[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Again, Christians worship God. We are called Christians because we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, whom we consider God's Word Made Flesh, but no Christian actually worships Christ, the man.

So you are saying that Jesus is not God? I think most Christians would disagree with that. And in fact, you said just a little bit ago, "Christ is God Among Men." If you treat him as God, and he is not God (as Judaism asserts), then you are committing idolatry.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

As far as your asserttion that Christ never made that claim to Himself, I bring your attention to John 14:6:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Again, what are you talking about? Could you quote where I said that? You keep arguing against things I didn't even imply and then act like you've dealt me some fatal blow.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

You ignored the last sentence "He that has seen me has seen the Father."

This passage of Luke is explained in the Bible as well, in John 7:39:

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

Jesus had not been "glorified," that is transfigured, until the crucifiction and resurrection, after which he appears to the Apostles later in Mark Chapter 9 (also in Matthew Chapter 17).

It is a basic tenet of the Christian belief that God is Tri-Partheid, as in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - they are all aspects of the same God, not separate.

The most common explanation used is to consider the egg, there are three parts, the shell, the white and the yolk, yet all are one.

As a Muslim, I would never expect you to understand this, as it is not one of the basic tenets of your faith, and I would never presume to even attempt to "convert" you.

I didn't ignore it. IMO it means that whoever has seen him(or read his words) and seen(read the words of) God. Just don't see it as something saying he is God. Hope you understand what I mean.

And correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that Jesus wasn't God until after the resurrection? That's how I read your comments above.

And I understand the Trinity(or rather the way Christians understand it). I've just never seen a good "case" for it in the Bible. IMO it's a misunderstanding of the God-Djibril(Gabriel)-Prophet/Messenger "relationship". For instance Jesus was asked:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 " What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28 " You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

If the trinity is so important why doesn't Jesus(pbuh) mention it here? Wouldn't he be telling this man a "lie" if the trinity is required?

And I'm not worried about you trying to convert me. In between our fights we have had decent discussions Hopefully we will have more of that than the fights And I'm not trying to convert you either. Just want a discussion on this matter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Idols, in Judaism, are inanimate objects or artistic representations of G-d. Idols tended to be stone, wood, gold, or silver. Worshipping a man as G-d cannot be idolatry. It just simply does not fit the definition.

As I said, Jews very seldom universally agree on anything. I'm sure you know this. Your point of view is hardly the only one. Many are of the opinion that idolatry means worshipping any creation (that includes people) in God's place. While Jesus is not inanimate, he fits every other criteria for being an idol (if we assume that he is not in fact God).

Originally Posted by vmarks

Jews are bound by covenant to worship no other G-ds before G-d, sometimes called the First Commandment. (Exodus 20:2, 20:3, Deutoronomy 6:4) However, Christians are not bound by this commandment even though they may claim to follow it. Instead, for Jews, they are subject to the Noahide Laws, which I cited above.

They do not worship "other gods." They worship Jesus as the God of Abraham. It is a different question.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And I understand the Trinity(or rather the way Christians understand it). I've just never seen a good "case" for it in the Bible. IMO it's a misunderstanding of the God-Djibril(Gabriel)-Prophet/Messenger "relationship". For instance Jesus was asked:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 " What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28 " You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

If the trinity is so important why doesn't Jesus(pbuh) mention it here? Wouldn't he be telling this man a "lie" if the trinity is

Yup. My opinion on the matter: Jesus was not and never claimed to be God. But people like the concept of God, so in order to make a monotheistic religion out of Christianity, they came up with the concept of the trinity after the fact.

I read recently that the majority of the founding fathers of the US - you know, the Christian country - did not believe that Jesus was divine, and yet they considered themselves to be Christians. Somehow in the last 200 years we've reverted back again to a theistic Jesus, but I still have hope that Christianity will go back to its roots as a humanistic system with a de-emphasis on the supernatural. That seems to be the direction that many liberal Christian denominations are going.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As I said, Jews very seldom universally agree on anything. I'm sure you know this. Your point of view is hardly the only one. Many are of the opinion that idolatry means worshipping any creation (that includes people) in God's place. While Jesus is not inanimate, he fits every other criteria for being an idol (if we assume that he is not in fact God).


They do not worship "other gods." They worship Jesus as the God of Abraham. It is a different question.

You're going to have to quote what you thought was a disagreement from that link with what I had said, because I didn't see that the Rabbi thought Christians were idolators.

Beyond the strict definition of idols being inanimate objects, the broad concept is of anything that gets between a person and G-d. Still, Christians believe Christ IS G-d, so it still isn't idolatry for a Gentile under Noahide laws. Wouldn't be right for a Jew, but for the Noahide, ok.

For two Jews, the old saw goes, expect three opinions. I'm not surprised someone else has a different view of the matter. I go on the evidence in Torah that shows idols as objects.

Idols were named according to their material or the manner in which they were made. They said to have been were placed upon pedestals, and fastened with chains of silver or nails of iron to prevent them from falling over or be carried off (Isa. 40:19, 41:7; Jer. 10:14; Wisdom 13:15), and they were also clothed and colored (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 16:18; Wisdom 15:4). It was common to take away the gods of the defeated. (Isa. 10:10-11, 36:19, 46:1; Jer. 48:7, 49:3; Hosea 10:5; Dan. 11:8)

[Planet_EN]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The most common explanation used is to consider the egg, there are three parts, the shell, the white and the yolk, yet all are one.

I can only tip my hat in the honour of this remark.

You used the example of an 'egg', well I prefer to imagine an 'egg' as a system with God, Jesus and Holy Spirit being the constituents of it. Doesnt it appears to be stuck?

God is professed as the constituents of the system itself, when he was supposed to be the creator.

Moreover, your egg example presents inter-dependibility. God is incomplete without Jesus and Jesus without Holy Spirit, when God is actually entitled to create both of them.

As a Muslim, I would never expect you to understand this, as it is not one of the basic tenets of your faith, and I would never presume to even attempt to "convert" you.

Well, we are just discussing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You're going to have to quote what you thought was a disagreement from that link with what I had said, because I didn't see that the Rabbi thought Christians were idolators.

