[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I did in the original paragraph that dealt with that issue, except I didn't spell out "original sin" when I was talking about the Christian claim that Jesus corrected for all sins universally. So you're silent on substance of that issue, I see.

Why bother arguing about that with someone who doesn't believe that Jesus even existed?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I merely pointed out that mainstream Christianity world-wide doesn't agree with you, and you took particular offense.

No I didn't. I agreed with the assertion.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Sure. Next you'll claim my kind is cursed and so hated by your conception of "the true god" that I'll never get given the truth.

No I won't. Don't tell me what I will and won't do based on your paranoia.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Doofy, if you think "the true god" is directly speaking words to you then you're psychologically not well, unless you want to proclaim you're a prophet in which case you can be tested accordingly.

Any proper Christian (i.e. not nominal) will tell you that God "talks" to them. It's part and parcel of the whole thing. Of course, you don't experience this because I know of no father who'll bother talking to anyone who calls his son a bastard.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Lots of anger, Doofy.

I must assume that you're talking about anger coming from yourself, because I'm as calm as it gets.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't even know what stereotype you're referring to here.

The stereotype that your people are tricksy liars. Now, I'd like to prove the far-right tw*ts wrong on that but you're not helping at all. You're intentionally misreading, you're using different scales for identical arguments - everything I'd expect from someone who could be described as a snake. Those far-right knobheads aren't right, are they?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I apparently misread some of the particular claims you've made.

You know you did.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This is honestly part of the conversation I thought transpired:

1. There is another person on MacNN who knows and believes in the religion you follow, and that other person will never reveal the secret (that was the firs thing you said)
2. Then you seemingly implied that the other person who knows your religion is actually the one who taught you (to which I astonishingly asked if you were saying you were the student and he was the master);

And here's the actual text that you read that from:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You'll never get the details out of me - that kind of information isn't for those of limited intellect. At least one other person here knows exactly what I mean (and he won't give you the details either).

Now. I tell you I've been researching subjects which will fry your brain.
You accuse me of being on drugs.
I reply with that text.

In what way, exactly, does the text above imply that the other person on MacNN is anything other than a person who knows what I mean?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, as I suspected you'd need me to either do heavy (drug) "experimentation" that would threaten to fry my brain, or cause myself some other form of brain damage in order to contemplate believing as you do.

There we go again.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Cynical as in believing the worst in human nature or having a sneering disbelief in humanity? Or do you mean skeptical?

I mean cynical.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In truth, Doofy, what I had previously learned about you from your 15,000 posts is that you were a mostly very conservative person, a music creator, an opinionated person and overall a decent person. I didn't get the point that you were cynical or a bastard.

I hereby give you permission to post a poll in the lounge asking "is Doofy a cynical bastard?".

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't ascribe anything particularly negative to your character. You even sent me very kind PMs on a number of occasions, which didn't at all betray your hatred toward my religion.

You misunderstand (or you're playing the victim). I have no hatred towards your religion. Until two/three weeks ago I held the usual favourable Christian approach to your religion and people. And then I saw you calling Jesus a bastard and stating that you'd gladly kill Him again. This triggered a little research, to see if this assholishness was coming from you personally or was a symptom of your beliefs.
You turned me against your religion Biggie, it's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I only saw more negative traits when I started discussing serious theological defects of Christianity, and I take responsibility for your anger toward me.

Again, there's no anger. I'm as calm as it gets.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Also for reference, I misread the situation here in large part because I have close Christian friends in the real world who know me well enough to know my full theological outlook. They accept me as a friend in spite of the fact that I view Christianity as idolatry and corruption

Call Jesus a bastard in front of them and tell 'em how you'd gladly kill Him. Then see how often they invite you to places.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But prior to these threads I didn't know of your unique brand of religion.

You don't know of Christianity? It's not all that unique.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The funny thing is, Doofy, if I tell you what I think of you I won't get an infraction. What does it say about you that you have that amount of anger toward me that you can't tell me what you think of me without violating the rules of MacNN conduct? Why so much hatred?

No anger, no hatred. Stop playing the victim.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Here's what I think of you, Doofy: I think you're a generally nice guy, but you're the type of guy who gets very highly offended and obnoxious if any of your sacred cows are threatened (namely your profession and your professed religion).

And you become offended if your identity, which is not your own but pre-set by fat old blokes in posh frocks 2,500 years ago, is threatened.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think that your theology is completely baseless. I think that starting, as you claim to have done, from a position of complete ignorance - a blank slate - and then imagining a deity is speaking solely to you is a laughably ridiculous claim to religious truth.

Congratulations. You've just said that all of your prophets are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think, furthermore, that as lpk and ebuddy have pointed out to you, your brand of Christianity doesn't even make sense in a purely Christian sense.

This from a man who thinks that Christians pray to a bit of wood.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think it's fascinating that you burned the books you previously thought were holy because you wanted to operate purely on a mystical level - very odd indeed.

It's not odd at all.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think your denouncements of me, my people, the Torah, the G-d of Israel, etc. are illogical, needlessly hateful, very much hypocritical, and violations of the previously referenced two rules you claim your mystical form of Christianity promulgates.

Unlike your calling my God a bastard, which was all happy happy joy joy.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And finally, I think that your venomous reactions toward me say a whole lot about your lack of security in your own beliefs.

I have no lack of security. I stand alone on my beliefs and know what they are.
Compare this to a man who has had his beliefs handed to him and seeks security in his ancestors.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And while I previously regretted that I allowed this interaction to happen, allowing a little more time to pass has shown me that it truly was for the best.

Yes, it's for the best.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

He was denounced as a heretic in the second century, by both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And everything bar the catholic church is denounced as heretical these days. Does that mean that protestants aren't Christian?

You're confused. Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are writers from the Patristic Age, and are authoritative texts for all Christians, not just Catholics.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

We don't know this. In fact, it seems pretty unlikely, given lifetime imprisonment for murder would have been absurdly expensive in the ancient world. Jesus talks about many things, but capital punishment is never mentioned by him.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Aside from the whole "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" episode, you mean?

So you think Jesus advocated no punishment for all crimes? What if it wasn't an adultress, but a murderer or pedophile? Jesus would say "let him walk" ??

Besides, we know for certain that this story isn't historical. It isn't found in the oldest NTs, it isn't mentioned by any Patristic authors, and it presents a historically false view of how Jewish executions were really carried out. Stoning began after a trial, and the two witnesses would throw the convicted from the city wall, and only if the fall didn't kill would stone throwing commence.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Jesus needed scripture? His disciples needed scripture?

Yes.

Since this thread has turned into a three-way theist slugfest, I'm gonna bow out.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Conquering King vs Suffering Servant. How does the 9th chapter of Daniel figure into all of this?

Daniel 9 figures in quite well, but not for Christian theology. I don't feel like doing an exhaustive breakdown but Daniel 9 is definitively not what Christians are looking for. The problem for Christians is that they grossly misinterpret the words. Firstly, they ignore that there are two different anointed ones - different mashiachs - talked about in the chapter, and secondly in order to get near to the years they want they incorrectly combine the first 7 week period and the next 62 week period, and then the final one week period into a combined 70 week period and come out with an invalid interpretation of prophecy based on bad math that they think points to Jesus. And thirdly they ignore that both of the anointed ones discussed cannot possibly be referring to Jesus, or at least not to the Jesus Christianity wants to believe in.

