus wasn't the one, so I don't take it as a sacred text. I take it as an evidence, which may be exaggerated or distorted. If his followers wrote scriptures to make him look better, what they write doesn't automatically convince me, as they have a clear interest of doing so - and some of it is even against the belief of his as a Jewish Christ in the first place. It reminds of a discussion I had with a philosophy teacher in university - I claimed that I am not less Jewish because I reject some books that are part of the bible, as I don't accept the authority of the ones who decided what's in and what's out. So he said, it wouldn't make you not Jewish, but outside of the mainstream Judaism. That's how new sects start sometimes, take that in account...

Quote:
You might consider it irrational, but you are rejecting doctrines that Christians often consider very central to the belief system

Why do you use the word "but"?
I think I made it clear that I am rejecting doctrines that Christian often consider very central to their belief. That's the whole point of this topic.

Quote:
Quote:
But it is a message from Jesus that he shouldn't be worshipped, rather God should be the one followed.
He distincts himself from God here. So it has to do with the trinity myth.

Actually, that's just your interpretation. Most people take it as a sign that good works are essential for real faith, not that Jesus shouldn't be worshiped, as to many this just ties in with claims in James that "works without faith is dead".

Umm.... he distinguishes himself from the Father. Not from God. The trinity holds that Jesus is distinctly different than the Father, but that he is part of God.

I accept your comment that it's my interpretation. But why is it wrong? Wasn't Jesus himself an individual? How can people conform in the name of a great individualist?

He distinguishes himself from the father, and the father is God. Otherwise, he wouldn't call him "your father", would he?
Worshipping him is against Judaism, so again, if he wouldn't have any problem with it, that's contradicting him as a Jewish messiah in the first place. He paid more respect to actions and to intentions than to symbols himself. There are modern rabbinical Jews who are opposed to worshipping of great Jews, and consider it a paradox, according to the Bible. Now, you can say that he has no connection with Judaism or something like that - but then it's a problem when you claim he is a the messiah based on Jewish prophecies.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

05 Feb 2010, 4:53 pm

There is a religious group called Jews For Jesus that might be right for you. Google them.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2010, 6:13 pm

Omerik wrote:
Jesus did his own thing for sure - he gave an individual interpertation that was not common. If you know the Reform movement in Judaism, they are quite alike. They regard the biblical law as guidelines, and think they should be modernised according to culture, question traditional interpertations, and insist that it's okay to "defy" them in some instances (even the bible says that it's okay in some instances, they take it further).

Ok, but the further issue is that the followers of Jesus didn't emphasize the Jewishness of Christ, and instead they took themselves to be their own movement, and the Jews basically agreed with this and it has been this way for thousands of years. I mean, just because two groups branch off doesn't mean that one group will really bear strong relation to the other in the end.

Quote:
Some example - religious mainstream Jews in Israel don't use electricity in Sabbath. Some individuals claim it makes no sense, because it's not labour. People I know reason that the restriction on lighting fire was because of the work that had to be done. Plus, it is a social rule, to make people have a day-off for themselves, to rest, and to think things. If I do this anyday, I don't think it shall anger God if I work on a Sabbath.

Right, but Christ's reasoning was very questionable on the scriptural grounds.

Quote:
Another example - some reformists wonder how the hell it was decided that meat and milk are not permitted to eat together, as the bible only says "don't cook a kid goat in his mother's milk" (my translation from Hebrew). There can be thousands of interpretations - how come this one became mainstream? It has no more logic than others.

Ok, but some of the food issues are a lot more direct than this, and Jesus just dismissed the idea, a clear idea in the OT that food could make a person unclean by saying that it is not what goes in the mouth that makes a man unclean, but rather what comes out of the mouth.

Quote:
Jesus was just ahead of his time. Even in the Old Testament, the prophets spoke against people who hurt others, but then came to worship God as if it makes them okay. Judaism differentiates commands that are between a person and other people, and commands that are between himself and God. I can tell you that even rabbinical Jews I know agree that being a good person in means of helping others, etc., is more important than observing rules that are between a person and God only.

Ok? The religions have still split off dramatically, and Christians have still rejected any Jewish heritage theologically or further.

Quote:
Quotes from the bible mean a lot - because he used them as reasoning.

No, it really doesn't if one is misusing the Bible quotes. I mean, people quote-mine all of the time. I could probably do this with Richard Dawkins to argue for creationism, but that's not because I am using him as reasoning.

Quote:
As for commited to Israel - well, I don't remember the exact quote from the New Testament, and am too tired to search for it - but there was the case where a gentile woman asked for help, and he answered that he is only interested in helping people of Israel - but in the end he helped her, because she had belief in what he was saying, which probably meant belief in his Judaism.


The only thing I can see is this:

Mar 7:26-30 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

The issue is that this does not really say Israel or the woman's faith in Israel. I mean, one might argue that this statement shows Jewish favorite-ness, but honestly it is just a wrench in the works of most theologies given other statements.

Quote:
He was killed because the Romans were afraid of his growing popularity and the possibility of a revolt, as I understand it - and the Sanhedrin didn't want him to become the "Jewish authority", as he criticised them and was an individual, plus they were appointed by the Romans, and wanted good relations with them - they were afraid that he would spark a revolt of the Judeans, and it would make the Romans treat them badly or to move them out of their land.

Not according to the scriptures, as Pontius Pilate actually wanted Jesus released on grounds of innocence. Also, he gave the Jewish people a chance to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, and the people voted for Barabbas to be released.

Mat 27:13-24 "Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed. Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream." Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!" And he said, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!" So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.""

Quote:
So basically, the Jewish official leadership was made of coward puppets who kissed the Romans' ass, and Jesus was the one who didn't accept the invaders as an authority, and was hailed as King of the Jews by his followers. How can you say he had no relation to Israel/Judaism?