Of course, I should have quoted the relevant part: "In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry." (It's under point 2A.)

That was the first result I got. I've talked to and read several other rabbis who said agreed that worshipping Jesus as God (not just a god, but the God of Moses, who can't be physically represented) is a form of idolatry. That's why I said that there is a large consensus that it's idolatry, but that obviously not everyone agrees.

Originally Posted by vmarks

For two Jews, the old saw goes, expect three opinions. I'm not surprised someone else has a different view of the matter. I go on the evidence in Torah that shows idols as objects.

Idols were named according to their material or the manner in which they were made. They said to have been were placed upon pedestals, and fastened with chains of silver or nails of iron to prevent them from falling over or be carried off (Isa. 40:19, 41:7; Jer. 10:14; Wisdom 13:15), and they were also clothed and colored (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 16:18; Wisdom 15:4). It was common to take away the gods of the defeated. (Isa. 10:10-11, 36:19, 46:1; Jer. 48:7, 49:3; Hosea 10:5; Dan. 11:8)

I think what these rabbis are doing is extrapolating what makes an idol an idol rather than taking mentions of specific idols as an exhaustive list of what can be an idol. I'm not a Jew, so I obviously have no authority on the subject at all, but I don't think the Tanakh means to say it's the specific materials that made these things offensive to God, but rather the role they serve. That's the impression that I've gotten from people that I've talked to, and that makes sense to me.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Agreed.

Oh, and I'd have to say Buddhism. As far as the core religion is concerned (not Zen or Vajrayana or anything), the only really supernatural aspect is rebirth, and that's more vague than anything else. The rest of it is mostly logical and easily observed phenomena. So, I'd say Siddhartha wins by mainly pointing out the obvious.

The original Buddha said there is not way to determine if there is supernatural therefore it’s silly to speculate on it. The rebirth thing was not meant to be supernatural although some Buddhists today do believe in reincarnation, Siddhartha did not. That is a Hindu thing. Siddhartha proposed transmigration, in which case everyone dies as each instant of time passes and is reborn into the next instant based on the previous state in the instant before, the present state is based on the past state which is where karma comes from, yet he said there were no real instants in time, only that the past no longer exists. I love Buddhism. If anything it teaches you all about life whether or not there is a god.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

But that's where it falls apart,… People disagree with the interpretation of the Bible. They disagree on who they consider "terrible" people. They disagree on the "rules" they must follow to be good Christians.

Jesus said something like the doorway to the path good is narrow…many will preach in my name and few will find the path.

… At my church, anyway, we accepted that homosexuality is genetic. It's something you're born with and can't change. If there is a God, it's hard to believe that he would create someone destined to go to Hell. …Leave that to God.

Jesus said somethings about this. Nobody is condemned to hell. Some people it is genetic some people it not. Lust is a sin regardless if you’re straight/gay…this is the bible’s main point on the commonly misinterpreted subject. So how can you say the bible falls apart when the bible agrees with your statement “leave that to God”?

Anyone who persecutes gays, whether they sin or not, is not scoring brownie points with Jesus.
After all Jesus said love everyone even your enemy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

The original Buddha said there is not way to determine if there is supernatural therefore it’s silly to speculate on it. The rebirth thing was not meant to be supernatural although some Buddhists today do believe in reincarnation, Siddhartha did not. That is a Hindu thing. Siddhartha proposed transmigration, in which case everyone dies as each instant of time passes and is reborn into the next instant based on the previous state in the instant before, the present state is based on the past state which is where karma comes from, yet he said there were no real instants in time, only that the past no longer exists.

Like I said, it's more vague than anything else. But he did seem to believe in actual rebirth — not as in a changing identity from instant to instant, but an actual ability to be reborn in a different form (deva, preta, chicken, etc.) after death. He supposedly claimed to remember past lives and how they ended. It sounds fairly supernatural to me.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

BTW, were you aware that Islam also recognizes Jesus (Isa) as the Messiah, as well, and expects his return as well as that of the Mahdi.

None of the Jewish posters here has backed up your assertion that they consider Christians idolators, either.

Islam has nothing to do with the Mahdi, that is only the belief of a few deviating sects, mostly shia ones .

Regarding Jesus, yes, the Quran acknowledges him to have been a very important prophet and messenger from God, but criticizes the wrong interpretation of the christians that think he were God's begotten son or even God himself and calls it a blasphemy.

Further on the Quran doesn't claim that Jesus will return shortly before ressurection in order to create a kingdom of his that will prepare the last day, but instead that he will act as a witness on judgment day against those that claimed he were God and/or his begotten son.

Regarding jews and their opinion about christians, I think they view them as idolators and blasphemers and Jesus as a false prophet. Otherwise they would have all become christians themselves, since they would have to acknowledge that Jesus was the messiah they were waiting for, don't you think?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I thought I was clear. Apparently, people are reading too hard in the spaces between the letters that form my words.

Idols, in Judaism, are inanimate objects or artistic representations of G-d. Idols tended to be stone, wood, gold, or silver. Worshipping a man as G-d cannot be idolatry. It just simply does not fit the definition.

Jews are bound by covenant to worship no other G-ds before G-d, sometimes called the First Commandment. (Exodus 20:2, 20:3, Deutoronomy 6:4) However, Christians are not bound by this commandment even though they may claim to follow it. Instead, for Jews, they are subject to the Noahide Laws, which I cited above.

Blaspheming G-d's name is different than worshipping another besides G-d. The word for blasphemy in the Torah is nokev, similar to curse. They aren't cursing or degrading G-d's name, so they aren't violating that portion of the Noahide laws.

They profess to be bound by the first covenant, the ten commandments, but from a Jewish perspective are not, and also claim to be bound by a second covenant, made with Jesus. Understandably, Jews don't really have much to say about this second covenant, as from a Jewish perspective, it didn't come from G-d and doesn't bind Jews. As Paul says and I alluded to before in 1 Corinthians 7, Jews need to honor the laws of Judaism, and Christians need to honor their own laws, essentially.