The text says that there will be 7 weeks of years from the time of the decree to rebuild the Temple until the anointed leader who fulfills the decree - that's Cyrus, who G-d calls His anointed, and who issues the royal decree for the Jews to return and rebuild. Then there is a separate 62 week period after which a second anointed one will be cut off and "be no more." If you do the calculation properly you find that it's decades too late for Jesus to have been cut off, but aside from that there's another thing that Christians should know about that second anointed one: If they know the meaning of the verse they won't want to apply it to Jesus at all. Remember, this second anointed one (mashiach) "will be cut off and he will be no more." Now the word for will be cut off is y'karet, and that's important because you need to know what the term karet means. In every usage, karet refers to spiritual excision of a sinner from the rest of the people. It never refers to a righteous one cut off, and it doesn't even specifically refer to bodily death but rather spiritual cutting off from the nation. So it says that this mashiach will be cut off and be no more - as in spiritually cut off and then killed. If you do the math and read the history you find out that the mashiach cut off was actually King Agrippa, the grandson of Herod. Remember, in Israelite history there were a great many mashiachim (anointed ones) - all kings, high priests, priests of war, prophets - all of them were anointed ones. So if you look in your translated Hebrew Scriptures and see the term anointed or the term "Messiah" (which you deceptively see in the KJV when it wants to make you believe the passage could be referring to Jesus), know that there were many anointed ones throughout history and that a prophecy talking about an anointed one could be talking about a number of figures. And Christians definitely do not want to claim that the mashiach "will be cut off and he will be no more" was Jesus because if they make that claim they're claiming Jesus was a sinner who experienced karet - spiritual excision - and then was "no more." If one could legitimately apply that prophecy to Jesus, it would be calling him a dead evildoer who was spiritually cut off before due to sinfulness - that's not what Christians want to claim.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now I believe we're talking past one another. My original point was that I could easily strip a verse from its context in true "dimestore theological" form to indict Judaism for fallacy. To do so I would have to strip the verse from its context. I realize the context is different, but I don't see your "got'cha" example for the several reasons I listed including the notion that while God cannot be a lying, sinful, relenting man, He can most certainly be a Holy, perfect, unrelenting, sinless, God incarnate. Nothing you've cited thus far refutes this point.

I never stripped a single verse from its context, respectfully. I showed that G-d says He is not a man nor a son of man. The Jesus of Christian canon was shown not to be perfect, not to be unrelenting, not to be sinless and certainly not to be an incarnation of a deity. Furthermore, the notion that the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures would incarnate in the flesh is absolutely false because we know that to do so would violate His eternal nature, and it's absolutely disgusting (to a Jew at least) because G-d would never condescend/denigrate/constrain/lower Himself to inhabit a created body of flesh born of a woman. Nor would He turn Himself into a likeness of anything to be used in idol worship. But if you believe that's possible, ebuddy, then you've missed nearly everything G-d teaches about Himself in the Hebrew Scriptures. And yes, I have conclusively proven all of that in the course of this thread, but that's simply a level of truth you're not prepared to accept at this point. And I'm not here to force it upon you.

Agreed however, in this instance the message in Numbers is not to be construed as some arbitrary limitation to God's nature, but of God's irrevocable promise of blessings to His people. You used this verse in the former; out of context Scripturally as a "got'cha" moment that I don't believe holds any weight. At least not Scripturally.

ebuddy, let me ask you this. First of all you, I believe you at first claimed that those words were the opinion of Balaam. Then you changed your opinion when I showed you that was an incorrect understanding - that these were the words of prophecy that G-d put in Balaam's mouth. Secondly, consider the following: Why would G-d say he is neither man nor son of man to relent (or if you wish, repent) if that information is not important to know about Him? Why wouldn't He have simply said, G-d is not a deity who does x, y and z? Why say anything about man or son of man if that's non-essential or non-limiting information? No, obviously G-d here attesting to the fact that He is neither a man nor a son of man is very important information to have. It's not a point that's difficult for Jews to understand because we know fully well that He is not a man nor a son of man, but it's very important for Christians who have a theological need to overlook those words.

Christians often get tripped up because they think that since G-d is all-mighty He is capable of doing absolutely anything, including violating the attributes He has given us to know Him by. Ask yourself the following questions: Can the L-rd be something other than all powerful? Can G-d stop being G-d or be something less than G-d? Can G-d do something completely illogical like abdicate His throne, or can He commit suicide? Can G-d violate His Torah which He calls perfect and eternal? All those things are things that would be illogical for G-d to do, and I hold it just as illogical to contend that G-d would ever incarnate into human flesh. I also think that if you look honestly at your Christian canon you'll see that Jesus is almost always shown to be inferior to his Father, while the few passages where Jesus seems to claim he is equivalent can easily be interpreted in other ways (such as the "I and my father are one" comment). I don't think one can honestly derive a multi-part godhead that includes Jesus from the Christian canon.

Doofy and I have gotten in some heated discussions in the past and they've ended short of the "ignore" feature of this forum. There's little doubt that you two will enjoy solidarity in other points, at other times even if it is not directed to one another in a reconciliatory fashion.

I appreciate those words. I have come to terms with the consequences of this conversation.

When you say that you'd kill Jesus again for example, I do not get offended. Others have gotten offended at this notion because of the inflammatory nature behind it of course, but I understand this to be little more than a stark religious difference between the two of us and one that is explained clearly in multiple places throughout Scripture.

I appreciate that you did not take offense. It was an offensively structured comment, although the intent behind it was not to be offensive for the mere sake of offending Christians or anyone else. It was meant to provoke thought and discussion. What I meant to convey is that even if a figure today came from the clouds and told me to worship him as G-d, I would move with haste to publicly reject and denounce that hypothetical figure as a false god. The G-d I worship would never appear as a form to be worshiped. Never. G-d's eternal Torah utterly precludes that possibility. And those who corrupt themselves into equating G-d with any likeness are explicitly violating the 10 Commandments and many other Torah mitzvot and commands found throughout the TaNaKh.

IMO it would be silly to feign outrage at this notion because I have no way of knowing you'd qualify as one of at least 23 to even try our God nor am I confident our God could be found guilty by such a court whose membership and proceedings enjoyed the adherence your own doctrine mandates. My faith teaches of a politically-motivated trial anyway; much less concerned with religious doctrinal integrity than merely eliminating an extremely influential and inconvenient figure.

I don't really know what you mean as to not knowing whether or not I would "qualify as one of at least 23 to even try our God." I personally think there's a lot to question about the portrayals of the trial of Jesus, given that there are so many conflicting, irreconcilable details according to the gospel accounts. But then again that's true for a great many details between the canonical gospels - their "facts" often conflict with each other when they're supposed to be telling the same story. Such things lead some non-Christians to think the story is a complete work of fiction.

Besides, Christian doctrine teaches that God petitioned forgiveness on your behalf at the cross already BigMac.

Are you saying that Christian doctrine teaches forgiveness even for those who reject Jesus as false? That's not a claim I've seen from any other Christian source.

I am not taking your general words as an indictment of my scholarship as much as the scholarship of hundreds of thousands before me teaching something other than your caricature of Christian doctrine.

I'm not sure what aspect of Christian doctrine you believe I'm caricaturing. I believe that I'm portraying mainstream Christianity accurately. More importantly, what I've written about Christianity is mostly how it is entirely incompatible with the Hebrew Scriptures.

As for the scholarship of hundreds of thousands before you, I hold no greater esteem for their scholarship, either. The fact is, if you are born into Christianity and learn scripture from the normal Christian perspective, then you'll usually find ways to ignore all the vast incompatibilities between Judaism and Christianity. You'll view the Hebrew Scriptures with "Christ" colored glasses, and if you really desire to you'll be able to insert Christological elements in the most outrageous places, like in the Shema. But if you are born Jewish you'll hold the TaNaKh as the authoritative texts and evaluate all other texts and claims accordingly.

Is your faith not riddled with heretics and liars?