Pretty easily, he didn't openly reject the Romans authority, and the apostle Paul is known for calling for surrender to Romans authority (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14). Additionally, according to the scriptures, Jesus wasn't crucified at the will of the Romans, but rather at the will of the Jews, as their priests called for his death despite the innocence that Pilate believed Jesus had.

Quote:
Are liberal Christians less Christian...?

I would actually say yes. Why? Because their faith seems more ad hoc. They don't trust the foundations of Christian knowledge, but they still call themselves "Christian". I don't really even know what they mean by the term "Christian" at this point given how willing they are to have secular philosophies and things like that included in their belief systems.

Quote:
Quotes don't always say much. Even religious mainstream Jews know that some Old Testament scriptures are biased many times. For example when Judea is hailed, and the separate tribes and their kingdom are criticised - well, we take in mind that they written by a Judean who wasn't very objective.

Ok, but the thing is that these are scriptures generally accepted by the Christian faith. They are also some of the only evidence we have about these issues. Additionally, we have multiple quotes that strongly point to something. At that point it becomes hard to say that the early Christians had no beliefs on these matters, and honestly I do think you just want to say "I like Jesus" and then turn some smattering of ideas into your puppet, rather than find a real Jesus underneath these scriptures.

Quote:
God wasn't the one who wrote the New Testament, and Jesus wasn't the one, so I don't take it as a sacred text. I take it as an evidence, which may be exaggerated or distorted. If his followers wrote scriptures to make him look better, what they write doesn't automatically convince me, as they have a clear interest of doing so - and some of it is even against the belief of his as a Jewish Christ in the first place. It reminds of a discussion I had with a philosophy teacher in university - I claimed that I am not less Jewish because I reject some books that are part of the bible, as I don't accept the authority of the ones who decided what's in and what's out. So he said, it wouldn't make you not Jewish, but outside of the mainstream Judaism. That's how new sects start sometimes, take that in account...

Then what on earth do you appeal to for knowledge about Jesus??

I mean, the only evidence is the New Testament and some heretical gospels. Maybe the beliefs of the early church. But, beyond that there is nothing. Your ONLY evidence of his JEWISH tendencies is these same books, and YOU want to ARBITRARILY accept or reject what they write at YOUR whim???? This isn't about you being a free-thinker. This is more about your agenda, and finding things that you can make to fit that agenda.

I don't know your philosophy professor, but people have odd fetishes(not sexual) in their religious tendencies, so I would likely take what he said with a grain of salt. (and I don't know what he said, so I can't say much else)

Quote:
Why do you use the word "but"?
I think I made it clear that I am rejecting doctrines that Christian often consider very central to their belief. That's the whole point of this topic.

I don't really see the point of this topic. You want to be something. Go ahead. I don't really care. I just don't want to play some game where you can hold evidence by ad hoc rules.

Quote:
I accept your comment that it's my interpretation. But why is it wrong? Wasn't Jesus himself an individual? How can people conform in the name of a great individualist?

The reason I say "it's just your interpretation" is because I don't see much foundation for your interpretation. It doesn't clarify issues. It doesn't actually really speak towards the matters that you want it to. Additionally, how do you know how much of an individualist Jesus is? I see some evidence that he stands against the mainstream and supports that, but not really for a broader individualism. In any case, conforming in the name of a great individualist has happened in the past with the Objectivist movement.

Quote:
He distinguishes himself from the father, and the father is God. Otherwise, he wouldn't call him "your father", would he?

Umm.... that's part of Trinitarian doctrine.
Jesus is God.
The Father is God.
Jesus is not the Father.

You can say that this is absurd, *BUT* the idea has support and a person's teachings don't actually have to make sense. I mean, spiritual teachings won't necessary do so.

Quote:
Worshipping him is against Judaism, so again, if he wouldn't have any problem with it, that's contradicting him as a Jewish messiah in the first place. He paid more respect to actions and to intentions than to symbols himself. There are modern rabbinical Jews who are opposed to worshipping of great Jews, and consider it a paradox, according to the Bible. Now, you can say that he has no connection with Judaism or something like that - but then it's a problem when you claim he is a the messiah based on Jewish prophecies.

Not if he is God. That being said, Christ was Christ, he did his own thing. You picking and choosing what he did in order to fit into your scheme really.... doesn't say much. It's arbitrary. Christ *can* say something that isn't Jewish.

Also, to be clear, I don't think he was the Messiah. I don't think he actually really fulfilled prophecy. I think that a lot of the "prophecies" that the New Testament claims that Jesus fulfilled are made up and that people took great creative liberty with what constitutes a Messianic prophecy. They even made up facts that aren't documented in other histories just to satisfy some of this bogus exegesis. The thing is that Christianity really doesn't have to make sense to continue as a religion, just as most religions don't, but if Christianity has outright made things up from the Jewish perspective then you can't just pretend that Christianity is a form of Judaism. Offshoot maybe, but not a form.

EDIT: Maybe I am being harsh here, but I am just feeling as if you have an agenda about the results and are significantly less concerned about evidence issues.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

05 Feb 2010, 9:07 pm

Janissy wrote:
There is a religious group called Jews For Jesus that might be right for you. Google them.

I know them, they are not right for me, because I reject the idea of Christianity - they preach being Christian, following church rites, keeping in touch with the church, they are members of Christian organisations... They are Christians of Jewish ethnicity.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

06 Feb 2010, 12:26 am

My "agenda" is finding the truth, or getting as closer to it as possible. Everything I'm saying is conclusions from my studying.

