Topic awaiting preservation: Media Violence, Christians? (Page 3 of 4)

quote:

---

Ponder this: Jesus was more interested in dying Himself than killing others...

---

again, what does this has to do with anything?

quote:

---

Is the Jesus Christ who Mormons speak of the same Jesus Christ described in the New Testament?

---

Yes...and no. Rather, It is the same Jesus Christ, it is just that apparently he also visited North America (which certainly isn't mentioned in the New Testament, but in the Book of the Mormon).

Otherwise, yes, it is Jesus Christ, son of God, yadda yadda...

Read your quote, then read my quote Ruski. Jesus was not in the business of killing rivals. Quite the contray, he said to submit to the very ones who killed Him...

quote:

---

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

If someone calls on Jesus they are saved.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

ok, I know all that thankyouverymuch

but what the hell does it has do with what I have said?
I was not talking about any Jesus, I talked about groups of religions including christianity that were born from violence.

It's getting old to heard from fanatics like you the same old shit. "believe and Jesus saves" Sticking in Jesus in every other sentence.

there is nothing to be saved from, Gid. And this whole eternal Disney Land is what keeps you delusioned

Ruski, keeping Jesus Christ central to our lives represents the core of Xianity. We could hardly call ourselves Xians if we didn't. It's just the way it is, when you speak with Xians you are going to get reminded about Jesus Christ at every turn. It is uncomfortable by design.

WS and DL, there are many differences between mainstream Xianity and Mormonism to be sure. The key difference, in fact the one that does not allow me to consider Mormons as Xians, is that they do not believe Jesus Christ is God. They believe him to be a created being. This is a very similar situation with the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Jesus Christ to be an arch angel.

I maintain that you cannot deny one of the most crucial aspects of who Jesus Christ is and be a true follower. As soon as you've done that you've created a separate religion from the Xianity of the 1st century.

I have explained here before where the New Testament states that Jesus Christ claimed to be God. These other groups are really just recycled heresies like the Arians who also denied the divinity of Christ.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-20-2005 20:47)

Sooo...according to you, Bugs, someone has to believe that Jesus is God before they go to heaven?

Just checking.

quote:

---

I maintain that you cannot deny one of the most crucial aspects of who Jesus Christ is and be a true follower

---

And I am sure they feel the same way =)

Thing is....we don't have a whole lot in the way of explaining the nature of christ until well after the fact.
The mainstream view in the beginning was *not* that jesus was god...we don't read such things until further down the road.

I would assume that this is part of what is meant when the mormons say that the true way was lost in the 2nd century...

We owe this view of the nature of christ to the proto-orthodox (those who became the roman catholics), and their evolving doctrine (as each revision of the view of the nature of christ came about, earlier versions [by very devout and upstanding proto-orthodox christians] became declared as heretical).

So these "crucial aspects" of who Jesus was are very much open to interpretation and have been viewed very differently by christians right from the start.

I try to relay what is written in the NT to you. It says that the only way to heaven is through Christ. The Christ described is not a created being and not an angel but God himself. So, yes, I hold that one must believe in the Jesus Christ that we find in the NT in order to go to heaven.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

So the Jews do not go to heaven, God's chosen people?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The mainstream view in the beginning was *not* that jesus was god...we don't
read such things until further down the road.

---

There's no way I can agree with that. Christ's divinity expressed in the gospel accounts that we know were written while Christ's apostles were still alive.

WS, the most amazing and exhilerating tihing about the gospel of Christ is that it is open to all peoples.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-20-2005 22:53)

And thats where you are wrong Bugs, I would highly recommend looking at the book called "Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

Regardless where your personal feelings lead you to or how you percieve new testament there was never a true original idea of christianity.

Most recent historians and biblical scholars agree that Books in NT were written at least up to 80 years after the death of so called "Jesus" and his followers. There is very little evidence or knowledge of what exactly was the movement like.

It's even evident that at the beggining Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish sect and tried to remain so, until a newely converted fanatic as we know him Paul or Saul spread his interpretations and ideas to non Jews as well added to the idea to the worship of "Jesus".

There were so many christian practices and beliefs all percieving so called "Jesus" in very radical different ways, one includes "the gospel of Mary Magdaline" spreading a popular legend of Jesus being from the Heritage of Abraham and Davind as he was supposed to provide with the heir to the throne.

Not to mention still surviving "gnostic" sects of christianities.