So I hope this clarifies matters: Jews have great respect for righteous Gentiles who comply with the Noahide laws. Christians are not idolaters, nor blasphemers.

I'll check in later in the day. Don't presume my workday means I'm silent on the matter.

And you think that is clear? Ok, let me try to understand the jewish point of view according to you:
1. Gentiles can gain entry to paradise if they keep the seven commandmants you quoted.
2. Jews have to observe much more commandments including the prohibition to worship other gods beside God.
3. The christians believe in Jesus as their one and only God and are therefore not commiting idolatry and don't curse the name of G-d, since it's not the same one, therefore also not blaspheming, and if they keep the other five commandments can get entry to paradise.
4. Idolatry means only the worshipping of gods encapsulated in physical material.

All these combined can only mean that jews believe that christians have followed a false prophet and declared him God but that it is not an offense against the real G-d because He doesn't expect gentiles to keep the commandment of not worshipping other gods beside Him, right?

Taliesin

[me. dont like? dont care]

i don't have a religion yet at the same time i do not have a problem with those who are religious. I do not believe in God because it took him 6 days to make the earth yet 9 months to create a baby and i am familiar with the exuse God doesnt make babys women do, but also God created us in his own image therefore he must be intelligent, fit, handicapped, ugly unfit, beautiful, mean, kind.....see my point?

[Athens]

I don't believe in religion, I think it had a place in the past to keep people civil but in modern society it causes more problems then it fixes. If I was forced to pick one, I would rather be a Muslim over a Christan.

[red rocket]

Personally, I find that (a) religion doesn't do anything for me whatsoever, (b) that its arguable positive influence on other people is outweighed by the fact that equally positive effects can be obtained by alternative, non-mythological methods, and that therefore, (c) from my personal point of view, the whole thing is utter mindrot.

That said, and notwithstanding the irony that I'm a practising Thelemite mystic, here are my results from BELIEF SYSTEM SELECTOR:

Your Results:

1. Mahayana Buddhism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
3. New Age (98%)
4. Neo-Pagan (96%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (94%)
6. Liberal Quakers (87%)
7. Taoism (84%)
8. New Thought (79%)
9. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
10. Hinduism (68%)
11. Secular Humanism (65%)
12. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (61%)
13. Scientology (61%)
14. Non-theist (56%)
15. Sikhism (54%)
16. Jainism (53%)
17. Reform Judaism (51%)
18. Bahá'í Faith (39%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (38%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (28%)
21. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (26%)
22. Islam (23%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (14%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (9%)
26. Roman Catholic (9%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

P.S.: I don't consider Buddhism a religion.
P.P.S.: I don't consider Thelema a religion, either.
P.P.P.S.: They're right about the JW people being at the bottom of my list, the antipathy is virtually palpable. Just last week, one of those guys actually physically recoiled as I walked past, he must have thought I was the Antichrist, or something.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket

P.S.: I don't consider Buddhism a religion.

People never consider the things they like to be a religion nowadays. I don't know why that is. I think people have forgotten what the word means or something.

[Big Mac]

Boy oh boy, what a thread I missed. I absolutely love comparative religion. On the other hand, it's a bit too bad this thread went off course, since it would have been nice to read of people's beliefs outside of the context of contrasts with out faiths. But now that it's here, I guess I'll weigh in. For me, Judaism is haemes, haderech haor (the truth, the path, the light). Although I have much to be thankful for in addition to my religion, without the G-d of Judaism my life would be empty and meaningless. Judaism “fulfills” my spiritual side and my intellectual side. It is also the faith of my mothers and fathers, of my ancestors. But while I may sound biased, - I am, to a certain extent - I also can assure you my faith is not the product of blindless devotion. I have studied the major religions and satisfied my intellectual curiosity. My study strengthened my beliefs. All that said, I cannot say I am a pious Torah scholar. I struggle with my religious limitations and pray that I may overcome the obstacles that prevent me from being the Jew I wish to be.

I’ll preface the rest of this post by relating something about one of the famous medieval rabbis, Maimonides, who taught that Christianity and Islam are instruments of the L-rd that prepare the world for redemption by disseminating elements of Judaism.

Originally Posted by kmkkid

If I were to follow any specific religion on belief of validity, it would have to be the Egyptian religion. This is simply because it was basically the first widespread organised religion. Why would they just decide to make up a religion one day if there was no truth to it at all?

That’s a terrifically rational basis for belief. I have to apologize for my reaction, but if you’re really giving your honest opinion I’ll have to . If you’re going to worship the Egyptian pantheon why not the Greek as well? Truly it is odd to have faith in religions that died thousands of years ago (with the last of their adherents). Sorry, it just is.

Originally Posted by RAILhead

[He was a decent teacher, had a sizable following, and performed several miraculous deeds. He was the fulfillment of prophecy from ages before, and He embodied all that Scripture said He would.

The types of miracles ascribed to Jesus were not unique. The prophets Elisha and Elijah performed the same miracles, such as feeding the hungry miraculously, healing the blind and raising the dead. As to the fulfillment of prophecy, I’ll have to honestly tell you that Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecy. We may want to debate some of your favorite prooftexts some time. I do, however, appreciate the dedication and devotion to your faith you display.

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The jews think that only they and their religion will be accepted by God, because they think they are the chosen people.

I’m glad vmarks corrected you on this point. Never, in any form whatsoever, will you see or hear a Jew make such a claim. Yes, I believe Judaism is the truth, but Jews are also taught there is more than one path to G-d. vmarks adequately explained the Noachide Covenant (although I do differ with him on a major point), so I won’t rehash it. As for chosenness, Israel is chosen to accept the yoke of heaven. What does that mean? Simply that, upon the national revelation of the L-rd at Sinai, the Jewish people accepted all the commandments; we were chosen for a very special duty and goal. The duty is to obey the commandments of the one G-d; in obeying them we are to be a holy nation, a nation of priests. And the goal of our pious observance is to sanctify His holy name. When we perform as intended, we sanctify his name in the eyes of the nations. When we miss the mark, we are punished; if we fail to respond we are exiled until such time that we merit return. The concept of the chosen people does not signify inherent elevation over the other peoples of the earth. Messiah Truth has a nice page; search it for the keywords “more than one path.”