Nope, not at all. The vast majority of Jewry throughout history has been faithful to G-d and His Torah. Perhaps you as a Christian would think something like that about Judaism, but I'd like to know upon what basis you rest such a claim. (Of course, if you're making that claim based on the fact that there were idolaters in ancient Israel, then yes of course there were. If you mean that in the last 200 years a portion of Jews have fallen away to secularism and some to open heresy, then yes I'd agree with that as well. But generally speaking is my faith riddled with heretics and liars? Absolutely not.)

Point to me the singular source of your doctrinal authority, is it not the Divine working through human hands? To whom shall we deem the sole proprietor of this truth if not God? i.e. do not put so much weight on those hostile to you as to fuel an anger, a pride, or a vengeance that is not yours to prosecute anyway.

If I'm reading that excerpt correctly then that is excellent advice that I wholeheartedly agree with: The final arbiter of truth is HaShem, and I have to be careful not to let theological conflicts sidetrack me from my divine service in any way. However, for better or worse I chose to delve into this subject; I personally believe my choice to do so was a holy choice and that the good in this conversation outweighs the bad, but that is just my view.

Romans 11:25-29; I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

That's one of Paul's nicest sentiment toward Jews, and I appreciate you citing it (even though that quotation too takes a number of excerpts from different places in the Hebrew Scriptures and splices them together deceptively). Nonetheless, we know for a fact that the deliverer referenced could not possibly be Jesus, because in speaking against the Torah, the religion that figure apparently inspired led some percentage of gullible Jews astray and also have led Christians to disregard Torah. I know that you'll call it a theological perversion of Christianity, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of Christians who have ever lived have thought that because of Jesus' alleged atonement, they could/can do whatever they want and be forgiven just the same as if they had never sinned at all. And the vast majority of Christians of all eras have been trinitarian and thus violate the 10 Commandments by worshiping a likeness of a man.

I do thank you for referencing Romans 11 because it seems to simultaneously confound the established doctrine of a great many churches that Jews are doomed to hell fire and also calls substantially into question the Christian view of the efficacy of Jesus' alleged atonement. For if Jews are guaranteed salvation because of our relationship to the patriarchs, then why would any church or Christian leader demand Jewish acceptance of Jesus at all? And beyond that, if we Jews have salvation through the patriarchs according to Paul, then the supposed atoning sacrifice of Jesus' is consequently unnecessary for us to gain salvation. Am I misreading that quotation? That quotation is both a powerful refutation of the hell-fire claim as well as a problem for Christians theologically speaking - at least for those Christians who want to believe there is no salvation for those who don't believe in Jesus.

While I am at times taken aback by some anti-semitic heresy suggesting a severed relationship between God and His elect; there is no broken promise and in fact there never will be. I consider myself blessed to have been raised up in this teaching and my fellowship does not interpret any Scripture as "the most pious Jews will forever burn in hell." If there was anything that offended me, it was this remark as it assigns Scriptural bastardization to Christianity (some sects of it) over the sober reality that mankind of all creed can and will do so, including Jews.

Romans 11 definitely changes my understanding of Christian theology, at least assuming I'm interpreting it correctly and assuming that Christians consider that to be authoritative scripture. Still, while I'm very glad to know that your brand of Christianity does not teach eternal damnation for Jews based on their rejection of Jesus, I have to wonder why so many Christians don't know or fail to apply the teachings of Romans 11. I haven't done a detailed scientific poll of various Christian groups' views on the topic, but I know that a lot of evangelicals and certainly most all fundamentalists believe Jews are destined for hell-fire. Next time I come across a missionary I'll be sure to bring up that section.

I and most I know adhere to doctrine that simply allows we gentiles to partake of the nourishing sap from the olive root and as such we are taught that we are not to boast over those branches because we do not support the root, but the root supports us. i.e. You are the elect BigMac; you and your faithful Jewish brethren. Those teaching otherwise are too often bent on something other than Scriptural integrity and adherents to these ideals are not diligent students, but duped sheeple just as capable of deception as those who may be worshipping with you.

That's a very beautiful teaching, ebuddy. Your expression of the importance of Jewry to Christians is among the most elegant I have ever read, and I'd like to find out more about what scriptural supports you base it on. I also very much appreciate that you do not hold a grudge because of our theological differences, as deep as they are in specific areas. Can I ask what church you belong to? Or failing that, what general denomination you are a part of?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Jewish and Islamic portrait of God is a murdering, sadist, sexist, racist, sociopath. I find it ironic that the more extreme Muslims are the only ones still abiding by God's word to the letter, yet people call them barbarians and murderers (and rightfully so.)

To everyone else, God's word apparently only matters when it's socially and politically acceptable.

You seem to labour under the notion that religious people who subscribe to some kind of "inerancy" doctrine are the truly religious, and everyone else are only pseudo- or semi-believers. Ironically, both you and the inerantists are arguing the same, false view.

Non-inerantists are just as legitimate as inerantists are. Moreso really, since they emulate the prophets/apostles as opponents of established convention rather than uncritical obedience, and reject unethical behaviours and intolerance even within their religious tradition.

For instance, serial divorce and re-marriage was an issue during the Second Temple era. As a remedy, Jesus (and John the Baptist) condemned divorce and labelled re-marriage as adultery. Doing so was a rejection of Jewish norms. Modern Christians should emulate Jesus' outlook by rejecting outmoded ethical norms about sexuality, social conformity, and other such issues.

Modern religion tends to see God not as the author of scriptures, but inspiring men who then write scriptures. Men made mistakes, scriptures reflect those mistakes, even if the divine voice inspiring them was flawless. A flawless text written by a flawed human being just makes no logical sense, and moderate denominations reflect this common-sense opinion about the Bible. God inspires prophets, but he doesn't write scriptures.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Still, while I'm very glad to know that your brand of Christianity does not teach eternal damnation for Jews based on their rejection of Jesus, I have to wonder why so many Christians don't know or fail to apply the teachings of Romans 11.

The short answer: most people are idiots. Paul did not demand Jews to abandon the Torah, and he didn't demand Gentiles adopt the Torah. The atonement thru Jesus was God's method of bringing the Gentiles into righteousness.

[Shaddim]

Holy cannoli. I go on vacation, went to the land of Kiwis to freeze our asses off, and this place erupts into all types of religious madness. I don't want to wade in this late in the game, but I have to address something.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Now. I tell you I've been researching subjects which will fry your brain.
You accuse me of being on drugs.
I reply with that text.

In what way, exactly, does the text above imply that the other person on MacNN is anything other than a person who knows what I mean?

It's usually too difficult to explain that particular areas of study are dangerous, but I suppose the best way to approach it would be to liken it to the accounts of the Holy of Holies. Legend has it that in ancient times, the High Priest would enter on Yom Kippur, bells on his feet and wrists and a rope around his ankle. If the bells stopped sounding for a long period of time, they knew that the High Priest had died and they drug his body out using the rope. Now, I know there are several holes in this, and neither the Talmud or the Midrash ever mention the rope. Still makes for interesting imagery, though.

Personally, I don't put a great deal of stock into one physical place being holier than another, the glory and majesty of the Most High is no longer encased in a box, but lives in all who know and believe. As Rabbi Kaplan (pbuh) expressed, "All of creation is holy, but the heart of the righteous is the Holy of Holies". The area of study that's been mentioned is an exploration of your own heart and that connection, the sad part is that people have died, I know several, because they lacked focus and/or dedication. It's dangerous, dangerous stuff.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The short answer: most people are idiots. Paul did not demand Jews to abandon the Torah, and he didn't demand Gentiles adopt the Torah. The atonement thru Jesus was God's method of bringing the Gentiles into righteousness.

Christianity started as Paul's attempt to graft Gentiles on to the "true vine", but then it took a hard left turn at Chalcedon.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How do you come to that assumption?