Quote:
Ok, but the further issue is that the followers of Jesus didn't emphasize the Jewishness of Christ, and instead they took themselves to be their own movement

Do you have anything to support that claim?
All the resources that I find talk about followers of Jesus as Jews and gentiles converting to Judaism, about the debate whether they need to keep Mosaic law or not, do they need to circumcise them or not (non-Jews were grossed by the idea), etc.
According to all historic evidence that I find - they "left" Judaism years after his death, when Bar-Kokhba was claimed to be a messiah, and therefor they didn't join the revolt he lead.

According to a Allister McGrath, Christian Theologist:
"In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah."

Quote:
Right, but Christ's reasoning was very questionable on the scriptural grounds.

I don't find it any more questionable than mainstream Judaism. And I know mainstream Judaism good enough as an Israeli...
What's so questionable about it?

Quote:
Ok, but some of the food issues are a lot more direct than this, and Jesus just dismissed the idea, a clear idea in the OT that food could make a person unclean by saying that it is not what goes in the mouth that makes a man unclean, but rather what comes out of the mouth.

Taken out of context. He spoke of an oral tradition of washing hands before you eat. I didn't find him saying anything about dismissing the idea of eating kosher food, although he did mention that King David had eaten unlawful food when he was hungered.
("Pikuach Nefesh", don't know how to translate - the idea that it's ok to break religious rules in order to survive was not his invention...)

Quote:
Ok? The religions have still split off dramatically, and Christians have still rejected any Jewish heritage theologically or further.

Again, you're telling me what I already know. That doesn't contradict any of my claims...

Quote:
No, it really doesn't if one is misusing the Bible quotes. I mean, people quote-mine all of the time. I could probably do this with Richard Dawkins to argue for creationism, but that's not because I am using him as reasoning.

I failed to find any example where he actually misused the Bible quotes.

Quote:
The issue is that this does not really say Israel or the woman's faith in Israel. I mean, one might argue that this statement shows Jewish favorite-ness, but honestly it is just a wrench in the works of most theologies given other statements.

I'm talking about this, from Matthew:
[22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
[23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[25] Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
[26] But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
[27] And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
[28] Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
[29] And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
[30] And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:
[31] Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

And also now found:
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

If this doesn't convince you that he cared for Israel as a nation, according to the New Testament (and again, he has to care for Israel in order to be the Jewish Messiah, what christians claim), I honestly don't know what will convince you.

Quote:
Not according to the scriptures, as Pontius Pilate actually wanted Jesus released on grounds of innocence. Also, he gave the Jewish people a chance to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, and the people voted for Barabbas to be released.

Okay, this is an example of when you should think the option of a biased text - why on Earth would Pontius Pilate want "King of the Jews", who was considered divine, and didn't respect Roman authority, released? Why was he even sentenced to death not on religious grounds, and it wasn't enough for Caiaphas to claim blasphemy?
He was killed on the grounds of sedition against the Roman empire - the Sanhedrin had to claim he considers himself the Messiah, an offspring of King David, and a danger to the establishment.

Fact: The Sanhedrin that is said to decide killing him was appointed by the Romans.

In addition, some historians say Jesus Barabbas and Jesus Christ where the same person - Pilate had a clear interest of saying "I'm not guilty", and I don't know if they were the same person or not, but it doesn't sound irrational to me. Why would the people vote for Barabbas, if the New Testament itself says that Jesus was popular, and hailed as the messiah in Jerusalem?

If you insist on the scriptures as only evidence, from Matthew:
[11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

He was sentenced by a Jewish leadership that was appointed by the Romans, and that was threatened by him, and put to death in the charge of being/claiming a Jewish King, not respecting Roman authority. The scriptures keep saying Pilate was clean, and that he insisted so - after the happenings in the temple, doesn't it look a bit odd that suddenly the Jews hate Jesus and the Roman leader loves him? Obviously he wanted to manipulate it a bit, and frankly, it doesn't surprise me that when the scriptures were written they wouldn't speak against the authority, but defend it.
(Not getting into other theories about it)

Quote:
Pretty easily, he didn't openly reject the Romans authority, and the apostle Paul is known for calling for surrender to Romans authority (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14). Additionally, according to the scriptures, Jesus wasn't crucified at the will of the Romans, but rather at the will of the Jews, as their priests called for his death despite the innocence that Pilate believed Jesus had.

As for political reasons for his killing I already answered, and I'm not the only one that doubts the theory about the responsibility - but I don't know how Paul is relevant, he didn't even know Jesus.

(And just a reminder - "their priests" you're talking about were a Roman-appointed-puppet-council)

Quote:
Ok, but the thing is that these are scriptures generally accepted by the Christian faith. They are also some of the only evidence we have about these issues. Additionally, we have multiple quotes that strongly point to something. At that point it becomes hard to say that the early Christians had no beliefs on these matters, and honestly I do think you just want to say "I like Jesus" and then turn some smattering of ideas into your puppet, rather than find a real Jesus underneath these scriptures.

There are historical researches that dispute some those evidences. These "evidences" there are not even personal, and based on oral stories, or other documents.

Early Chrisitans were Jews by any means, as I noted above, quoting a Christian researcher.
Just read here if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
I find Early Christians very distinct from the Christianity that was developed by Paul onwards.
If it is hard for you to say that early Christians didn't believe in everything that was said in the scriptures, perhaps it's because you don't know that they were written years after this sect started. The first "christians" weren't the ones who wrote those scriptures.

Quote:
Then what on earth do you appeal to for knowledge about Jesus??

I mean, the only evidence is the New Testament and some heretical gospels. Maybe the beliefs of the early church. But, beyond that there is nothing. Your ONLY evidence of his JEWISH tendencies is these same books, and YOU want to ARBITRARILY accept or reject what they write at YOUR whim???? This isn't about you being a free-thinker. This is more about your agenda, and finding things that you can make to fit that agenda.