They regard christianity as a polytheistic heresy, while they regard islam as a bad copy of judaism, and the descendants of Ismaeel out of the prophethood-bloodline anyhow, which makes prophet Muhammad in their eyes to a false prophet.

The first thing to know is that Judaism is a very internalized religion. Religious Jews do not spend that much time thinking about the faiths of others, since Jews are busy focusing on Judaism. With that said. . . Both Christianity and Islam contain a number of truthful teachings and beliefs. But they also deviate from the Torah a great deal, and in that way they are false. Frankly, I do believe that the worship of Jesus, a being who is said to have lived and died on earth, OR the belief in him as an intermediary to the Almighty, constitutes belief in elohim acharim (other gods). “. . .You shall have no other gods before Me.” Those Christians who worship his graven image are engaging in atzav (idol worship). Trinitarian belief creates three beings, and that indeed is polytheism. But there are a multitude of additional reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Christianity.

Both Islam and Christianity claim to supersede revelation at Sinai, for different reasons (Christianity claims to supersede it by “fulfilling” it, while Islam claims to supersede it by “perfecting” it). While making that claim, both throw out the Torah through wholesale modification, and on that basis alone the two religions are incompatible with Jewish belief. Ishmael, Jesus, Mohammed (and others) are not prophets according to Judaism, so that is another point of divergence. But there are a multitude of additional reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Islam.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, but worshipping a man is blasphemy and idolatry, and that's what Jesus is from a Jewish perspective. . . . None of them have denied that worshipping a human being is considered idolatry under Jewish law, either.

I’m not a rabbi, but I side with Chuckit on this one, vmarks. IMO, all Christians put elohim acharim between themselves and G-d, because for all sects of Christianity Jesus is, at the very least, employed an intermediary to G-d. And, as I said above, those Christians who worship Jesus’ image are also engaging in idolatry. For a non-Jew, Chuckit, you are quite knowledgeable of Jewish belief.

Originally Posted by vmarks

However, Christians are not bound by this commandment even though they may claim to follow it. Instead, for Jews, they are subject to the Noahide Laws, which I cited above.

It’s very interesting, according to the shamash.org page you linked to, the third law of Noah is the prohibition of sexual immorality. But according to a great number of references online, including Aish.com’s listing, the third is “do not worship false gods.” I find Aish HaTorah much more authoritative. I am certain that if b’nei noach were not prohibited from worshiping false gods, that would defeat the purpose of the covenant.
PART 2, corresponding to page 2, to follow at some point. . .

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I’m glad vmarks corrected you on this point. Never, in any form whatsoever, will you see or hear a Jew make such a claim. Yes, I believe Judaism is the truth, but Jews are also taught there is more than one path to G-d. vmarks adequately explained the Noachide Covenant (although I do differ with him on a major point), so I won’t rehash it. As for chosenness, Israel is chosen to accept the yoke of heaven. What does that mean? Simply that, upon the national revelation of the L-rd at Sinai, the Jewish people accepted all the commandments; we were chosen for a very special duty and goal. The duty is to obey the commandments of the one G-d; in obeying them we are to be a holy nation, a nation of priests. And the goal of our pious observance is to sanctify His holy name. When we perform as intended, we sanctify his name in the eyes of the nations. When we miss the mark, we are punished; if we fail to respond we are exiled until such time that we merit return. The concept of the chosen people does not signify inherent elevation over the other peoples of the earth. Messiah Truth has a nice page; search it for the keywords “more than one path.”

The first thing to know is that Judaism is a very internalized religion. Religious Jews do not spend that much time thinking about the faiths of others, since Jews are busy focusing on Judaism. With that said. . . Both Christianity and Islam contain a number of truthful teachings and beliefs. But they also deviate from the Torah a great deal, and in that way they are false. Frankly, I do believe that the worship of Jesus, a being who is said to have lived and died on earth, OR the belief in him as an intermediary to the Almighty, constitutes belief in elohim acharim (other gods). “. . .You shall have no other gods before Me.” Those Christians who worship his graven image are engaging in atzav (idol worship). Trinitarian belief creates three beings, and that indeed is polytheism. But there are a multitude of additional reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Christianity.

Both Islam and Christianity claim to supersede revelation at Sinai, for different reasons (Christianity claims to supersede it by “fulfilling” it, while Islam claims to supersede it by “perfecting” it). While making that claim, both throw out the Torah through wholesale modification, and on that basis alone the two religions are incompatible with Jewish belief. Ishmael, Jesus, Mohammed (and others) are not prophets according to Judaism, so that is another point of divergence. But there are a multitude of additional reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Islam.

I’m not a rabbi, but I side with Chuckit on this one, vmarks. IMO, all Christians put elohim acharim between themselves and G-d, because for all sects of Christianity Jesus is, at the very least, employed an intermediary to G-d. And, as I said above, those Christians who worship Jesus’ image are also engaging in idolatry. For a non-Jew, Chuckit, you are quite knowledgeable of Jewish belief.

It’s very interesting, according to the shamash.org page you linked to, the third law of Noah is the prohibition of sexual immorality. But according to a great number of references online, including Aish.com’s listing, the third is “do not worship false gods.” I find Aish HaTorah much more authoritative. I am certain that if b’nei noach were not prohibited from worshiping false gods, that would defeat the purpose of the covenant.
PART 2, corresponding to page 2, to follow at some point. . .

The Noahide laws establish the concept of Righteous Gentile.

Christians individuals have been Righteous Gentiles. Do you dispute that?

Therefore, how do you reconcile that contradiction, if we must abide by your contention that Jesus is an intermediary?

As I said before, for two Jews, three opinions.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The Noahide laws establish the concept of Righteous Gentile.

Correct.

Christians individuals have been Righteous Gentiles. Do you dispute that?

Righteous, yes. I don't dispute that. OTOH, my definition of righteousness may not accord with the heavenly definition.