Jesus said he was the son of God, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So either Jesus was lying, or your God is the same God that kills babies.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Modern religion tends to see God not as the author of scriptures, but inspiring men who then write scriptures. Men made mistakes, scriptures reflect those mistakes, even if the divine voice inspiring them was flawless. A flawless text written by a flawed human being just makes no logical sense, and moderate denominations reflect this common-sense opinion about the Bible. God inspires prophets, but he doesn't write scriptures.

Modern religion may see it that way, the fact that their scriptures may contain errors, but they're in the frame of mind that they somehow know which bits are the real bits, and which aren't; then they continue to condemn anything and everyone that doesn't fit their interpretation.

That isn't a modern revelation, that's precisely why Lutheranism and Protestants in general came about. It still doesn't make me want to love their god.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Christianity started as Paul's attempt to graft Gentiles on to the "true vine", but then it took a hard left turn at Chalcedon.

So in your opinion Christianity truly started with Paul and not the Jerusalem Church led by James, or do you mean Pauline Christianity?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Modern religion may see it that way, the fact that their scriptures may contain errors, but they're in the frame of mind that they somehow know which bits are the real bits, and which aren't; then they continue to condemn anything and everyone that doesn't fit their interpretation.

Wait, hold on now. Yes, modern exegesis enables some degree of proof about what Jesus or Paul really said, and what was merely put in their mouths by later writers. But modern Christians shouldn't feel themselves shackled to everything Jesus or Paul really said. Paul really did condemn homosexuality, for instance, but Christians shouldn't feel obligated to agree with Paul, given that he lacked the fuller knowledge and experience that we have today. In the same way, even though Jesus did condemn re-marriage, modern Christians shouldn't slavishly follow, but rather understand why he condemned it -- it left discarded wives destitute and disgraced -- and recognize that equitable divorce laws are a better fix than banning divorce and re-marriage outright.

That isn't a modern revelation, that's precisely why Lutheranism and Protestants in general came about. It still doesn't make me want to love their god.

It was more about monetary corruption, not corruption of Christian doctrine. Frankly, Luther and his buddies made doctrinal issues worse rather than better. Luther's reading of Paul is utterly wrong, and has today been completely replaced by the New Perspective exegesis, with only the fringe crazies objecting.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why bother arguing about that with someone who doesn't believe that Jesus even existed?

Convenient way to get out of a debate. I'm not convinced there was an historical Jesus, so what? There were a lot of desperate Jews in the first century looking for salvation (Yeshuah) and a righteous anointed one (Mashiach) to free them from brutal Herodian tyranny and Roman occupation. There were a lot of false messiahs running around upon whom a composite Jesus could have been based. There are also two figures by the name of Jesus in the Talmud who were known to be heretics, although they lived either decades before or decades after the time assigned to the Christian Jesus. The Hebrew equivalents to Jesus were fairly popular names. And then there is proof in the earliest Christian writings pointing to the strong possibility that the Jesus taught in those texts didn't even have an earthly incarnation at all. I'm not saying there definitely wasn't an historical Jesus of some kind, but it's an entirely fair thing to debate. If an historical figure existed, the details of his existence would have been very different from that of the mythic figure later created when Christianity became a separate religion.

No I didn't. I agreed with the assertion.

Okay.

No I won't. Don't tell me what I will and won't do based on your paranoia.

No paranoia, but you say as much in your next response.

Any proper Christian (i.e. not nominal) will tell you that God "talks" to them. It's part and parcel of the whole thing. Of course, you don't experience this because I know of no father who'll bother talking to anyone who calls his son a bastard.

What can I say, Doofy. If you think a deity personally talks to you then you're either making a claim to be a prophet or you're a nutter. It didn't look at all good when President Bush used to say that type of thing, either. Do you also think a supernatural force was literally speaking words to him?

Edit: I subsequently noticed the quotation marks you put on "talk." So you're not claiming any individual divine revelation; you don't think a deity is literally speaking to you. So what do you mean then? One day you arrived at certain beliefs that you hold to be true "just because," or because you think those beliefs came from divine inspiration? And those teachings that you came up with told you it was valid to burn even the narrow set of Christian scriptures you believe in because you think you've somehow progressed beyond them and could operate as pure mystic? Wow. That's the "process" you use to get what you believe to be religious truth, and yet you have the temerity to mock me. I can't describe your "beliefs" as anything other than thoroughly delusional.

A child not born to a biological mother and a biological father in the course of a valid marriage between the two is called a mamzer, a bastard. By the Torah standard, not mine. G-d would not violate His standards that He calls throughout eternal, nor would He do something so repugnant and illogical, so heathenistic as to cause a betrothed or married girl to bear an illegitimate mangod child.

Doofy, I wonder if you're going to wake up one day and find out that the virgin birth story was a later invented aspect of the story. You don't see it in the earliest Christian texts, do you? Perhaps it was made up to cover up claims of an illegitimate birth (and there are stories about that), and perhaps it was created to make the Jesus narrative more palatable to polytheists who commonly believed in half-god half-man godmen. The story seems to have been invented also because Christians mistranslated and misinterpreted Isaiah 7. If Christians had known that Isaiah 7's text did not say anything about a virgin, and if Christians had known that Isaiah 7:14 was an historical prophecy that was fulfilled in Isaiah 8, I have very strong doubts that you Doofy would have a virgin birth story to believe in at all.

But those details don't concern you, do they? Doofy I'll tell you honestly that it was a very bad choice to burn your Christian Scriptures because there's a lot about your own Christian religion you clearly and unarguably don't have knowledge or understanding of. There is a lot of ignorance found in your words. Perhaps this thread and the anger you feel toward me will inspire you to truly seek out truth, but not as you are apparently accustomed to do by listening to voices in your head - through genuine scholarship.

I must assume that you're talking about anger coming from yourself, because I'm as calm as it gets.

Certainly hasn't seemed like it.

The stereotype that your people are tricksy liars. Now, I'd like to prove the far-right tw*ts wrong on that but you're not helping at all. You're intentionally misreading, you're using different scales for identical arguments - everything I'd expect from someone who could be described as a snake. Those far-right knobheads aren't right, are they?

Nope, Doofy. Just because you can't grasp these arguments does not mean I'm "intentionally misreading" or using "different scales for identical arguments." (You falsely made those accusations without a shred of evidence to back up your words, and I showed you they were false accusations.) It just means you're at too primitive a religious level and too primitive an intellectual level to understand what I'm trying to convey. Of course, you'll call me arrogant for saying such a thing, but the problem is that the truth hurts you, Doofy. Anyway, please take me and my statements as my own, as representative of one individual Jew, not as anything else. You should know that most religious Jews don't care nearly enough about non-Jewish myths to debate these points at all.

You know you did.

Not when I posted those previous posts I did not.

In what way, exactly, does the text above imply that the other person on MacNN is anything other than a person who knows what I mean?

I thought you later implied that the other person here had taught you your religion instead of the other way around.

I mean cynical.

And you think that's a good quality? So you're both cynical and gullible according to what you've written in this thread.

You misunderstand (or you're playing the victim). I have no hatred towards your religion. Until two/three weeks ago I held the usual favourable Christian approach to your religion and people. And then I saw you calling Jesus a bastard and stating that you'd gladly kill Him again. This triggered a little research, to see if this assholishness was coming from you personally or was a symptom of your beliefs.
You turned me against your religion Biggie, it's as simple as that.

How do I reconcile the two claims you make in this excerpt, "I have no hatred toward your religion" and "You turned me against your religion."? So are you narrowly saying that I turned you against it but that you don't hate it? You've posted a lot of hate toward it. Either way, you're not the first non-Jew to come to a hatred for Judaism or Jews.

Again, there's no anger. I'm as calm as it gets.

