Old Testament reasons for Jews to believe in Jesus

[3 to be 4]

I dont like how I left that. I did too much reacting and PVIV, I apologize. Just because i get stung doesnt mean i have to sting back. Again, I apologize.

What I will leave it with is this. I wont engage in Islam talk because you dont believe in Islam. How can it be used to debunk the Bible if you dont believe it to be true. That would not be conversation of the Faithful spirit, but an intellectual "Devils Advocate" kind of adventure. But if anyone would like to discuss Hebrew Scripture and the Bible, much of it the same, out of Faith, out belief in what they are interpreting, that is a fruitful engagement.
Because it is out of truth and from the heart and soul and honest.

I hope that is clear and makes sense.

Try not not laughing too hard on my expense when discussing this with your orthodox friends. Dont focus too much on me. Focus on the Scriptures.
Focus on studying the life of ************. Not 3 to be 4.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Blue Collar]

Is the cosmos large enough for me, I am just a taught and raised irish catholic who now believes in uncertainty on his planet and looks towards the darkness of the universe and contemplates the knowns and unknowns?

 

[3 to be 4]

Is the cosmos large enough for me, I am just a taught and raised irish catholic who now believes in uncertainty on his planet and looks towards the darkness of the universe and contemplates the knowns and unknowns?

its large enough for everybody, my friend. Everybody counts. An idea was tossed out there to digest. Some spit it back. others dont. But we all have a place and we are all loved.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I dont like how I left that. I did too much reacting and PVIV, I apologize. Just because i get stung doesnt mean i have to sting back. Again, I apologize.

What I will leave it with is this. I wont engage in Islam talk because you dont believe in Islam. How can it be used to debunk the Bible if you dont believe it to be true. That would not be conversation of the Faithful spirit, but an intellectual "Devils Advocate" kind of adventure. But if anyone would like to discuss Hebrew Scripture and the Bible, much of it the same, out of Faith, out belief in what they are interpreting, that is a fruitful engagement.
Because it is out of truth and from the heart and soul and honest.

I hope that is clear and makes sense.

Try not not laughing too hard on my expense when discussing this with your orthodox friends. Dont focus too much on me. Focus on the Scriptures.
Focus on studying the life of ************. Not 3 to be 4.

Have a blessed day.

Apology accepted, as far as it goes. I've studied Jesus' life quite extensively, 3 to B -- using a variety of sources, and with a variety of methods. I do not think you have. But if this is the case, I also understand your decision only to read the four differing accounts in the Gospels, and to carefully work on squaring them to one another. It doesn't matter that this makes no sense to me, and that for me, it is doing God a disservice to make spurious arguments on His behalf. That is my belief, not yours. By the same token, my beliefs have quite a bit to recommend them. Your assumption that they are wrong is only valid for you and your coreligionists.

Put another way: Two people who differ cannot both simultaneously hold the Objective Truth. This is precisely what we see repeated, however, ad infinitum, both in squabbles like this, and on the world stage. Since none of us is omniscient, furthermore, it strikes me that the Objective Truth cannot be known by either of us. "Judgement is mine," saith the Lord. This is why it is so grotesque for you to set yourself up as the "judge" of others' beliefs.

We must therefore understand that what each of us believes to be Objective truth, is actually our own, individual Subjective truth. This being the case, your assumption of a superior "Truth" to my own is an insult, particularly in that I have asked you repeatedly to stop attempting to convert me.

I'd like to address your first post, prior to your recent sorta-remorse of your recent coda, since others here also read what you say about me, and since you are consistently libeling me in this forum:

You've made several mistaken "points," some of which you have been told are not the case, and for which you have no evidence, others of which you had to stretch to infer, although they were not in any way either explicit or implied. To wit:

1) This business that I "don't believe in" scripture, when in fact I believe in divinely inspired scripture, written by men, in historical context. This is much more nuanced than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." I find the latter is impossible to defend with any intellectual honesty. If you have read the book of Job, God seems to take a dim view of those who offer spurious arguments in His "defense." I do not aim to be such a person.