Therefore, how do you reconcile that contradiction, if we must abide by your contention that Jesus is an intermediary?

If he is not, at best, an intermediary and at worst one-third of a divided godhead, how else could/should he be defined? I believe Christianity is a path to G-d; I believe many Christians are righteous people who should merit existence in the World to Come. Yet, I cannot honestly harmonize Christian theology with the requirements of the Noachide Covenant.

[RAILhead]

Never said Jesus' miracles were unique or "never before seen."

The dispute over Jesus fulfilling messianic prophecy has been going on for ages -- far longer than you and I have ever been around. That said, your opinion and evidence is rock-solid for you, and my opinion and evidence is rock-solid for me. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

Maury

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Never said Jesus' miracles were unique or "never before seen."

The dispute over Jesus fulfilling messianic prophecy has been going on for ages -- far longer than you and I have ever been around. That said, your opinion and evidence is rock-solid for you, and my opinion and evidence is rock-solid for me. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

In my first draft of that post, I was going to write something very similar, so while we're theologically quite different, there is intellectual overlap.

Btw, I do not mean to offend anyone with my posts to this thread. If the thread had not descended into debate as it did, I would have been far less apt to write in such a direct manner. I believe people can share their honest opinions on these very sensitive topics. Dialog leads to greater mutual understanding, and we have to be prepared to learn more about one another even though stripping away politeness can be uncomfortable.

[von Wrangell]

I think it's remarkable that this thread is still rather "decent" and without too many personal attacks.

Good job guys

[BRussell]

A question for Jews in this thread: Will there ever be a real moshiach? And how will we know? What will happen or what will the messiah do?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell

A question for Jews in this thread: Will there ever be a real moshiach? And how will we know? What will happen or what will the messiah do?

Good question. The term moshiach (which is usually translated as messiah) means anointed one, and there were a number of anointed individuals in biblical times. Now Moshiach or King Moshiach is referred to as Moshiach ben David, the awaited son of King David. The son of David is a human being descended from David through Solomon. He is to be the greatest prophet since Moses and is to accomplish, among other things, the following:

1. Ingather the exiles and return them to the land of Israel;

2. Rebuild the Temple for the third and final time;

3. Usher in the messianic age of universal peace, justice and knowledge of G-d - swords in to plow shears, lion to lay down with the lamb, from Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the L-rd from Jerusalem. . .

So, as you can see, Jewish belief awaits unmistakable, profound, permanent changes to the condition of humanity and the entire earth. People will not have to "believe" x, y or z happened, because they will see it for themselves. Addendum: The belief that the kingdom of David will be reestablished as described is a core belief of Judaism, one of Rabbi Maimonides' thirteen principles of faith.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Planet_EN

While describing "why you think that a religion is closest to be accepteable"; only post things about which you're having reasons to believe, anyone on this thread can ask others about the reasons of their beliefs and discuss it. Dont post things that are deviod of any proof and coherance.

Thanks
-EN

Here is what I think.

Since religions are the product of the human mind (which does not mean there are no Gods; it means God in religion is a by product of religion) and any other product of the human mind is flawed (like bridges, knowledge, children) and posing that God would have to be perfect, since he/she/it created "existence", it is therefore a vain pursuit to believe.

Any religions are subscripts or byproducts of human knowledge, just as science; facts are interpreted according to different rules, period. In essence, science and religion have the same value in my mind.

There would be a case to establish that people with faith have a mental disorder (please bare with me a moment) because the belief in a higher being is based on signs, stories, legends, visions, dreams and politics. Not being factual, such beliefs would therefore be baseless and delusional. The issue with science is that there is an impression of Truth because humans manipulates the world and create other tangible products; it provides a certain sense of safety, as does religion, but anyone who did some science knows that it is just a foolish pursuit, since the process seems to lead to a vastitude we will never attain (the universe apparently being infinite). Therefore, science is just as worthless as religion to attain the Truth.

On the other hand, they both provide rationales to make sense of our lives.

Understanding this, we make religions and religions make us who we are. Whatever religion we choose is a question of personal preferences, and proceeds as well from learning what other religions are (with prejudice, of course) and then reject, adopt, or tolerate them.

Personally, with what I just wrote, it becomes very difficult to respond as suggested, understanding that:

1) I would contradict myself otherwise
2) I know the impact of the religious education I received, and still am fighting against it today.
3) this does not deny God, for both science and religion appear to suggest infinity, and such an infinity (the universe's) deserves an explanation.

Finaly, I think my sig reflects in a few words how I see human existence and the meaning of it.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Here is what I think.

Since religions are the product of the human mind ...

A pretty bold assumption and pretty comforting for yourself, yet completely unsubstantianed.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

1. Yes, I believe Judaism is the truth, but Jews are also taught there is more than one path to G-d. vmarks adequately explained the Noachide Covenant (although I do differ with him on a major point), so I won’t rehash it.

...

The first thing to know is that Judaism is a very internalized religion. Religious Jews do not spend that much time thinking about the faiths of others, since Jews are busy focusing on Judaism.

2. With that said. . . Both Christianity and Islam contain a number of truthful teachings and beliefs. But they also deviate from the Torah a great deal, and in that way they are false. Both Islam and Christianity claim to supersede revelation at Sinai, for different reasons (Christianity claims to supersede it by “fulfilling” it, while Islam claims to supersede it by “perfecting” it). While making that claim, both throw out the Torah through wholesale modification, and on that basis alone the two religions are incompatible with Jewish belief. Ishmael, Jesus, Mohammed (and others) are not prophets according to Judaism, so that is another point of divergence. But there are a multitude of additional reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Islam.

Regarding:

1. But that's the problem, the jews waited obviously for a messiah, the one anointed by God, who speaks the direct word of God, and Jesus was sent by God to the jews and created by God to be that and to do that, but the jews rejected him. If they had accepted him, he would have led the jews to their kingdom, but since humans have freewill, including the freedom to reject legitimate prophets, even if he were the long-awaited messiah, it didn't happen. The leaders of the jews at that time committed a big mistake imho, they let their messiah pass by!
2. Deviation from the Thora is not proof for falseness of the new scriptures, but proofness that the Thora's stories have not been preserved consistently, and considering that nearly all jewish faithes died out during the time the first temple got detroyed by the Babylonians and the survival of only the pharisaer's version and the change of language as well as the loss of original scriptures and the 70-year exile in Babylon, that is hardly surprising.