Hell we don't even know a true name of this so called saviour which probably was Yehoshua or something.

Even this gospels you hold so true contradict each other on various points. Like, Matthew and Luke give a completely different versions of Jesus's last words, both of them being incidentally quotations from the old testament.

Sometimes it seems like you cannot be objective when discusing a history of christianity.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-20-2005 23:25)

Okay...here is what Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein has to say about it.

quote:

---

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder and president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, said that the theology of Evangelical Christians has an ?exclusivist? nature to it ? believing in the ?centrality of Jesus? in order to obtain salvation ? which runs counter to many other religions, and even other denominations of Christianity. For example, Eckstein notes that in Judaism, one can be considered a good person without being Jewish by observing the Noahide laws outlined in Genesis.

---

from here Bush clarifies his
stand on Jews, heaven

Then we have this

quote:

---

A Rabbi?s perspective
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp
by Rabbi Shraga Simmons

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.

The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

________________________
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

Scriptures from teh Qur'an 4:163-165
163 Lo! We inspire thee (Muhammad) as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms;

164 And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses;

165 Messengers of good cheer and off warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Robage

---

From Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

quote:

---

Ruski said:

Sometimes it seems like you cannot be objective when discusing a history of
christianity.

---

Please point out where I am not objective because I do try my best to be so.

You'll notice that I told you very plainly what is contained in the NT. My words above are not how I "perceive" it, nor are they how I "want" it to be, they are conveying what I read there.

I understand there are differing interpretations of many Xian doctrines and I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is that mainstream Xianity agrees on whether or not the NT says that Jesus Christ the man was Jesus Christ God. All the major Xian sects agree on that. Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses do not agree, each for different reasons neither of which are defensible without mangling the words found in the NT documents.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Your replay to DL was just that

quote:

---

quoteL-44 said:

The mainstream view in the beginning was *not* that jesus was god...we don't
read such things until further down the road.


There's no way I can agree with that. Christ's divinity expressed in the gospel accounts that we know were written while Christ's apostles were still alive.

---

we were discussing history and as I remeber DL pointed out this same thing many many times before how different was early christianity. Sometimes he would point out things like that the divinity of Jesus was not taken into concideration and would provide the source from contemporary biblical scholars, of course it's is very contrary to the collection of texts that make up bible, but you suddenly put away historical data and directly embraced the literature as your historical source. That's were subjectivity gets in a way and the whole discussion of history turns into personal interpretation of Jewish literature.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the NT itself cannot be regarded as historical evidence. Are you saying that?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Oh that's helpful... thanks, WH. Wasn't it you who said this earlier?

quote:

---

Even the foundations of a faith's teachings are no more than historical documents, written and repeatedly re-interpreted by mortals.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2005 06:01)

Jiminy Crickets batman, the Jews are as self-deluding as the xians.

Look at all that circular reasoning, trying to prove the argument by quoting as authority, the very subject matter under discussion. No wonder they never lose an argument...there is no argument to win, either one of them.

No wonder poor gid is so confused.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

There you are. Sorry I missed ya


Ruski, what I'm saying is that I am aware of the arguments that DL is bringing up but I am refuting a specific one about Jesus' divinity not showing up until later by citing historical documents that prove there were a substantial number of followers in the first century who held that belief.

I'm sure DL can shed more specifics on just how much longer he thinks this belief showed up. I am not emotional or unobjective, I am simply disagreeing based on the evidence I'm citing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2005 06:06)

I understand Bugs, but on what grounds? What were exactly those early beliefs that held divinity of Jesus, what kind of divinity, fully God? or demi-god?
We know that the concept of trinity was decided much much later around after or during the 4th century CE, buy a bunch of bishops that constanitne apointed to debate over this issue and bring christianity to a final concept.


And yes I do concider NT and OT to play good amount of evidence interms of history, but not in this way " Ohh look it says so, then it must have been so"

NT and OT are Literature books, they do not relfect objective historical and realistic information, what on the other hand they do reflect is the ideals and phychological mentality of people that wrote and lived by this ideas.