First, that's not the only evidence, as I said.
Second, you can read several different sources and decide the authenticity for yourself.
Third, as I said - even when we were taught Bible in High School, we were mentioned that the authors are biased. I'm not saying it's only lies, I'm just saying you have to keep in mind that not everything written there is true - if some scriptures contradict others, then some must be wrong, or at least a portion of them.
Fourth, if my only evidence of him being Jewish ("tendencies"? are you kidding me?) is the New Testament, and then I read things that contradict this, than I find a problem in the text.

It's not even about whether he is the Messiah or not (I don't think so, I do believe in the possibility of him being a prophet - I don't know), it's about the contradiction between saying he's a Jewish Messiah, according to Judaism, leaning on Judaism as a proof, and in the name of him being Christ according to Judaism, go on and defy Judaism.
I'm not asking as someone who "likes Jesus" and not as a Jew. I'm asking as "what the hell".

Seriously, why would I want to decide that Jesus would be against Christianity in the first place?
I despised Judaism, I was in interested in Christianity, felt attracted to it and read about it, and got to my conclusions from reading and studying. Again, I'm not even sure of what I think about him, because, we can't even really know for sure what happened.

Yet, I am the one that is asking questions about contradictions within the belief itself, and about authenticity of scriptures in regard to other historical researches, and you are the one who says "that's how it is" and "it's not wrong because it's right" or something like that.
If you take this to a personal level - just look at the pattern of your answers - you don't even contradict me at times.

Quote:
Ok? The religions have still split off dramatically, and Christians have still rejected any Jewish heritage theologically or further.

How is this an answer to my claims? I say that Christianity started as a Jewish sect and today has no connection to its roots and its idol - how is your quote here even considered a response to what I'm saying?
I keep explaining why Christian doctrines are irrational, you are the one that keeps saying "yes, but people believe in this".

Quote:
I don't really see the point of this topic. You want to be something. Go ahead. I don't really care. I just don't want to play some game where you can hold evidence by ad hoc rules.

If you don't see the topic, then why do you keep replying to my posts...?
I started this topic with questions. I don't want to "be something". I presented what I see as phallacies in Christianity, and I still don't see how you contradict it.
I say I don't understand how he can be God - you say he can, according to Christianity - I explain why this Christian doctrine contradicts the basis of "believing" him in the first place - and seriously, I don't see any reasonable answer in any of your posts. Instead, you keep saying "that's what they believe in", "you can think so if you think so", and then go on blaming me for lacking sense in my posts.

And this:
Quote:
Your ONLY evidence of his JEWISH tendencies is these same books, and YOU want to ARBITRARILY accept or reject what they write at YOUR whim????

Is almost a lie. I don't consider it so because I don't think it's a deliberate lie.

And if it's still not clear: this topic is about the self-contradiction in Christian doctrines. It's not about how I see it, it's about those questions can be answered, and you don't answer these questions, and your posts are mainly irrelevant, not focused on my claims, and attribute me with things that you decide, like "your only evidence...", when even if it's true - how the hell does it explain the contradictions???



mjs82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,166

06 Feb 2010, 2:17 am

WorldsEdge wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote:
That explains why he's turning the other cheek one minute and bringing not peace but a sword the next


Okay I may be half asleep, but is there a specific example where Jesus advocated violence? I remember the story about the money lenders in the church but I don't think it was as bad as murder etc.


This bit from Mt 10 certainly predicts violence, whether or not it is precisely advocated is I guess up to each reader...

Quote:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm

32
14 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
33
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
35
For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36
and one's enemies will be those of his household.'
37
"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
38
and whoever does not take up his cross 15 and follow after me is not worthy of me.
39
16 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.


I believe that is referring to judgment day.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Feb 2010, 2:29 am

Omerik wrote:
Do you have anything to support that claim?

Well, the fact that the movement was mostly Gentile and given that Christian anti-semitism has a very long-standing history.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm

"Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..."- Hans Küng

"The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll."- Benjamin Disraeli


Quote:
All the resources that I find talk about followers of Jesus as Jews and gentiles converting to Judaism, about the debate whether they need to keep Mosaic law or not, do they need to circumcise them or not (non-Jews were grossed by the idea), etc.
According to all historic evidence that I find - they "left" Judaism years after his death, when Bar-Kokhba was claimed to be a messiah, and therefor they didn't join the revolt he lead.

According to a Allister McGrath, Christian Theologist:
"In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah."

Much of what I read suggests that the early movement moved very much towards Gentiles, and even though there were a few initial Jews, many of our scriptures were written for or by non-Jews. This means that recovering a Jesus outside of Gentile mindsets seems quite difficult.

I am not denying that Jewish Christians historically existed, but... recovering this is nearly impossible. Some scriptures are even questioned as being anti-semitic.

Quote:
I don't find it any more questionable than mainstream Judaism. And I know mainstream Judaism good enough as an Israeli...
What's so questionable about it?

What is so questionable about it?

Well, as this paper by a rabbi points out, a lot of the reasonings of Jesus didn't really work.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=992280

Additionally, a lot of the changes were major arbitrary rejections of various things, while under the guise of upholding the Old Testament.

Quote:
Taken out of context. He spoke of an oral tradition of washing hands before you eat. I didn't find him saying anything about dismissing the idea of eating kosher food, although he did mention that King David had eaten unlawful food when he was hungered.
("Pikuach Nefesh", don't know how to translate - the idea that it's ok to break religious rules in order to survive was not his invention...)

This is actually found as a side issue in one of the 4 Gospels
Mar 7:18-19 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Secondly, Jesus wasn't about breaking religious rules just to survive. He just broke the rules! He cited David as precedent, but he took the whole matter a massive step further in Mark 2:25 by using a necessary violation of the Sabbath to outright break the Sabbath.

Quote:
Again, you're telling me what I already know. That doesn't contradict any of my claims...