Taliesin

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

A pretty bold assumption and pretty comforting for yourself, yet completely unsubstantianed.

Taliesin

I meant "religions" not "God".

And the proof that religions are the product of the human mind is that there are so many, all the faithful believe to have the right one, with its own type of Heaven. Many have prophets, messiah, or someone carrying the "Word of God". There is for most a "Creation Myth", and sets of Mysteries understandable after long study of scriptures and conversations with "enlitened". Human reactions are to be interpreted according to a grid of "freedom" or as going along with a plan, which can be either mysterious or clear according to circumstances, mood, or level of interpretation. God also reveals itself to those who "really listen". Ceremonies happened to thank, acknowledge, pledge, pray for mercy, or sacrifice what is most precious for personal advantage or agenda.

Whether there are one or many Gods is not discussed either, for those who do not subscribe to a religion are necessarily "pagans", or atheists. And people kill each other for these precepts.

Religions are sets of knowledge transiting through the Human mind at all times.

This does not deny the existence of a Creator. It just means that the need for an explanation to our existence has been coming from humans, and may very well come from humans for ever.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

People never consider the things they like to be a religion nowadays. I don't know why that is. I think people have forgotten what the word means or something.

You evidently appear to like considering Buddhism a religion. I don't know why that "is", either, but I suspect it may have something to do with not understanding the way the system works.

• Item 1: The goal of Buddhism is to reach the state commonly called Samadhi.
• Item 2: Unless it happens spontaneously, the Buddhist method of achieving this is through Yoga.
• Item 3: There is nothing inherently supernatural about Yoga.

Meaning that there is no worship required (or recommended) in the practise of Buddhism. (One could, of course, choose to medidate on some religious archetype, but considering what the aspirant is trying to get out of the process, it's pretty hard to justify.)

Meaning that the core of Buddhism is a faith-independent discipline of radical, self-inflicted psychotherapy.

Meaning Buddhism does not require belief, does not require faith, does not require worship, does not require gods or an afterlife*.

*(Karma, rebirth, etc., although ideas subjectively verifiable in trance, do NOT have to be taken on faith, which IMO is a major difference to how religions traditionally operate.)

Just because there doesn't appear to be a shortage of stupid people who persist in worshipping "Teh Buddha™," praying to "Teh Buddha™" and similar absurdities, just because some ignorant politicians and theist propagandists are pretending it's a religion, that offers absolutely nothing in the way of evidence that Buddhism "is a religion."

Anyway, that's my justification for not considering Buddhism a religion, affection doesn't seem to have much do with it, at all.

[ranga]

With regard to the discussion of Buddhism, I agree that Buddhism cannot be called a religion. AFAIK, religion is generally a belief system centered around one or more supernatural deities. Buddhism is not such a system.

Buddhism has always been described to me as the "way" or "vehicle" to enlightenment. What is practiced as Buddhism is a methodology to reach enlightenment, not the "content" of enlightenment itself.

Furthermore, the nature of enlightenment cannot be described and must be experienced by each person on their own. Some describe enlightenment as the experience of non-duality of all things, but its true nature cannot really be described, so Buddhism concerns itself mainly with practices that are supposed to lead one to enlightenment.

Perhaps the belief in the way to enlightenment as taught by the Buddha could be characterized as a religion, but my understanding is that the Buddha did not say that the he "way" he taught was the only way to enlightenment, merely that is one possible way. Therefore no belief is required even in the Buddha's teaching.

As far as the experience of prior lives as described by the Budda, I personally think that this is a description of the genetic "memories" of our ancestors as encoded in our genes rather than anything literal. In some way the experience of all of the forms of life from which we have evolved is encoded w/in our genes.

--ranga

[me. dont like? dont care]

i think buddhists have a good way of thinking, they CHOOSE not to harm any animals/things. I believe this is what is needed more, i have had many bad experiences 1 of which i do not speak of, and no one should have to go through so much pain and suffering. No one deserves to be killed or bullied. No matter what someone has done they should always get another chance. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. A person should get as many chances as they need but the person worth the most is the peerson who will never need another. Be who you are, say how you feel because those who mind dont matter, and those who matter dont mind. Also never be ashamed of who you are. No matter how hard you try you are you and nothing will change who you are. I hate it when girls get boyfriends and pick faults and say oh he can change for me. NO HE CANT! or obviously vice versa. people arent worth your tears, and those who are will never make you use them. This is basically my outike on life. Oh and doesn't it anoy you when people play it safe 'cause they dont want to die? it annoys me. Everyone dies no matter what, if its your time it is your time, no point in looking back on your life wishing you had done more but been too afraid like being afraid to fly so not really getting a decent holiday and stuff. this is just an example not the most dramatic thing that could happen. Why is a plane crash different from a car crash, liklyhood is you will still die.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Just because there doesn't appear to be a shortage of stupid people who persist in worshipping "Teh Buddha™," praying to "Teh Buddha™" and similar absurdities, just because some ignorant politicians and theist propagandists are pretending it's a religion, that offers absolutely nothing in the way of evidence that Buddhism "is a religion."

Generally, a religion is a set of beliefs (e.g. the Bible or the Four Noble Truths) and practices (e.g. the 10 Commandments or the Eightfold Path) adhered to above all others. Not all religions necessarily involve supernatural phenomena or worship — most Laveyan Satanists don't believe in either, and I'd say Buddhism has more of a claim to being a religion than they do.

Originally Posted by red rocket

*(Karma, rebirth, etc., although ideas subjectively verifiable in trance, do NOT have to be taken on faith, which IMO is a major difference to how religions traditionally operate.)

How is this objectively different from Christians who believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus and he speaks to them and all that?

[stwain2003]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Which religion is closest acceptable to you?