Could have fooled me.

Call Jesus a bastard in front of them and tell 'em how you'd gladly kill Him. Then see how often they invite you to places.

According to Christian theology his birth was not as a result of a valid sexual relationship between a married couple. It's your theology not mine. And as for saying I'd gladly kill him, yes given the opportunity I would gladly kill any false prophet, deceitful miracle worker, false savior or false god - the particular identity matters not.

You don't know of Christianity? It's not all that unique.

Your brand of Christianity is heretical even by any known Christian standard. You may profess to be a follower of Jesus, but you can't call yourself a Christian in any regular sense of the term.

No anger, no hatred. Stop playing the victim.

No victim playing here. Just merely observing and calling out your conduct.

And you become offended if your identity, which is not your own but pre-set by fat old blokes in posh frocks 2,500 years ago, is threatened.

I was perhaps offended initially, but at this point your strange doctrine is more of a curiosity to me. You're not the first to mock the one and only true G-d, His Torah, His prophets, His people.

Congratulations. You've just said that all of your prophets are ridiculous.

No, I certainly did not. The Prophets were of the highest levels of holiness. They were highly educated and trained in the prophetic arts. You, by your own declaration, were ignorant. You are not a prophet Doofy. You aren't even a Christian - you're less than a Christian in fact. You are a very deluded individual, and I pity you.

This from a man who thinks that Christians pray to a bit of wood.

Do they not? Don't at least a large portion of Christians bow down to graven images that neither see, nor hear, nor think, nor save? If you cared at all about what the true prophets of G-d have to say, you'd see what they say about idolatry. And lest you misunderstand, the prophets weren't mocking idolaters and their idols because they thought the idol worshipers literally thought the wood objects they were bowing down to were gods. The prophets mocked the activity knowing that the idolaters merely thought their idols were earthly representations of deities. Just as you may think that praying to a graven image of Jesus helps you get your prayers to him. It too is idolatry. So too is worshiping any likeness and equating it with G-d. We will all eventually account for our actions to Him, and G-d will render judgment accordingly.

It's not odd at all.

Yeah it's very odd to everyone other than perhaps gnostics, and even gnostics have gnostic texts they value.

Unlike your calling my God a bastard, which was all happy happy joy joy.

You took a technical remark I made about the consequences of Christian theology very personally. It tells me that that hits home for you. If it didn't you wouldn't even bring it up, let alone multiple times. I'm sorry that that line of thought hurts you so. It's just a technical fact that if Christians want to claim their earthly deity was born of a woman with no "input" from her earthly husband, then they're saying their mangod is a bastard. Just by definition.

I have no lack of security. I stand alone on my beliefs and know what they are. Compare this to a man who has had his beliefs handed to him and seeks security in his ancestors.

In truth you have no security. What you claim to hold lives and dies with you. Your ancestors did not believe as you do, and your children or their children won't, either. Whereas I believe in an unchanging G-d and an unchanging Torah that my ancestors received from Moshe and handed down the line to me. As a result I know the truth of G-d. I know His unchanging attributes and attitudes toward particular issues, so I can say with certainty when I see beliefs about Him that are false. I keep His Torot (the written Torah and the oral Torah), and His statutes, His ordinances and His testimonies. Mock all that as much as you want, that which you fail to understand (or are too frightened to accept), but my possession is divine and eternal. And one day G-d promises that even the likes of you - heck even one like besson - will learn the truth that my people have possessed for thousands of years. I think that day is imminent now.

Yes, it's for the best.

Indeed it is. And this is the last post I'll write in response to you on the subject.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's difficult for anyone to learn anything about anything if they have pre-conceived ideas that what they're about to learn is nonsense. Hence one must approach all learning with an open heart and open mind.

It doesn't matter whether my ideas are preconceived or not, when you go about Christianity in a purely rational sense I think anybody would be pretty hard pressed to say that the stuff in the Bible really makes a whole lot of sense without context and taken completely literally. As you said, Christianity is for the heart, not necessarily for the mind. I don't think preconceived ideas are my problem.

I can sort of understand a faith that is for the heart, but then why Christianity? If I were to say that the flying spaghetti monster really makes me feel good and in tune with the world, how could anybody say that it is any more or less legitimate than any other religion if we are arguing purely on the basis of our emotional experience?

Honestly, and I don't mean to sound like a jerk, I'm ambivalent about most religion, but I definitely learn towards it being an attempt to fill in gaps of our human understanding with mysticism. Whatever works, but it certainly is hard to take self-righteousness of a particular flavor of mysticism seriously.

[smacintush]

Usually having an "open mind" is just code for "try not to use your brain too much".

While I can appreciate a call for an unbiased approach to issues, some issues don't warrant an "open mind". Some issues fail any test of critical thinking on its surface and throughout any investigation of it. Religion is one of those issues.

One simply cannot take a religion like Christianity or Judaism seriously without turning off your brain and just accepting some parts or all of it with absolutely no logic or evidence.

So why should one be expected to keep an "open mind" in regards to an issue like this?

The only tools man has for the acquisition of knowledge is logic and reason. The fundamental aspects of religion and any other supernatural belief defy logic and reason. When religion comes to my mind and knocks on the door there is a sign hanging there that says "CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER EVIDENCE".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Usually having an "open mind" is just code for "try not to use your brain too much".

When I say "have an open mind" I mean "don't have a pre-set answer". Do it scientifically, with no expectation of a particular outcome either way.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It doesn't matter whether my ideas are preconceived or not

Yes, it does. In whatever you learn, you cannot learn the truth if you hold to a pre-conceived idea which you arrived at before you started the practical work. This applies to the learning of anything, whether it be guitar playing, or computing, or yachting, or business... ...anything.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I thought you later implied that the other person here had taught you your religion instead of the other way around.

I offer this quote as proof of Biggie's playing tricksey. Or being illiterate.

If anyone who's even remotely interested would care to go and re-read the thread, they will notice that I neither implied that I had been taught my religion by the person I mention or implied that I taught them their religion.

For convenience, I'll quote exactly what I wrote:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You'll never get the details out of me - that kind of information isn't for those of limited intellect. At least one other person here knows exactly what I mean (and he won't give you the details either).

Does that in any way state that any teaching was transferred from one to the other, in any direction?

I know how to tail slide a RWD car. I'm sure someone else here knows how to do so too. In Biggie's world, this somehow translates to the fact that he must have taught me how to drive, or I must have taught him how to drive.

Tricksey or stupid. Take your pick.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Usually having an "open mind" is just code for "try not to use your brain too much".

While I can appreciate a call for an unbiased approach to issues, some issues don't warrant an "open mind". Some issues fail any test of critical thinking on its surface and throughout any investigation of it. Religion is one of those issues.

One simply cannot take a religion like Christianity or Judaism seriously without turning off your brain and just accepting some parts or all of it with absolutely no logic or evidence.

So why should one be expected to keep an "open mind" in regards to an issue like this?

The only tools man has for the acquisition of knowledge is logic and reason. The fundamental aspects of religion and any other supernatural belief defy logic and reason. When religion comes to my mind and knocks on the door there is a sign hanging there that says "CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER EVIDENCE".

One of the more accurate posts yet, in this thread. All of us who believe in religion and supernatural deities either do so because we've been subjected to those beliefs since birth, and we don't question them, or we've experienced something we simply can't fathom there being a man-made explanation for. Those who convert, or suddenly "find" their god, usually experience a traumatic event, although there was a news account a couple of years ago about some obviously simple folk who had prayed for the price of gas to come down, when it was $4/gallon, and when it did, they believed their prayers had been answered. I see this often, as I deal with a wide variety of the public. About a year ago, a man was in the store, and I asked him what he did, and he told me he was a preacher. He took me to his church's web site, and there was a story there about his young son, who had been diagnosed with some "incurable" disease, and was supposed to die quickly. Somewhere in his medical tribulations, some doctor performed an operation, which saved the child's life and cured him. The preacher made the statement to me that, "If that isn't a miracle, I don't know what is." But it wasn't a miracle, via the intervention of some deity; it was the knowledge of a doctor, who applied his scientifically gained knowledge, and nothing more. The preacher attributed it to some divine intervention, simply because he couldn't grasp questioning the lack of scientific knowledge in others' minds.