I don't know how to address what you are really claiming. I mean, you're claiming that there is some Jewishness in a Gentile-written document and that you are extracting this essential Jewishness and dismissing anything you dislike.

Quote:
I failed to find any example where he actually misused the Bible quotes.

Well, Mark 2:25 is surely an example. Do you want me to just stick to Jesus or also find "prophecies" that are cited in favor of Jesus as well?

Quote:
I'm talking about this, from Matthew:
[22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
[23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[25] Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
[26] But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
[27] And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
[28] Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
[29] And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
[30] And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:
[31] Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

And also now found:
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Hmm... interesting, this is the same story in Mark. Mark is generally considered earlier and doesn't have this. Matthew is later and does. I don't know what to make of it. I suppose one could argue that Jesus did believe this. I wouldn't know, because in all likelihood this was written for a more Jewish audience and thus had them more in mind, while Mark didn't... I don't know that truth is really determining the change.

The second story is also paralleled in Luke and Mark.

Matthew 10
1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.
9 Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts,
10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.

Mark 6
7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.
8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in their belts--
9 but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.

Luke 9
1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,
2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.
3 And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics

Matthew is longer, but it is later than Luke and Mark are likely to be. I don't know... the scriptures are likely to be varying due to a non-truth-bearing factor. I suppose one could say that Matthew is more authentic, but none of these things is really authentic, and Matthew is mostly based upon Mark, which makes me cynical towards the idea that Matthew really has some new information.

Quote:
If this doesn't convince you that he cared for Israel as a nation, according to the New Testament (and again, he has to care for Israel in order to be the Jewish Messiah, what christians claim), I honestly don't know what will convince you.

He's not the Jewish Messiah. Duh. Thus he doesn't have to be consistent. Let's say that I am telling you a story, can there be a contradiction between the beginning and the end? Sure, and this kind of stuff happens all of the time.

Quote:
Okay, this is an example of when you should think the option of a biased text - why on Earth would Pontius Pilate want "King of the Jews", who was considered divine, and didn't respect Roman authority, released? Why was he even sentenced to death not on religious grounds, and it wasn't enough for Caiaphas to claim blasphemy?
He was killed on the grounds of sedition against the Roman empire - the Sanhedrin had to claim he considers himself the Messiah, an offspring of King David, and a danger to the establishment.

And your use of Matthew isn't necessarily biased? I mean, look, honestly EVERY Bible text is biased. That being said, most Gospels agree on the fact that Pontius Pilate was not the bad guy.

Mar 15:11-15 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. (12) And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?" (13) And they cried out again, "Crucify him." (14) And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." (15) So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Luk 23:13-22 Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, (14) and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. (15) Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. (16) I will therefore punish and release him." (17) [Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the festival.] (18) But they all cried out together, "Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas"-- (19) a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. (20) Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, (21) but they kept shouting, "Crucify, crucify him!" (22) A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him."

The only one that seems to support your theory is the book of John, and it still upholds the idea that Pilate originally wanted to release Jesus but the Jews told him not to.

Quote:
Fact: The Sanhedrin that is said to decide killing him was appointed by the Romans.

Ok, but most of the Gospels say it was the people who decided this, not just the priests. It might say that the priests convinced the people, but it still says that the people were responsible.

Quote:
In addition, some historians say Jesus Barabbas and Jesus Christ where the same person - Pilate had a clear interest of saying "I'm not guilty", and I don't know if they were the same person or not, but it doesn't sound irrational to me. Why would the people vote for Barabbas, if the New Testament itself says that Jesus was popular, and hailed as the messiah in Jerusalem?

The New Testament is known for making things up. John claims that ghosts floated through the city. Matthew claims that Herod killed a bunch of babies.

Some historians say that the gospels are entirely unreliable.

Quote:
He was sentenced by a Jewish leadership that was appointed by the Romans, and that was threatened by him, and put to death in the charge of being a Jewish King, not respecting Roman authority. The scriptures keep saying Pilate was clean, and that he insisted so - after the happenings in the temple, doesn't it look a bit odd that suddenly the Jews hate him and the Roman leader loves him? Obviously he wanted to manipulate it a bit, and obviously when the scriptures were written they wouldn't speak against the authority.

Umm.... I think the whole Pontius Pilate thing is a myth, but I doubt that Jesus was as popular as the Gospels claim though. I think that there are lies on all sides of this.

Quote:
As for political reasons for his killing I already answered, and I'm not the only one that doubts the theory about the responsibility - but I don't know how Paul is relevant, he didn't even know Jesus.

Neither did the author of Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John, or likely even Peter. None of our New Testament writings is by an eyewitness. So, Paul is likely actually a much better theological source than Mark, Matthew, Luke or John in many ways, as Paul's writings are actually a lot more likely to be his, and he was more likely to be contemporary.

Quote:
There are historical researches that dispute some those evidences. These "evidences" there are not even personal, and based on oral stories, or other documents.

Early Chrisitans were Jews, a I noted above, with a source as an instance...
Just read here if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
I find Early Christians very distinct from the Christianity that was developed by Paul onwards.
If it is hard for you to say that early Christians didn't believe in everything that was said in the scriptures, perhaps it's because you don't know that they were written years after this sect started. The first "christians" weren't the ones who wrote those scriptures.

No, I do know that. The issue is that those people didn't write anything. There is no telling what they believed.
No, there really aren't historical researches that actually dispute New Testament evidence, at least other than the rejected Gospels. Most other sources are parasitic on those Gospels.