2) You have now said at least twice that I intend to "debunk the Bible with the Qur'an." Rather, I offered the example to show you how preposterous your own proselytizing is. Nobody is arguing the two sources -- the Greek bible and the Qur'an -- on their merits. My challenge to you goes, again, to the intellectual honesty issue. You claim I should examine my faith in the light of your own. You claim that you should not examine your faith in the light of Islam. You have also attached a notion of "open-mindedness" to Jews open to being proselytized to, yet as regards Islam, you do not evidence the attitude you believe is good and proper in Jews. This has nothing to do with which scriptures are "better."

Debunking is an exercise in showing the falsehood of a previously held notion, 3 to B. My intent was to highlilght your own hypocrisy regarding "appropriate" targets and sources of proselytizing. You, however, feel the exercise would "debunk" the Greek bible itself -- although I made no claims as to the veracity of the Qur'an. Do you really believe that reading the Qur'an will cause you to stop believing what you currently do about the Greek bible?

3) This notion of yours that using a precise and neutral term, prosyletizing, is somehow a Rovian gambit, is again nonsensical. If you prefer self-glorification with terminology like "spreading the good news" or "preaching the Word," that is fine among a community of your fellow believers. I use "proselytizing" specifically because it only refers to your activity, not the validity thereof. If you have a better term, which is also value-neutral, feel free to share.

4) You have continued to pester me to debate my beliefs with you. When I refuse, you continue to slander my beliefs, by making up statements regarding my beliefs, stating 1/4 truths that, were they a bit more accurate, might be half-truths. WWJD? This?

5) The last time you went off on how I "called you a Nazi," I was surprised enough that I actually read back to see what I said.

What I said was that your freedom to legally proselytize came under free speech, but so does the speech of a Nazi.

Now read the following two statements closely, 3 to B. This may be quite challenging, and there will be a logic exercise at the end:

A. Going east at 50 miles per hour does not exceed the speed limit.
B. Going west at 50 miles per hour does not exceed the speed limit.

True or false: If A and B are both true, then it is also true that going east at 50 miles per hour is identical to moving west at 50 miles per hour. The vehicle described in (A) will end up in the same place as the vehicle in (B).

Let me help you out. This statement is false. Now, let's use the exact same terms, plugging in your speech, and a Nazi rally:

A. Proselytizing is protected by freedom of speech.
B. An American Nazi rally is protected by freedom of speech.

Therefore, a Proselytizer is a Nazi? Well, unless the car going East and the car going West end up at the same place, you cannot say that I have called you a Nazi just because your speech, though objectionable, is constitutionally protected.

I think you are reacting with a lot of anger here, 3 to B. Either that or you hold reason in very low regard to begin with. Whatever the case, once again, I have no need for your religion. That goes for your invitations to disputations, your invitations for me to waste my time on re-run glosses created by Christians for the sake of Christian conversion strategies, or any of the rest of it.

As for "dishing it out" or "taking it" or what have you, you have not said a thing to dislodge the ever-more vivid impression of prosyletizing as an exercise in bigotry. It's evidently fertile ground for anger, distortion, and base passions, as displayed in some of your recent attacks.

I'm sure someone thinks Krishna loves you,

PFnV

 

[3 to be 4]

Apology accepted, as far as it goes. I've studied Jesus' life quite extensively, 3 to B -- using a variety of sources, and with a variety of methods. I do not think you have. But if this is the case, I also understand your decision only to read the four differing accounts in the Gospels, and to carefully work on squaring them to one another. It doesn't matter that this makes no sense to me, and that for me, it is doing God a disservice to make spurious arguments on His behalf. That is my belief, not yours. By the same token, my beliefs have quite a bit to recommend them. Your assumption that they are wrong is only valid for you and your coreligionists.

Put another way: Two people who differ cannot both simultaneously hold the Objective Truth. This is precisely what we see repeated, however, ad infinitum, both in squabbles like this, and on the world stage. Since none of us is omniscient, furthermore, it strikes me that the Objective Truth cannot be known by either of us. "Judgement is mine," saith the Lord. This is why it is so grotesque for you to set yourself up as the "judge" of others' beliefs.

We must therefore understand that what each of us believes to be Objective truth, is actually our own, individual Subjective truth. This being the case, your assumption of a superior "Truth" to my own is an insult, particularly in that I have asked you repeatedly to stop attempting to convert me.