There was a link in the other thread I posted regarding the development of Yahwishim from Baalishm and other babylonian mythologies. To me this is just that, another culture developing it's ideals on dieties and how they must be interpret, no wonder they broke away from most of the tribes and developed Judaism, the same people who did not accept the worship of nature gods that were common in those areas. Christianity just futher expanded on similar path with it's own idea and broke away as a new faith, similar path was fallowed by the development of islam....
But what the hell, it's not like you are going to accept that Yawishim was just another human concept people came up with for the explanation of how the world has functioned aka Genesis...and all this "evilness" of so called idol worship which was very necessary part of polytheistic faithes. The followers of new born faith Judaism did nothing more than break away from old traditions with the emerging of new idea about one invincible omnipotent diety to fit their needs.

Traditions are alwasy challeneged with the new emergin ideas and always are concidered to be "evil".

(Edited by Ruski on 05-21-2005 06:38)

Brief notes for the moment -

It is agreed by most scholars that the gospels were written in the vacinity of about 70 ad, up until the finishing of the gospel of John around the turn of the century.

If my memory is correct, this late addition to what we view today as the gospels (and again I must remind you there were many others) is the first time we see mention of Jesus in the light of being part of god.

I will need to refresh my memory on the specifics.

It is also important to note that we *cannot* be in any way certain what the gospels originally said.
We do not have significant portions of the texts from any earlier than the 3rd/4th century.

So we have a gap of several decades before the gospels started being put down on paper at all.

We have a couple of centuries of doctrinal evolution before we find significant portions of the text.

During these times we see many forgeries of texts and manipulations of texts (many gospels were rejected because they were known to be forgeries in their own time, and nearly half of the works of paul in the NT have been shown to be forgeries).

If that can be considered historical evidence of something as specific as wether a person was the son of god, god himself, an angel, or some other form of divine being (when there is not even a consensus on the issue among the various gospels), then 'evidence' needs to be redefined...

But there is something else to consider - and that is what the Jews are saying.

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies that were given to the Jews from God himself through prophets (according to the Jews).

quote:

---

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

---

Blocks are mine. The Jews have other books, manuscripts, and teachings that are far older than the NT, btw. Apparently early Xians didn't include them into the Bible and the NT (I wonder why? Because they show that Jesus could not be The Messiah?).

I find this more than telling, especially when one combines it with the information that DL has posted. Just "conviently" leave out those manuscripts that show that Jesus cannot be The Messiah. Interesting.

Why would God lie to his Chosen people, and exclude them from Heaven? Is any Xian seriously suggesting that Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah, Moses, David, Joshua, etc did not go to heaven?

And it would seem that the Mormons and JW are accepting the view of the Jews to a point (concerning the human properties of Jesus), moreso than the Evangelist Xians.

And who are Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi? I need to do some research on these two. It would seem that the Jews have more information on the actual events of that time, than what is revealed in the NT.

Pretty interesting stuff!

Bar Cochba - Under the leadership of Bar Cochba, or Barcochebas, the Jews revolted in Palestine during Hadrian´s reign (A.D. 117-138). They persecuted the native Christians for refusing to join the insurrection.

Shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jewish warrior Bar Cochba led a short-lived rebellion against the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel (80-83 CE). Maimonides describes Bar Cochba as "a great king whom all of Israel, including the great sages, were convinced was the messiah" (Hilchot Ta'aniot Ch. 5, Hilchot Melachim Ch. 11). In fact, one of the reasons that the solemn fast of Tisha B'Av (the ninth of Av) was instituted - in addition to the destruction of the Holy Temple - was to commemorate Bar Cochba's downfall.

This is crucial to a proper understanding of the role of the messiah. From Maimonides' words, we understand that Bar Cochba's attempt to restore the kingdom to Israel and return the nation to its land is clearly defined by Jewish law as a messianic manifestation. Thus a fast was decreed for all generations to mourn the failure of this process. In other words, the attempts of Bar Cochba had messianic potential.

Bar Cochba was the Jewish leader of the disastrous rebellion against Roman occupation in 132 A.D. Bar Cochba believed he was a messiah and descendent of King David. The rebellion was put down savagely, and Bar Cochba was killed in battle

This makes for fascinating reading - Mashiach: The Messiah especiallythis part

quote:

---

What About Jesus?

Jews know that Jesus could not possibly have been the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both of which are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as Jews have always understood it. Jesus neither did any of the things described above, nor did he bring about the anticipated messianic age.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, and harsh military figure. Among others, Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the mashiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold, of course. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach (as Jesus' followers should have done with their pretender to be mashiach).