All of the discussion in this thread, attempting to justify one's religious beliefs, is based on nothing more than ancient written texts, many of which have been misinterpreted time and time again, by people with a wide diverse of subjective beliefs of their own, with not a shard of evidence.

If I walked up to you, asked you for some time to tell you a story you had never heard before, and told you some of my religious beliefs, you would think I was insane. Yet we believe simply because others have told us we must, and are called all manner of names when we don't believe, with (once again) not a single shard of evidence to justify religious belief.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

All of the discussion in this thread, attempting to justify one's religious beliefs, is based on nothing more than ancient written texts, many of which have been misinterpreted time and time again, by people with a wide diverse of subjective beliefs of their own, with not a shard of evidence.

Look closely. This "discussion" is actually about the following:

Participant A, B and C: "My texts that my ancestors taught to me from when I was in the womb (yes, B said that) are the truth".

Participant D: "Start as a blank slate and find the truth for yourself".

It's orthodox vs heterodox. It's believing what you've been told vs finding out for yourself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Prophets were of the highest levels of holiness. They were highly educated and trained in the prophetic arts.

So, Egyptians taught Moses the prophetic arts?

And pray tell how the seven women the talmud counts as prophets came to be highly educated and trained in the prophetic arts, given that you don't let women into temples.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's what Christians may claim, but if they want to claim that Jesus' supposed sacrifice cleared away all sins forever, then people literally should not have experienced earthly death since that time. Based on that assumption Christians (who believed their belief in Jesus saves them) most of all should have been spared it and continued living on and on their earthly lives without suffering from disease and death. The fact that they don't is 100% proof that Jesus did not save them from sin.

It makes about as much sense as punishing a whole line of people for an act one person committed thousands of years ago, right?

Anyway, I think you're nitpicking the terms of the deal. God does everyone a solid by sacrificing his son and you're saying it doesn't go far enough.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And when you mockingly say, "look at all the BS you have to go through to get into heaven vs. Christians, Big Mac," you misunderstand the point completely.

I'm not mocking. It's my unvarnished view. With the unapologetic bluntness you're operating with in this thread I thought you of all people might be able to recognize that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We were given the Torah and the mitzvot (commandments) to make all aspects of our daily lives holy, to live according to G-d's full law and bring ourselves very close to Him by obeying His blueprint for our existences on earth. By following His Torah we gain divine merit, and where we fall short we have various methods of atonement. But nowhere does G-d say that if we fail in our observance we aren't going to Heaven. In fact, the Hebrew Scriptures only makes a limited number of veiled general references to the afterlife, and also a limited number of references to the resurrection of the dead. The afterlife may be of paramount concern to Christians, but the Torah is most concerned with conduct in this world, leaving up to G-d the details of other worldly existences.

The bolded does not dissuade me from thinking its all BS.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Look closely. This "discussion" is actually about the following:

Participant A, B and C: "My texts that my ancestors taught to me from when I was in the womb (yes, B said that) are the truth".

Participant D: "Start as a blank slate and find the truth for yourself".

It's orthodox vs heterodox. It's believing what you've been told vs finding out for yourself.

What was it you think I said?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

God does everyone a solid by sacrificing his son and you're saying it doesn't go far enough.

And there's the problem, the root of the matter.

Biggie wants to believe that he and his ancestors are "special" and somehow chosen above everyone else. They hate Christianity because it says that Biggie's ancestors aren't special anymore - they're equal to everyone else, and everyone gets a piece of the pie if they want it. It really must suck to be equal to us dumb goys.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What was it you think I said?

I think you said that everyone in the discussion is basing their arguments on religious texts which have been drilled into them by society since birth.

All of the discussion in this thread, attempting to justify one's religious beliefs, is based on nothing more than ancient written texts

Did I mis-read that bit? Should it have been...

All of the discussion in this thread that's attempting to justify one's orthodox religious beliefs, is based on nothing more than ancient written texts

?

If you intended the latter, then I agree with you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, it does. In whatever you learn, you cannot learn the truth if you hold to a pre-conceived idea which you arrived at before you started the practical work. This applies to the learning of anything, whether it be guitar playing, or computing, or yachting, or business... ...anything.

A pre-conceived idea, like jazz sucking?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A pre-conceived idea, like jazz sucking?

One shouldn't confuse pre-conceived ideas with objective observations.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

One shouldn't confuse pre-conceived ideas with objective observations.

Never mind

[Big Mac]

I declared I wouldn't be replying to Doofy in this thread anymore, but I feel compelled to correct his lies.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Biggie wants to believe that he and his ancestors are "special" and somehow chosen above everyone else. They hate Christianity because it says that Biggie's ancestors aren't special anymore - they're equal to everyone else, and everyone gets a piece of the pie if they want it. It really must suck to be equal to us dumb goys.

Doofy, you should know that you're just speaking from a position of outright ignorance and hatred. First of all, a number of forms of Christianity affirm that Jews continue to have a special relationship to G-d. But more important, Jews have always taught that non-Jews can have a "piece of the pie," a relationship with G-d, a path to salvation, etc. Jews teach that those who follow the 7 Laws of Noah are guaranteed a portion of the world to come, which is the perfected Edenic world to be manifested after the Era of Mashiach. Moreover, the Talmud teaches the following:

1. A person is better off being born a non-Jew instead of being born Jewish, since a non-Jew can still have a relationship with G-d and a place in the World to Come but is not held to the highest standard of G-d's Torah;

2. A non-Jew properly versed in Torah can be just as exalted as the Kohen Gadol, the Jewish high priest who officiated over the most sacred duties in the Holy Temple.

I'll chalk your previous claims up to ignorance and hatred inspired therefrom. Now that I have taught you the truth, are you going to apologize, or will you continue spreading lies?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, Egyptians taught Moses the prophetic arts?

They surely educated him in Egyptian knowledge while he lived as a prince of Egypt. And all your glibness aside, Moshe was the prophesied redeemer of Israel who was actively protected by angels while in the court of Pharaoh - he wasn't a normal prophet let alone a normal man. Moreover, his adopted mother knew he was a Hebrew and so did he, and it's fairly clear he had interactions with his real family and with his brother Aaron before meeting him outside of Egypt. I can't say with certainty what Moshe's level of education was, but he definitely wasn't a blank slate of total ignorance like you proudly proclaim you were.

And pray tell how the seven women the talmud counts as prophets came to be highly educated and trained in the prophetic arts, given that you don't let women into temples.

Yet another manifestation of your arrogant ignorance. Quit while you're far behind, Doofy - you're just further embarrassing yourself.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It makes about as much sense as punishing a whole line of people for an act one person committed thousands of years ago, right?

Actions have consequences. Some are very far reaching.

Anyway, I think you're nitpicking the terms of the deal. God does everyone a solid by sacrificing his son and you're saying it doesn't go far enough.

Very funny, Dakar, but since Christians claim Jesus' alleged sacrifice wiped away all sin for all time, yet people and Christians most of all still physically die in this world, they have a major logical and theological problem. Just because they don't want to deal with it doesn't mean it's not there.

I'm not mocking. It's my unvarnished view. With the unapologetic bluntness you're operating with in this thread I thought you of all people might be able to recognize that.