The jews think that only they and their religion will be accepted by God, because they think they are the chosen people.
Taliesin

The jews ARE gods chosen people, but they chose to stray away from God's will by saying that Jesus Christ was not the Holy Messiah. And yes, they did kill Jesus. Not directly, but they ordered the killing of Jesus.

[me. dont like? dont care]

oh and dont let bad experiences destroy you, but let them guide you into being a better person

[Buckaroo]

Without a doubt, I believe Christianity is the closest to be acceptable.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Generally, a religion is a set of beliefs (e.g. the Bible or the Four Noble Truths) and practices (e.g. the 10 Commandments or the Eightfold Path) adhered to above all others. Not all religions necessarily involve supernatural phenomena or worship — most Laveyan Satanists don't believe in either, and I'd say Buddhism has more of a claim to being a religion than they do.

Yes, but they have this irrational obsession with being a recognised Religion™. Buddhists do not.

How is this objectively different from Christians who believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus and he speaks to them and all that?

A Buddhist would not delude himself with that kind of archetype.

Of course, you may note that I scored pretty high on affinity for Liberal Quakerism. Having a personal relationship with divinity seems compatible with Buddhism.

[Goldfinger]

Firstly: I don't give a crap what religion someone follows. Secondly: all forms of religion are next to pointless to me. I can not grasp what they would give me that I don't already have. Anyone care to say what religion actually adds to your life ? Something that you don't have when you are an atheist ? I can't think of anything really.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I meant "religions" not "God".

And the proof that religions are the product of the human mind is that there are so many, all the faithful believe to have the right one, with its own type of Heaven. Many have prophets, messiah, or someone carrying the "Word of God". There is for most a "Creation Myth", and sets of Mysteries understandable after long study of scriptures and conversations with "enlitened". Human reactions are to be interpreted according to a grid of "freedom" or as going along with a plan, which can be either mysterious or clear according to circumstances, mood, or level of interpretation. God also reveals itself to those who "really listen". Ceremonies happened to thank, acknowledge, pledge, pray for mercy, or sacrifice what is most precious for personal advantage or agenda.

Whether there are one or many Gods is not discussed either, for those who do not subscribe to a religion are necessarily "pagans", or atheists. And people kill each other for these precepts.

Religions are sets of knowledge transiting through the Human mind at all times.

This does not deny the existence of a Creator. It just means that the need for an explanation to our existence has been coming from humans, and may very well come from humans for ever.

That is again a pretty bold assumption. See, the interpretations of religious scriptures is obviously coming from humans, but it's an assumption to think the original messages itself are just invented by humans. All religions, at least all abrahamitic ones, have common themes and messages, namely that one God created everything and has given humans and jinns freewill to believe in whatever they want, for which they get tested in this life and judged on judgment day, on which all humans and jinns get recreated to face the verdict, either eternal reward in paradise or eternal punishment in hell. The creation, the test, the judgment in the hereafter are general themes of all abrahamitic religions. I would even go further and claim that they are general themes and messages of most religions, but only the abrahamitic ones have preserved that message without devolving into polytheism and superstition.

As much as I can prove that God has sent and instructed the prophets, as much can you prove that these socalled prophets invented their messages, both statements are assumptions that guide our conclusions from then on.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Firstly: I don't give a crap what religion someone follows. Secondly: all forms of religion are next to pointless to me. I can not grasp what they would give me that I don't already have. Anyone care to say what religion actually adds to your life ? Something that you don't have when you are an atheist ? I can't think of anything really.

Religions are not meant to give you something that you need in this life! They are meant to keep you from sinning, and to remind you of God's existence and to cause you to praise Him, and to commit good deeds, so that you might receive reward and escape punishment in the hereafter (!).

If you are thinking about what religion might add to your life, then you are arguing from the atheistic point of view, that doesn't even consider the beyond, and is just in search for a bit good-feel-spirituality, basically a form of secular religion, like a hobby or so.

Taliesin

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Religions are not meant to give you something that you need in this life! They are meant to keep you from sinning, and to remind you of God's existence and to cause you to praise Him, and to commit good deeds, so that you might receive reward and escape punishment in the hereafter (!).

If you are thinking about what religion might add to your life, then you are arguing from the atheistic point of view, that doesn't even consider the beyond, and is just in search for a bit good-feel-spirituality, basically a form of secular religion, like a hobby or so.

Taliesin

Keep me from sinning ? Sinnig is defined by the religion. I never sin in my life. I just do what is morally correct according to myself. I don't need a religion to tell me what to do ? Or do I ?

I don't NEED a religion. I do good things and bad things and I will know when what I did was right or wrong, I don't need guidance. Why do people need/have a religion ?

There must be a reason. The thing is that I can't find that reason. Defining a good reason for it is quite hard.

Not trying to flame here, it's just something that has kept me puzzled for years since I can't find a good answer as to why you would actually need a religion.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

(...)

As much as I can prove that God has sent and instructed the prophets, as much can you prove that these socalled prophets invented their messages, both statements are assumptions that guide our conclusions from then on.

Taliesin

Exactly my point. The difference is in the interpretation, which is a human tool. You can attribute to God whatever you want, but that is your assumption; it does not constitute true knowledge.

Because we can interpret in our own ways or through a set of parameters changes nothing about religions being cultural objects rather than true tools of worshipping the Creator as he/she/it really is.

Even considering the common aspects you mentioned, people can still find a way to interpret the scriptures to compete amongst each other either using religion, whether it is amongst the faithful of one religion, or amongst people of different religion.

That there are common aspects between religion is of historical, archaeological and anthropoligical interest only, and has nothing to do with the Creator.

The Creator is objective, but humans are not and it is especially demonstrated through religions/belief systems. Discussing which religion is most acceptable is especially symptomatic of that; talking about best fitting trousers goes through the same rules.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Keep me from sinning ? Sinnig is defined by the religion. I never sin in my life. I just do what is morally correct according to myself. I don't need a religion to tell me what to do ? Or do I ?

I don't NEED a religion. I do good things and bad things and I will know when what I did was right or wrong, I don't need guidance. Why do people need/have a religion ?