Throughout Jewish history, there have been many people who have claimed to be the mashiach, or whose followers have claimed that they were the mashiach: Shimeon Bar Kochba, Shabbtai Tzvi, Jesus, and many others too numerous to name. Leo Rosten reports some very entertaining accounts under the heading False Messiahs in his book, The Joys of Yiddish. But all of these people died without fulfilling the mission of the mashiach; therefore, none of them was the mashiach. Thus, the mashiach and the messianic age lie in our age or in a future age, not in the past.

In our generation, thousands of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's followers claim that their brilliant Rebbe was the mashiach. But his more sensible students have now, after his death, expressed disappointment that it turned out that the Rebbe just did not fulfill the expectations described above in his lifetime, and admit that we are still waiting for the real mashiach to come.

---

And what about Shabbtai Tzvi?

quote:

---

The Doenmeh roots go back to the immense messianic crisis of the 1660s. Across the Jewish world, Shabbtai Tzvi, an Izmir-born kabbalist, was accepted as the promised redeemer of Israel. It was a turbulent time for Europe's Jews, who were looking for deliverance in the wake of the devastating massacres in Ukraine and elsewhere. Tzvi declared himself the messiah in 1665, and prepared to lead the Jewish people to the Holy Land. He also told his followers that the Ottoman sultan would become his slave.

In response, the Ottomans arrested Tzvi and gave him the choice of conversion or death. The messiah chose apostasy, and converted to Islam the next year. While the great majority of Jews subsequently renounced him, some - the ma'aminim, or "believers" - secretly kept their faith in him. About 200 families of believers - the original Doenmeh - followed Tzvi into Islam. In secret, they practiced their own form of Judaism, based on the "18 precepts" supposedly left by Tzvi - essentially the Ten Commandments (with a very ambiguous replacement for No. 7), along with a ban on intermarriage with true Muslims.

---

from Jewish Whistleblower

Interesting.

I find it particularly interesting, that followers of other "past" Messiahs continued to believe in them afterwards. Sects, if you will.

But the mainstream Jewish faith is still waiting for The Messiah to come.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-21-2005 10:38)

Me to Bug, next time.

Despite the high level of biblical scholarship displayed here, well beyond my simple abilities, none of it proves the existance of a god and I am still awaiting definitive proof of the existance of this fella jesus.

Please don't quote biblical or talmudic sources in this effort.

Show me.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Bugimus - my apologies if I was unlclear. My observation/opinion is, as I shall clarify:

Even the founding documents of faith are little more than repeatedly re-written and re-interpreted historical [fables? stories? testaments] that were written by people living in a very different time when superstition and ignorance were rife.

As such, they only evidentially represent the testimony of long-dead individuals whose sanity, gullibility, and susceptibility cannot be easily determined - being dead for thousands of years and all that.

Is that a little more helpful?

WH, I been tryin' to tell 'em that! They jist won't lissen.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

proof of the existance of this fella jesus.Please don't quote biblical
or talmudic sources in this effort.
Show me.

---

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/history/historians

Check out the ancient historians, I think those are the ones you want.

Sounds like you got a real wopper there WS. Thanks for that info, I never really knew why Jews didn't believe Jesus, now I do.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Those sources have been addressed here as well (recently Bugimus and I discussed them in one of these threads...)

Bottom line: the ones that are in the general time frame to be worth anything have only passing mentions, and in the context of the christian movement - not direct reference to him as a person.
Some of those sources are hundreds of years after the fact and are strictly theological in nature - nothing to do with any historical evidence of the man himself.

As I have said many times, I do accept that Jesus existed. The evidence does show that it is relatively probable he did.

There is a big leap between merely existing and being accurately described in gospels and the subsequent proto-orthodox theology.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-24-2005 01:11)

I find it pretty odd, how you, Gid, can believe what the Jews are saying in the Old Testament to the point that you believe in a "Young Earth", but you refuse to accept what they say about Jesus - both sources of knowledge are the same, you know.

How can you believe one, and not the other? That would then cast doubt on the source itself.

In any event, you still haven't answered my question - do Jews go to heaven?