Bluntness is one thing - I'm fine with that. But given that you're clearly ignorant of Jewish teachings yet falsely presuming I have to go through "BS" to get into Heaven, I think we both know you're just mocking.

The bolded does not dissuade me from thinking its all BS.

You're entitled to think whatever you like.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now that I have taught you the truth

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

are you going to apologize

No Biggie. I'm going to start the printing presses. Nice little mail drop, I think. Every church in America will be given the opportunity to know the truth.

If only you'd said "illegitimate" instead of "bastard". Ho hum.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I see you have nothing intelligent to write in response, after I debunked your most recent false accusations and claims against my religion. An apology would have been nice, but I see you can't bring yourself to do that.

No Biggie. I'm going to start the printing presses. Nice little mail drop, I think. Every church in America will be given the opportunity to know the truth.

That's good. I should save you the trouble and distribute it directly, but churches certainly would benefit from learning that Christianity is a crutch and in many respects an impediment to non-Jews having direct, proper relationships with the one and only L-rd of Hosts. I think the time is right for the Christian world to finally start learning as much.

If only you'd said "illegitimate" instead of "bastard". Ho hum.

So sensitive. What, exactly, do you see as the difference between "illegitimate" and "bastard"? Aren't they synonymous?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

L-rd of Hosts.

I'd like to solve this puzzle..... Lard of hosts!

WHEEL OF FORRTTUUNNNEE!! Duh duan duh duah duanhh dunhh!!

[screener]

I think an armistice should be called.

Doofy taking over Ronald McDonald's role.

What a load this thread has become.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

What a load this thread has become.

Become? It's been a load from page one.

The fact that it now features a Chr-st worshipper and a J-w arguing over…ahem…"truth"…is just icing on the cake.

[screener]

Believe what you want, but antagonizing those that don't believe as you do...

You get the point.

[Big Mac]

Here's a reference back to a previous argument contained in this thread. Take a look at the titles of the various depictions of the meeting between Avraham and the angels, and note the number of the paintings that reference "Abraham and the 3 Angels":

Biblical Art on the WWW

Even artists, those who aren't necessarily versed in biblical scholarship, read the text correctly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Very funny, Dakar, but since Christians claim Jesus' alleged sacrifice wiped away all sin for all time, yet people and Christians most of all still physically die in this world, they have a major logical and theological problem. Just because they don't want to deal with it doesn't mean it's not there.

I don't think this statement is correct at all.

I've never thought that Christians claim Jesus "wiped away all sin for all time." They say that sin is still present.

They claim that Jesus' death covers sin. The sin itself exists, but those who have "accepted the blood" have their sin covered and are not punished for it, even though they may sin on a daily basis.

Does that solve the issue?

greg

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Daniel 9 figures in quite well, but not for Christian theology. I don't feel like doing an exhaustive breakdown but Daniel 9 is definitively not what Christians are looking for. The problem for Christians is that they grossly misinterpret the words. Firstly, they ignore that there are two different anointed ones - different mashiachs - talked about in the chapter, and secondly in order to get near to the years they want they incorrectly combine the first 7 week period and the next 62 week period, and then the final one week period into a combined 70 week period and come out with an invalid interpretation of prophecy based on bad math that they think points to Jesus. And thirdly they ignore that both of the anointed ones discussed cannot possibly be referring to Jesus, or at least not to the Jesus Christianity wants to believe in.


The text says that there will be 7 weeks of years from the time of the decree to rebuild the Temple until the anointed leader who fulfills the decree - that's Cyrus, who G-d calls His anointed, and who issues the royal decree for the Jews to return and rebuild. Then there is a separate 62 week period after which a second anointed one will be cut off and "be no more." If you do the calculation properly you find that it's decades too late for Jesus to have been cut off,(was lunar (religious) or solar years used in these calculations? ) but aside from that there's another thing that Christians should know about that second anointed one: If they know the meaning of the verse they won't want to apply it to Jesus at all. Remember, this second anointed one (mashiach) "will be cut off and he will be no more." Now the word for will be cut off is y'karet, and that's important because you need to know what the term karet means. In every usage, karet refers to spiritual excision of a sinner from the rest of the people. It never refers to a righteous one cut off, and it doesn't even specifically refer to bodily death but rather spiritual cutting off from the nation. So it says that this mashiach will be cut off and be no more - as in spiritually cut off and then killed. If you do the math and read the history you find out that the mashiach cut off was actually King Agrippa, the grandson of Herod. Remember, in Israelite history there were a great many mashiachim (anointed ones) - all kings, high priests, priests of war, prophets - all of them were anointed ones. So if you look in your translated Hebrew Scriptures and see the term anointed or the term "Messiah" (which you deceptively see in the KJV when it wants to make you believe the passage could be referring to Jesus), know that there were many anointed ones throughout history and that a prophecy talking about an anointed one could be talking about a number of figures. And Christians definitely do not want to claim that the mashiach "will be cut off and he will be no more" was Jesus because if they make that claim they're claiming Jesus was a sinner who experienced karet - spiritual excision - and then was "no more." If one could legitimately apply that prophecy to Jesus, it would be calling him a dead evildoer who was spiritually cut off before due to sinfulness - that's not what Christians want to claim.

Yes, he was crucified(between two criminals) for sin, the sin of the world.
Which brings us back to Isaiah 53

Question:How can the Herod be anointed when he and his descendants were client kings of Rome?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I've never thought that Christians claim Jesus "wiped away all sin for all time." They say that sin is still present.

Christianity doesn't teach that all sins are wiped away by Jesus?

They claim that Jesus' death covers sin. The sin itself exists, but those who have "accepted the blood" have their sin covered and are not punished for it, even though they may sin on a daily basis.

But how do Christians account for why people have continued to physically die for the last 2,000 years? Whether Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice wiped sin away or merely covered it, why doesn't that alleged atonement prevent physical death? Death is still in this world. People still sin, and people still die. Don't Christians wonder why? If I were a Christian I certainly would. I know there are varying views on atonement in Christianity, but I still don't see how the Christian doctrine of perfect atonement by the death of Jesus makes sense in light of the fact that his supposed coming didn't change the physical condition of humanity. And yes, I know that Christians will again bring up physical v. spiritual life, but I'm still failing to see how they can hold to their view of vicarious atonement through Jesus given that sin and death still exist in this world. I don't see how Christians can claim that through Jesus people are no longer punished for sins, since Romans declares that "the wages of sin is death," and people (including Christians) have all been born into this world only to die over the last 2,000 years. If according to Christians all sins, including Adam's, are believed to be forgiven because of belief in Jesus (or even without belief in Jesus, if they hold to the universal atonement view), why does physical death still occur?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Christianity doesn't teach that all sins are wiped away by Jesus?


But how do Christians account for why people have continued to physically die for the last 2,000 years? Whether Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice wiped sin away or merely covered it, why doesn't that alleged atonement prevent physical death? Death is still in this world. People still sin, and people still die. Don't Christians wonder why? If I were a Christian I certainly would. I know there are varying views on atonement in Christianity, but I still don't see how the Christian doctrine of perfect atonement by the death of Jesus makes sense in light of the fact that his supposed coming didn't change the physical condition of humanity. And yes, I know that Christians will again bring up physical v. spiritual life, but I'm still failing to see how they can hold to their view of vicarious atonement through Jesus given that sin and death still exist in this world. I don't see how Christians can claim that through Jesus people are no longer punished for sins, since Romans declares that "the wages of sin is death," and people (including Christians) have all been born into this world only to die over the last 2,000 years. If according to Christians all sins, including Adam's, are believed to be forgiven because of belief in Jesus, why does physical death still occur?

Free will.