There must be a reason. The thing is that I can't find that reason. Defining a good reason for it is quite hard.

Not trying to flame here, it's just something that has kept me puzzled for years since I can't find a good answer as to why you would actually need a religion.

Have you even read what I wrote in my reply to you? There is a very big reason for people to adhere to religions but the reward for that commitment will not materialise until judgment day. The big reason people want to be religious is to escape punishment in hell and to gain reward in paradise, anything else like morale/ethics or community-feelings are just bonusses and not the goal, the goal is the beyond and hereafter.

Off course for someone who doesn't believe in God's existence, the test, the judgment day and the hereafter, there is no need for a religion.

Taliesin

[☺]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

The jews ARE gods chosen people, but they chose to stray away from God's will by saying that Jesus Christ was not the Holy Messiah. And yes, they did kill Jesus. Not directly, but they ordered the killing of Jesus.

The Jews™ Didn't order the killing of Jesus. A certain higher up that was jealous did.

Many jews followed Jesus.

[☺]

Originally Posted by red rocket

A Buddhist would not delude himself with that kind of archetype.

I believe it, and I am far from being deluded I assure you.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

..
Because we can interpret in our own ways or through a set of parameters changes nothing about religions being cultural objects rather than true tools of worshipping the Creator as he/she/it really is.

..

That there are common aspects between religion is of historical, archaeological and anthropoligical interest only, and has nothing to do with the Creator.

That are again assumptions, you are assuming religions are cultural and human-invented concepts, that try to connect with the creator but aren't inspired/revealed by the creator.

That assumption guides your logic and arguments from then on, just like my assumption that God actually instructed and sent prophets with true divine messages guides my arguments from then on. The only difference between us in that regard is that I'm aware that the basis of my argumentation is an unproven assumption and am aware of the alternative route, while you think your assumption is a proven fact.

Taliesin

[☺]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The only difference between us in that regard is that I'm aware that the basis of my argumentation is an unproven assumption and am aware of the alternative route, while you think your assumption is a proven fact.

Taliesin

And rarely will they admit that their belief is actually based on faith also.

They are just trading one faith for another.

[☺]

Originally Posted by Planet_EN

I can only tip my hat in the honour of this remark.

You used the example of an 'egg', well I prefer to imagine an 'egg' as a system with God, Jesus and Holy Spirit being the constituents of it. Doesnt it appears to be stuck?

A better comparison would be water.

It can take three different forms Solid, Liquid, and Gas. Yet still be water.

And it's one of the requirements of life.

The Bible made many comparisons to water and the holyspirt/God/Jesus.

"Drinking the water" of everlasting life.

I don't think it was a coincidence.

[Planet_EN]

Originally Posted by ☺

A better comparison would be water.

It can take three different forms Solid, Liquid, and Gas. Yet still be water.

And it's one of the requirements of life.

The Bible made many comparisons to water and the holyspirt/God/Jesus.

"Drinking the water" of everlasting life.

I don't think it was a coincidence.

Ah! smart move ... but still fallible

If it can take three different form, and as your example stated God took the form of Jesus, then why and to whom did Jesus prayed? Why Holy Spirit had to come to meet Jesus if they both were actually single entity.

Lets look at the religious side:

In 'Gospel according to Mark', chapter 12, verses 28-34, we are able to read one of the statements, made by Christ himself, which categorically denies the doctrine of the trinity:
"Then one of the lawyers, who had been listening to these discussions and noted how well he answered, came forward and asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?'

Jesus answered, 'The first is, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is the only Lord; love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."

The second is this: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

'Well said, Master. Your are right in saying that God is one and beside him there is no other. And to love him with all your heart, all your understanding, and all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself - that is far more than any burnt offerings.' When Jesus saw how sensibly he answered, he said to him: 'You are not far from the Kingdom of God'."

Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone": " "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." "

"I am the Lord, there is no other; there is no god beside me... so that men from the rising and setting sun may know that there is none but I: I am the Lord, there is no other." [Book of Isaiah 45, verses 5-6]

[Planet_EN]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I think it's remarkable that this thread is still rather "decent" and without too many personal attacks.

Good job guys

Yeah, thank Cheesus ... we are still having civil and inhostile debates.

[☺]

Originally Posted by Planet_EN

Ah! smart move ... but still fallible

If it can take three different form, and as your example stated God took the form of Jesus, then why and to whom did Jesus prayed? Why Holy Spirit had to come to meet Jesus if they both were actually single entity.

That goes a long with the supernatural. You are thinking in secular, realist terms, and trying to apply that to the supernatural.

Before you start, you fail.

Lets look at the religious side:

In 'Gospel according to Mark', chapter 12, verses 28-34, we are able to read one of the statements, made by Christ himself, which categorically denies the doctrine of the trinity:
"Then one of the lawyers, who had been listening to these discussions and noted how well he answered, came forward and asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?'

Jesus answered, 'The first is, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is the only Lord; love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."

The second is this: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

'Well said, Master. Your are right in saying that God is one and beside him there is no other. And to love him with all your heart, all your understanding, and all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself - that is far more than any burnt offerings.' When Jesus saw how sensibly he answered, he said to him: 'You are not far from the Kingdom of God'."

Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone": " "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." "

"I am the Lord, there is no other; there is no god beside me... so that men from the rising and setting sun may know that there is none but I: I am the Lord, there is no other." [Book of Isaiah 45, verses 5-6]

No, that is not him denying it exists at all.

That is him saying he is the way, truth, and the light.

Tell me then, why did Jesus admit to being God, when he knew he would be put to death for doing so?

He admitted several times he was God.

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”

We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).

The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!” Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God?

John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, "...Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood." Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church with His own blood.

Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior - Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, "But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

n Revelation, an angel instructed the Apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus was not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation had.

BUT and here is the CLINCHER!

The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected - proving His victory over sin and death.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by ☺

I believe it, and I am far from being deluded I assure you.

I said "Buddhist." You are not a Buddhist, Zimphire. You are as far from being a Buddhist as one can possibly get.