To be Christian doesn't mean being a citizen of some remote unfamiliar nation or something. It is not citizenry or election to high office. It it isn't some birth right or anything like that. You are not born Christian. You cannot resign and are not hired. It is a state of being. It is no man's to give it to you or take it away. Regardless of having been baptized or not you can be a good Christian because to be Christian is to accept a given (by the Bible) set of beliefs and values (a moral code) and to honestly try to endorse them with right deeds and lifestyle. If you do this then you are a good Christian, no matter what anyone (including the Church) says. If you strive not to harm (or hurt) when you can do nothing or not sit idly by when you can help, if you forgive when you can hate, etc.

I honestly don't see how playing CounterStrike, paintball or something can possibly be a sin. It's just plain silly and it's things like this that turn people from faith merely because they associate too closely the Clergy with God. Contrastingly, carrying a gun or hunting for fun is, in my opinion, wrong if not a sin. A gun is specifically designed to kill or permanently disable. By carrying a gun you basically affirm that you are willing to kill. You embrace the idea. You are ready to take life. You need but a reason. You only need to reach some trigger level or be given an adequate reason to kill. Yea, sure, it's for self defence. So many people can afford guns, can get permits and actually do need protection but they never buy a gun.

So we essentially agree, though I think that I can be a good 'person' without being associated with something as historically dubious as Christianity. Urgh! I like my morality without the hypocrisy myself.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I find it pretty odd, how you, Gid, can believe what the Jews are saying in the Old Testament to the point that you believe in a "Young Earth", but you refuse to accept what they say about Jesus - both sources of knowledge are the same, you know.
How can you believe one, and not the other? That would then cast doubt on the source itself.
In any event, you still haven't answered my question - do Jews go to heaven?

---

I read The Book. I take The Book seriously, and I adhere to its teachings. I accept the truth, and I try what men say against the truth. What they say does not fit the Truth, that is why I am not a Jew, but a Christian who has entered into that beloved family of God's.

There are so many different views on the Jews, and that beloved nation that God has His hand on. It is amazing what has happened in recent years. Did you know that in the last few decades, Jews have slowly been trickling back into Jerusalem, and they now even have a country again? It is amazing what God does. But the revival of Israel is one of the last events on the prophecy calendar. It is pretty neat to think that the stage is set for the end-days.

Did you know that Israel has now decided to reinstate the old Sanhedrin? That is so awesome! A rumor going around is that their first order of buisness is deciding on making the Throne of David again! The very throne Jesus said He would come back and sit in! It is amazing!

Sorry about that, but I am really excited about God's chosen people. They aren't out of God's plan, no sir.

To answer your question, the Jews have a different kind of faith. They have the faith of Abraham in the invisible God. They may not believe in Jesus, but that doesn't mean God will pour out His wrath on them. He still loves them. I believe that in the glorious day that Jesus comes back, the scales will be lifted from our Jewish brothers' eyes, and they will realize that Jesus is Lord. All those things that the Rabbi mentioned were things that Jesus said He would do when He comes back. When He does they will realize the truth, and God will welcome them back into His arms.

So, long question, but it really excites me what God has planned for Israel.

I believe, though, that you wanted a less prophetic answer, and a more carnal one. Death perhaps? Well, that subject is a tough one, but Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me."

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

All those things that the Rabbi mentioned were things that Jesus said He would do when He comes back.

---

Typical brainwashing.

Nowhere does it say that the Messiah will do things AFTERWARDS.

Ok, whatever.

Hey shaman give it a rest, it's impossible to talk to him...time to start ignoring gid, since no matter what you say, his fundametalist views are just....well...scary.

If religion didn't exist, he'd have invented it...

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

Someone just like him did....many times.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

Is that a little more helpful?

---

Yes, now I know where you were coming from. My response is that you are correct about the documents being very old and certainly they have passed through many hands. However, as far as historical documents are concerned, they are the best supported ones we have compared to other works of antiquity by a large margin. Modern scholarship tells us that the text you and I can read in the NT was written before the end of the second century.

This means that we are not debating as much about whether what they say was really what they said, but rather whether what they say has any merit.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

How can you believe one, and not the other? That would then cast doubt on the
source itself.

In any event, you still haven't answered my question - do
Jews go to heaven?

---

It's a valid question to ask why we trust the Jewish scriptures but then distrust Jewish theologians about Jesus as Messiah. The answer is that Jewish scripture and history all pointed to Jesus Christ as is explained in the NT. All Christians before they were even called that were Jewish. There was hardly a distinction at the time.

Judaism experienced a schism the day the church was born and that schism remains unto this day. The Jews of the first century that didn't accept Christ as Messiah simply didn't recognize him but we can't ignore that many did.