Sorry to be predictable
Genesis 3

א וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, אַף כִּי-אָמַר אֱלֹהִים, לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן. 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'
ב וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה, אֶל-הַנָּחָשׁ: מִפְּרִי עֵץ-הַגָּן, נֹאכֵל. 2 And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
ג וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ-הַגָּן--אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ: פֶּן-תְּמֻתוּן. 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'
ד וַיֹּאמֶר הַנָּחָשׁ, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה: לֹא-מוֹת, תְּמֻתוּן. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;

A bit further on

כב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע; וְעַתָּה פֶּן-יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ, וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, וְאָכַל, וָחַי לְעֹלָם. 22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
כג וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִגַּן-עֵדֶן--לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח, מִשָּׁם. 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
כד וַיְגָרֶשׁ, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן-עֵדֶן אֶת-הַכְּרֻבִים, וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת, לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים. {ס} 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.

They were kicked from the Garden not only for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but so they could not eat of the tree of life and thus live for ever.

[Doofy]

And yet even the most observant of "God's elect" also physically dies. Moses only managed 120 years... ...even chain-smoking French atheists manage that.

[Big Mac]

But again, Chongo, what you're necessarily saying there is that you believe Jesus' act of atonement was not comprehensive. The alleged sacrifice did not free people from dying as a result of sin. It had no objectively verifiable effect on sin at all.

When the real Mashiach comes we will truly be free of sin, as prophesied, as G-d will write the Torah in our hearts so that we will no longer have the capacity to sin. (It's strange that Doofy brought that prophecy up and thinks it somehow applies to him.)

Doofy, as for your reply under Chongo, Jews never claimed to be free of sin. Moshe lived the 120 years guaranteed in Genesis. We believe there have been some people who have lived sinless lives and have died only as a result of Adam's sin. And we believe that at a point in the future the Torah will be inscribed in our hearts so that we will no longer have any capacity to sin, and that in the Era of Resurrection we will gain physical immortality.

The point is though, your heartfelt belief in Jesus delivered/delivers none of that. Jesus' supposed coming failed to fulfill any objectively verifiable prophecies of Mashiach or the Messianic Era.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actions have consequences. Some are very far reaching.

Wait, is that the justification for damning endless generations of peoples for the actions of two individuals? Really?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Very funny, Dakar, but since Christians claim Jesus' alleged sacrifice wiped away all sin for all time, yet people and Christians most of all still physically die in this world, they have a major logical and theological problem. Just because they don't want to deal with it doesn't mean it's not there.

It's moot now, really. Several people have given you an answer and its obvious you're unwilling to accept any justification. Not a big deal, this is why several religions exist.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Bluntness is one thing - I'm fine with that. But given that you're clearly ignorant of Jewish teachings yet falsely presuming I have to go through "BS" to get into Heaven, I think we both know you're just mocking.

No, I'm not mocking. What I said is entirely accurate from the perspective of my beliefs. You may not agree with them, but I care about that as much as the inverse is true. And I think we both know that you should stop putting words and thoughts into my mouth and head, respectively.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're entitled to think whatever you like.

I'm well aware. In this case I think that if failing in observances doesn't affect the outcome, there is no point to those observances.

[Doofy]

As hundreds of millions of Christians know, the "torah" is already written into their hearts. Of course, God's "torah" is nothing like that of the serpent. The real God has never had a run in with a polycotton garment on wash day and thus banned it for His followers, for example.

And, of course, the real God doesn't differentiate between jew and goy. Not at all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And I think we both know that you should stop putting words and thoughts into my mouth and head, respectively.

Told you he was being tricksey, didn't I?

Here's the lay of the land:

1) Everything he says is the truth.
2) You don't know the truth because you're not educated enough.
3) You can't be educated because your grandaddy had a foreskin.

Like your average lawyer/politician, but much more slippery.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

As hundreds of millions of Christians know, the "torah" is already written into their hearts.

Then they should lack the capacity to sin. If the law of G-d is truly written in their hearts, then they should live sinless lives according to divine law. They shouldn't rationalize their sinful existences away by claiming that either a) Jesus paid for their crimes through continual vicarious atonement, or b) the Doofster's argument that the Torah G-d says He will inscribe in hearts (the prophecy found in Jeremiah's New Covenant) is somehow different from the Torah He gave on Mount Sinai and which Jews have faithfully kept for 3200+ years, and that this other alleged Torah allows people to sin all they wish.

Of course, God's "torah" is nothing like that of the serpent.

And on what basis do you call G-d's holy and eternal Torah "of the serpent"? Oh, yeah, that's right - no basis whatsoever. You're full of it, Doofy. I don't even know why I'm bothering with you.

The real God has never had a run in with a polycotton garment on wash day and thus banned it for His followers, for example.

I don't know why you love to harp on that, in particular. Has it never crossed your little mind that perhaps G-d has His own valid reason for that commandment? And if you're going to pick arbitrarily, why not focus on how evil you believe the Torah is for banning the consumption of swine?

And, of course, the real God doesn't differentiate between jew and goy. Not at all.

Says who? You Doofy? Even the red letters from the godman you worship draw those distinctions.

"Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." (Matthew 15)

Ouch, Doofy. There's your god calling non-Jews dogs, whereas I showed you in the Talmud that my teachers say non-Jews are better off than Jews and can reach the level of the Jewish High Priest. What have you to say about that?

You can't even argue rationally about your own scriptures that you yourself claim are authoritative according to your beliefs. Do you really want me to take you seriously on this topic, or are you just trolling? I'm beginning to recognize the latter is true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Doofy, as for your reply under Chongo

Stop editing your posts you tricksey f'er.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We believe there have been some people who have lived sinless lives and have died only as a result of Adam's sin.

So do we. He's called "Jesus Christ".

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Stop editing your posts you tricksey f'er.

Please. Wait a couple of minutes for me to finish a post, limey. Why call me tricky? That which you call tricks is just the truth and applied logic, Doof.

So do we. He's called "Jesus Christ".

If that were true you wouldn't believe about him that he died a cursed death at the hands of uncircumcised heathens at the young age of 33. If that part of the tale is to be believed, the Jewish man you worship - the one you forsake and mock the one and true G-d for - died in sin, Doofy. I'm sorry to break it to you.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." (Matthew 15)

The next two verses

She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters."
28
Then Jesus said to her in reply, "O woman, great is your faith! 12 Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed from that hour.
29

[Big Mac]

Still doesn't negate that Doofy claims his deity makes no distinctions between Jews and non-Jews, yet Jesus made a very harsh and disrespectful distinction right there.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then they should lack the capacity to sin. If the law of G-d is truly written in their hearts, then they should live sinless lives according to divine law. They shouldn't rationalize their sinful existences away by claiming that either a) Jesus paid for their crimes through continual

Continual what? Are you becoming so angry that you can't type properly?

(Edit: The audience should note that the tricksey one originally ended this sentence here, and has since been back and put the rest in. This is part of the reason why I'm telling him to stop editing his posts.)

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And on what basis do you call G-d's holy and eternal Torah "of the serpent"?

Gnosis.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't even know why I'm bothering with you.

You're bothering with me because you think you're working through superior intellect, and thus must prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why not focus on how evil you believe the Torah is for banning the consumption of swine?

Why would a vegetarian do that?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Says who? You Doofy? Even the red letters from the godman you worship draw those distinctions.

"Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." (Matthew 15)

Ouch, Doofy. There's your god calling non-Jews dogs

Ooops. You're actually so racist that you think what Jesus said there was to do with her tribe?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

my teachers say non-Jews are better off than Jews and can reach the level of the Jewish High Priest. What have you to say about that?

Of course non-Jews are better off than Jews. Non-Jews don't have to put up with your shitty, racist, lawyeristic religion.