As for the Council of Jerusalem, well... if you look at your own source, it questions their existence.
" Descriptions of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 (in two different forms, the Alexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2. Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem (notably because Galatians 2 describes a private meeting) while other scholars dispute the Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. Assuming the council did occur "

Quote:
First, that's not the only evidence, as I said.
Second, you can read several different sources and decide the authenticity for yourself.
Third, as I said - even when we were taught Bible in High School, we were mentioned that the authors are biased. I'm not saying it's only lies, I'm just saying you have to keep in mind that not everything written there is true - if some scriptures contradict others, then some must be wrong, or at least a portion of them.
Foruth, if my only evidence of him being Jewish ("tendencies"? are you kidding me?), and then I read things that contradict this, than I find a problem in the text.

Yes, it really is the only evidence. All other evidences are basically parasitic on the New Testament, or just the gospels that weren't included.

Ok? Authors are biased. Your point? That doesn't mean that your reconstruction is even occurring on grounds that aren't ad hoc. The scriptures also contradict a lot of other historical tools. So.... really, some people actually consider the matter of figuring out Jesus impossible.

I am not even kidding you, tendencies. Almost all scriptures were written by Gentiles, and most Gentiles don't actually care about Jewish beliefs. There are outright anachronisms in the Gospels.

Mar 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (note: the Jews didn't actually allow women to instigate the divorce process if I know my history correctly)

So, yeah, and trying to find "Jewishness" isn't actually a good historical method either. It is just a way to support your own conclusions, but it has nothing to do with whether there is a real reason why X or Y was said.

Quote:
It's not even about whether he is the Messiah or not (I don't think so, I do believe in the possibility of him being a prophet - I don't know), it's about the contradiction between saying he's a Jewish Messiah, according to Judaism, leaning on Judaism as a proof, and in the name of him being Christ according to Judaism, go on and defy Judaism.
I'm not asking as someone who "likes Jesus" and not as a Jew. I'm asking as "what the hell".

They made up prophecies for goodness sake. How many times do I have to say stuff like this?

Mat 2:15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."
(where is this prophecy? Here?)

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Wait.... doesn't this really seem like a reference to Exodus??

Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,
(how about this one?)
Only thing close is Zechariah, and it isn't a prophecy.
Zec 11:12-13 Then I said to them, "If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. (13) Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter.

Quote:
Seriously, why would I want to decide that Jesus would be against Christianity in the first place?
I despised Judaism, I was in interested in Christianity, felt attracted to it and read about it, and got to my conclusions from reading and studying. Again, I'm not even sure of what I think about him, because, we can't even really know for sure what happened.

No, we can't.

Quote:
Yet, I am the one that is asking questions about contradiction within the belief itself, and about authenticity of scriptures in regard to other historical researches, and you are the one who says "that's how it is" and "it's not wrong because it's right" or something like that.
If you take this to a personal level - just look at the pattern of your answers - you don't even contradict me at times.

Do you think I care at this point about contradictions in the belief itself?? I don't believe it. I am past that point.

The issue is that there aren't any other historical researches. If there were, then guess what? People would cite them, like when Christians try to prove the resurrection occurred using the "historical evidence", and what ends up happening? Both sides, both being scholars, are both just arguing the scriptures and little else. Maybe some meta-historical evidence is thrown in. Maybe some other historical documents are referenced, but both sides are pretty clear that the other's historical documents don't amount to a hill of beans.

I am the one who says "that's how it is", because that is how it is. I don't think I say "it's not wrong because it is right", I do think that I attack you for using weak disproofs of trinitarian ideas. You don't seem to have a grasp on what the trinity means, and yet you are trying to knock it down, and once you understand what it means all you really can do is just attack trinitarian scriptures, not compare it to other scriptures.

Quote:
How is this an answer to my claims? I say that Christian started as a Jewish sect and today has no connection to its roots and its idol - how is your quote here even considered a response to what I'm saying?
I keep explaining why Christian doctrines are irrational, you are the one that keeps saying "yes, but people believe in this".

It isn't an answer because your claims don't have much that can be said.

Not only that, but yeah... Christian doctrines are completely compatible with irrationality, just as novels can be inconsistent.

Quote:
If you don't see the topic, then why do you keep replying to my posts...?
I started this topic with questions. I don't want to "be something". I presented what I see as phallacies in Christianity, and I still don't see how you contradict it.
I say I don't understand how he can be God - you say he can, according to Christianity - I explain why this Christian doctrine contradicts the basis of "believing" him in the first place - and seriously, and don't see any reasonable answer in any of your posts. Instead, you keep saying "that's what they believe in", "you can think so if you think so", and then go on blaming me for lacking sense in my posts.

I get sucked into arguments. I say this mostly because I really think your efforts are in vain.

You haven't presented any actual fallacy. At all. The closest you got to was the trinity, and you never attempted to attack it on philosophical grounds. I don't really care if you did that or not, but the issue is whether the scriptures are right.

You're expecting it to make sense. I have explicitly denied the validity of Jesus as a Messiah. If I have explicitly denied this validity, then the claim of "Christian doctrine contradicts the basis" is irrelevant. I mean, Ron L Hubbard is well known for quotes saying that his religion was a get rich quick scheme and has a history as a sci fi author. This severely undercuts the validity of the Scientology religion. Does that change that scientologists exist? No. Even if the people should know better.

Quote:
Is almost a lie. I don't consider it so because I don't think it's a deliberate lie.

I don't think it is a lie at all. I don't think that you are being clear with what you want out of this. Often I don't think I can give better explanations than the ones I have been giving, and yet you are trying to make something exist that doesn't exist. What do you expect me to say?



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

06 Feb 2010, 5:59 am

Well, first of all I think we found some misunderstanding, of both of us, so we can lose the not-nice instinct, it isn't fun :roll:
(Sorry if sounded too harsh as well)

I don't think that there is one "Jewishness". I'm against these notions. I do feel that modern christianity, which as you say, didn't start today, is contrary to Jewishness - and even though I wanted to get closer to Christianity at first, that paradox kept me away. I mean, if it's based on "Jewishness", and so was Jesus, than why does it contradict it so much nowadays?