WS, I don't know how many more times this needs to be stated... anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord will go to heaven and anyone who doesn't won't.

quote:

---

sonyafterdark said:

If you do this then you are a good Christian, no matter what anyone (including
the Church) says.

---

... or what Bugs says ;) But it needs to be pointed out that the Bible says that good works alone are not sufficient to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't know how much weight you put on the scripture, sonyafterdark, but that is what it says. We are saved by our faith in God and our good works are the natural result of that salvation.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

There are so many different views on the Jews, and that beloved nation that God
has His hand on.

---

And this is where I have to point out a different one. I strongly disagree with your view of the Jews, Gideon. God's people will be found in God's church. I do not believe the nation of Israel plays any role in God's plan today. The founding of the nation was not a fulfillment of prophecy and I do not believe there will be any miraculous conversion of modern Jews to Xianity in the future.

Jewish people of today come to God the same way we all do and that is through faith in the Messiah. As a Xian, I love the Jews as I love all humans. The only thing that is special is the obvious rich heritage and honor of knowing they are descended from God's chosen people, which is quite exciting. God's plan of redemption for all humanity was given first to the Jews and then to the rest of us through his son Jesus.

WS, so there are different views of the "afterwards" in the christian world. My views are far more in line with jade's on the Second Coming of Christ than they are with Gid's. I suspect I part company with JKMabry, Fig, and few others on that one too. I have to be true to my understanding of scripture and I know they are doing the same.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-25-2005 15:43)

Bugs, as always, I prize your well thought-out and reasoned answers, even if I don't agree with your conclusions.

Thank you for being so candid, and for the information that you have provided.

I dunno Bug, thos last couple of paragraph's sound as though gid was dictating over your shoulder.

Not all xians hold you dear love of all mankind it seems, if this little bit of hypocrisy is any example; http://www.seekgod.ca/embrachrist.htm

Seems fairly widspread too, though not a lot of originality:http://watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html

Boy, they just won't let it rest: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-toledot.htm

If I were to compare possible accuracy of the two books, I would favour the Talmud. I suspect it has suffered less in translation through the ages as it seems to have been translated through fewer languages, though doubtless with no fewer translators twisting things to reflect their own own 'special' views.

The theory of Mary being raped makes a whole lot more sense than some immaculate conception considering the prediliction of soldiers even today.

xians being, in general, amongst those who tend to view raped women as somehow being not the victim, but the insitgator of such acts, one is hardly suprised they would want to sanitize such an act.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Well, it stands to reason that he and I are going to spout similar information since we share the same world view. You, DL, and WS share a very similar world view as well, but you all have your unique ways of communicating it to the rest of us here.

Hmm... I'm not seeing the hypocrisy in the first link and I just read/scanned the entire page. What exactly do you see there that is problematic?

Yeah, the second link is clearly a copy of the first... a rebuttal to the claim that Jesus was not Messiah.

I have not heard of the "Toledot Jeshu" before so I'll need to look into that a bit more. From these pages it seems it is a document that claims to be the Life of Jesus but it has little support from scholars. It also seems to be good source material for Jews when warding off unwanted advances from proselatyzing Xians.

I am confused as to what you find unloving and/or hypocritical in these links.

About the charge itself, if all the information I had was that someone called Mary had a kid that she claimed was fathered by God, then I would favor other explanations too. But that is hardly the case. We have a movement that literally changed the world where the claim of divine conception is only a part of the whole story.

About hypocrisy from Xians, I acknowledge that occurs regularly. But also know that I do not believe that anyone who calls themself Xian... is. For instance, the NT states that "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness". Whenever you come across people claiming to speak for God, a good test is to see how much they love their fellow humans.

Loving humanity is hard. It is not natural. I believe that seeing some people actually doing it, is evidence of the eternal in us. I'm not talking about screwing anything that moves and maintaining the species from our natural instincts to procreate but rather the type love that goes far beyond that. In the Greek, it is called "agape" love which is the purest and highest ideal of sacrificing for others and serving them out of a true motivation for their benefit. I think it would be safe to assume that you would not put much weight on this sort of behavior. If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and I've got to head out for the day. I've only been able to check here once in the mornings this whole week because of my schedule.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Not a ramble bugs. Good food for the soul. Thanks. I appreciate good enlightend soul juice.