I am aware of the fact that this Christology is old - but still, I think it's important to remember and understand who were Jesus earlier followers, until the non-christians were exiled due to their revolt, and Paul came, and started his own weird thing. From what I see, many of the things I don't like about Jesus didn't necessarily had anything to do with himself, or with the first "Christians".

I read the introduction to the paper you linked me to - it states it talks about the persona of Jesus as described, and not necessarily what he really said. Either way, I didn't bother to read it whole because it's long and I'm familiar with claims of him contradicting the bible (and I'm tired, might read it later) - I think mainstream Judaism contradicts it much more. I'm not the only one who got away from religion because of this - therefor it's important for me to mention Jewish people I do like, such as Maimonides, for example, who was even against many modern conceptions. Of course, just as people admire Jesus and do the opposite, people think they admire Maimonides, but do the exact opposite of some of his teaching... I just think people should see the brighter side of religions as well.

Quote:
This is actually found as a side issue in one of the 4 Gospels
Mar 7:18-19 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Secondly, Jesus wasn't about breaking religious rules just to survive. He just broke the rules! He cited David as precedent, but he took the whole matter a massive step further in Mark 2:25 by using a necessary violation of the Sabbath to outright break the Sabbath.

Again, he didn't speak about Kosher as much as I know.
But yes, many people claim that the reason for the dietary rules are mainly out of health reasons. That's the reason why secular Jews are against the bible sometimes - Jesus reflected a rational side that was still spiritual and religious. He explained that Sabbath was made for the people, a social rule, as I stated myself - that has much more logic than observing it anyways.

There are many secular people I know who argue that the bible is not needed anymore, because they have important rules to defend the people, but there is no need for them today. So they get out of the religion at all, because they recognise it as old-fashioned. Jesus agreed with this, yet he kept his belief - he just understood why the laws were made in the first place. I'm sure he didn't encourage people to not have a day of rest, as he said, it was made for the people, which he honoured. It's a privelage to observe it, and a must to let others observe it. That's how I see it, how most secular people see it, and how some of my religious friends today see it.

Some Rabbis also say the Reformist Jews aren't Jewish, because they pay more attention to the meaning. I guess (and am almost sure) that the Catholic church said so about Luther.

Quote:
I don't know how to address what you are really claiming. I mean, you're claiming that there is some Jewishness in a Gentile-written document and that you are extracting this essential Jewishness and dismissing anything you dislike.

Than you don't understand what I claim. I am saying that the basis for the religion is Judaism, and that it's absurd to admire someone using Judaist claims (as him being my people's messiah), and then being against the principles of Judaism, while continuing to worship him. If you accept the Jewish Messiah as such, doesn't that necessarily make you accept the truth of Judaism, however you interpret it?

By the way, gentiles aren't supposed to convert. "Chosen people" isn't a superiority over others, it's a mission to deliver the truthfulness of God. It's enough for a gentile person to accept Judaism, its only God, and to follow the 7 Noahide rules. Maimonides and other people explained that those gentiles will have their place in the next world - so, the "pact" the Israelites made with was that on the one hand we have a place and protection if we're loyal, and on the other hand we commit to much more commands (613), and are supposed to be "light of the nations" = to show the gentiles the right way, by respecting the Bible and God, and delivering the message.

Quote:
Hmm... interesting, this is the same story in Mark. Mark is generally considered earlier and doesn't have this. Matthew is later and does. I don't know what to make of it. I suppose one could argue that Jesus did believe this. I wouldn't know, because in all likelihood this was written for a more Jewish audience and thus had them more in mind, while Mark didn't... I don't know that truth is really determining the change.

Matthew is longer, but it is later than Luke and Mark are likely to be. I don't know... the scriptures are likely to be varying due to a non-truth-bearing factor. I suppose one could say that Matthew is more authentic, but none of these things is really authentic, and Matthew is mostly based upon Mark, which makes me cynical towards the idea that Matthew really has some new information.

So basically, just as I do - you accept some of the writings, and not others. As I understand it...

Quote:
He's not the Jewish Messiah. Duh. Thus he doesn't have to be consistent. Let's say that I am telling you a story, can there be a contradiction between the beginning and the end? Sure, and this kind of stuff happens all of the time.

According to the scriptures, he is. That's even the meaning of the word "Christ".

Quote:
The only one that seems to support your theory is the book of John, and it still upholds the idea that Pilate originally wanted to release Jesus but the Jews told him not to.

As you said yourself - they're all biased. You select yourself which of them to go with.
But Mark as well supports the claim that the Sanhedrin and the Romans were afraid of his growing popularity:
Quote:
1After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

2But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

Historical evidences outside the scriptures depict a different picture as well.
Not only interpertations of the Roman and Jewish law, practices and personality of Pilate - who say the whole event of the trial, method of killing (reserved for the worst criminals, how would Jews decide for the Romans on that?), and mercy by Pilate is very unlikely - but you also have evidences as this:
Quote:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Plus, all four apostles tell of the INRI writing on the cross, am I wrong?

Quote:
Neither did the author of Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John, or likely even Peter. None of our New Testament writings is by an eyewitness. So, Paul is likely actually a much better theological source than Mark, Matthew, Luke or John in many ways, as Paul's writings are actually a lot more likely to be his, and he was more likely to be contemporary.

Patul was definitely more influential. He is the one blamed for ruining the movement and making it popular at the same time...

Quote:
No, I do know that. The issue is that those people didn't write anything. There is no telling what they believed.
No, there really aren't historical researches that actually dispute New Testament evidence, at least other than the rejected Gospels. Most other sources are parasitic on those Gospels.

As for the Council of Jerusalem, well... if you look at your own source, it questions their existence.

Exactly - they didn't write, so they didn't necessarily believe in what became later to be a different religion. I'm not saying their existence isn't questionable - everything is questionable. I'm saying it's much more rational to me.

[/quote]Yes, it really is the only evidence. All other evidences are basically parasitic on the New Testament, or just the gospels that weren't included.
Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... tures.html
Quote:
Like their Jewish predecessors and Jewish contemporaries, early Christians believed that the Hebrew Bible was God's book, and therefore a book that should cast light on current events and moral conundrums. For Christians, of course, the most important issue was the true import of Jesus and the story of his life, death, and resurrection. Since they believed him to be the messiah ("anointed one"), God's savior and the harbinger of a new and perfect age, they sought to find mention of him in the Hebrew Bible itself. This is why so much of the story of Jesus in the gospels quotes the Bible.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rabbi.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... erson.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Quote:
Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life,[1][2][3][4] agreeing that he was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_ ... ical_Jesus

You can't say there is no evidence and no research. Many modern scholars support the claim the he was considered a Jewish leader. Also, as I said, because of better understanding of Judaism - you're not familiar with it, so you don't see it, but many of the things you say are "non-Jewish" are familiar to Jewish people, and as mentioned, the use "father" is something that probably was taken too literally. As someone familiar with Judaism - I see his teachings as the correct interpretations to the books that I learned in school, then given the interpretations I hated. When people in Israel talk today about "peaceful liberal religious Jews", who symbolize "the beautiful Judaism", they about people like Jesus. They just don't know enough about him.

Quote:
They made up prophecies for goodness sake. How many times do I have to say stuff like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_ ... c_prophecy

Quote:
Do you think I care at this point about contradictions in the belief itself?? I don't believe it. I am past that point.

The issue is that there aren't any other historical researches. If there were, then guess what? People would cite them, like when Christians try to prove the resurrection occurred using the "historical evidence", and what ends up happening? Both sides, both being scholars, are both just arguing the scriptures and little else. Maybe some meta-historical evidence is thrown in. Maybe some other historical documents are referenced, but both sides are pretty clear that the other's historical documents don't amount to a hill of beans.

I am the one who says "that's how it is", because that is how it is. I don't think I say "it's not wrong because it is right", I do think that I attack you for using weak disproofs of trinitarian ideas. You don't seem to have a grasp on what the trinity means, and yet you are trying to knock it down, and once you understand what it means all you really can do is just attack trinitarian scriptures, not compare it to other scriptures.

You don't seem to have a grasp on what Judaism means, on the other way, and say he wasn't Jewish... I know Judaism, and I studied Christianity in order to understand both. Did you study both? I know what the trinity means, I'm saying it's not possible if you claim he's the Jewish Messiah, which Christians do. I "attack" Trinitarian scriptures because they contradict Judaism, while the scriptures take their righteousness from the Judaism. You are the one who doesn't get it - when I explain that there is no evidence that he claimed to be a direct son of God, and that it contradicts Jewish beliefs - you give me quotes supporting it, from a scripture which I'm against.

I mention historical evidences and criticism. If you don't care about it, good for you. I do care.

Quote:
It isn't an answer because your claims don't have much that can be said.

Not only that, but yeah... Christian doctrines are completely compatible with irrationality, just as novels can be inconsistent.

So what's your point in taking part of this topic?
I try to settle this inconsistency, I ask people who are Christians (there many here) what they think. If they are even aware to the topic. If you have no answer, then what's your point, really?

Quote:
You haven't presented any actual fallacy. At all. The closest you got to was the trinity, and you never attempted to attack it on philosophical grounds. I don't really care if you did that or not, but the issue is whether the scriptures are right.

The trinity is a fallacy - I explained why. The scriptures lean on Judaism, then go against it. That's a clear fallacy.

Quote:
You're expecting it to make sense. I have explicitly denied the validity of Jesus as a Messiah. If I have explicitly denied this validity, then the claim of "Christian doctrine contradicts the basis" is irrelevant.

For crying out loud, my arguements aren't against you.
The claim that the doctrine contradicts the basis is an example of a fallacy - here you go.
You mistakenly think that I'm trying to argue with a person in our discussion. I'm arguing with the doctrines of Christianity. The fact that you don't believe in it doesn't make it less of a fallacy. It is actually pretty irrelevant itself...

Quote:
I don't think it is a lie at all. I don't think that you are being clear with what you want out of this. Often I don't think I can give better explanations than the ones I have been giving, and yet you are trying to make something exist that doesn't exist. What do you expect me to say?

But I HAVE other evidences rather than the scriptures. So it's not true.



DrizzleMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 887

06 Feb 2010, 6:07 am

I believe in Jesus. I also believe in Buddha. But be warned that belief means different things to different people - I don't think those men were divine, nor am I even certain they existed as described (famous people tend to accumulate mythologies around themselves). All I know is that many of the ideas attributed to them are enlightened.

The same can be said of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around Jesus's time or even a little earlier. "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor - that is the foundation of the Torah, the rest is commentary."

Remember also that the New Testament has several distinct sections, probably written by different people. Jesus seems a nice guy but I'm not sure about Paul. I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of the New Testament were edited at some point to make it more palatable to Romans by blaming everything on the Jews instead of on the Roman occupation.


_________________
The plural of platypus.


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

06 Feb 2010, 1:56 pm

I think the real question is "Did Jesus's followers form a new religion, or did the Jews that didn't follow him form a new religion?"

I don't believe Jesus formed a new religion: He changed the name of an old one, or rather, the romans saw his movement as a sect and gave that sect a name with which his followers would later begin identifying themselves. Now someone Jewish might very well see things the other way around. I, as a Christian, believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. I mean, that's who he said he was, and it doesn't make much sense to doubt that and believe everything else.