I'd like to address your first post, prior to your recent sorta-remorse of your recent coda, since others here also read what you say about me, and since you are consistently libeling me in this forum:

You've made several mistaken "points," some of which you have been told are not the case, and for which you have no evidence, others of which you had to stretch to infer, although they were not in any way either explicit or implied. To wit:

1) This business that I "don't believe in" scripture, when in fact I believe in divinely inspired scripture, written by men, in historical context. This is much more nuanced than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." I find the latter is impossible to defend with any intellectual honesty. If you have read the book of Job, God seems to take a dim view of those who offer spurious arguments in His "defense." I do not aim to be such a person.

2) You have now said at least twice that I intend to "debunk the Bible with the Qur'an." Rather, I offered the example to show you how preposterous your own proselytizing is. Nobody is arguing the two sources -- the Greek bible and the Qur'an -- on their merits. My challenge to you goes, again, to the intellectual honesty issue. You claim I should examine my faith in the light of your own. You claim that you should not examine your faith in the light of Islam. You have also attached a notion of "open-mindedness" to Jews open to being proselytized to, yet as regards Islam, you do not evidence the attitude you believe is good and proper in Jews. This has nothing to do with which scriptures are "better."

Debunking is an exercise in showing the falsehood of a previously held notion, 3 to B. My intent was to highlilght your own hypocrisy regarding "appropriate" targets and sources of proselytizing. You, however, feel the exercise would "debunk" the Greek bible itself -- although I made no claims as to the veracity of the Qur'an. Do you really believe that reading the Qur'an will cause you to stop believing what you currently do about the Greek bible?

3) This notion of yours that using a precise and neutral term, prosyletizing, is somehow a Rovian gambit, is again nonsensical. If you prefer self-glorification with terminology like "spreading the good news" or "preaching the Word," that is fine among a community of your fellow believers. I use "proselytizing" specifically because it only refers to your activity, not the validity thereof. If you have a better term, which is also value-neutral, feel free to share.

4) You have continued to pester me to debate my beliefs with you. When I refuse, you continue to slander my beliefs, by making up statements regarding my beliefs, stating 1/4 truths that, were they a bit more accurate, might be half-truths. WWJD? This?

5) The last time you went off on how I "called you a Nazi," I was surprised enough that I actually read back to see what I said.

What I said was that your freedom to legally proselytize came under free speech, but so does the speech of a Nazi.

Now read the following two statements closely, 3 to B. This may be quite challenging, and there will be a logic exercise at the end:

A. Going east at 50 miles per hour does not exceed the speed limit.
B. Going west at 50 miles per hour does not exceed the speed limit.

True or false: If A and B are both true, then it is also true that going east at 50 miles per hour is identical to moving west at 50 miles per hour. The vehicle described in (A) will end up in the same place as the vehicle in (B).

Let me help you out. This statement is false. Now, let's use the exact same terms, plugging in your speech, and a Nazi rally:

A. Proselytizing is protected by freedom of speech.
B. An American Nazi rally is protected by freedom of speech.

Therefore, a Proselytizer is a Nazi? Well, unless the car going East and the car going West end up at the same place, you cannot say that I have called you a Nazi just because your speech, though objectionable, is constitutionally protected.

I think you are reacting with a lot of anger here, 3 to B. Either that or you hold reason in very low regard to begin with. Whatever the case, once again, I have no need for your religion. That goes for your invitations to disputations, your invitations for me to waste my time on re-run glosses created by Christians for the sake of Christian conversion strategies, or any of the rest of it.

As for "dishing it out" or "taking it" or what have you, you have not said a thing to dislodge the ever-more vivid impression of prosyletizing as an exercise in bigotry. It's evidently fertile ground for anger, distortion, and base passions, as displayed in some of your recent attacks.

I'm sure someone thinks Krishna loves you,

PFnV

I want to be very clear about this. I do not REQUIRE a person to convert. I am required as part of my faith to share it. There is a huge difference. I am well aware of the history. I myself have encountered the type of Christiantity that has been talked about. I have NOT told someone he HAS to do anything. I posted a link that offers reasons. If someone is not interested, You dont have to read it. You dont have to do or believe anything.

Some here my not agree with the article and they have a right to. What they dont have a right to do is to is spew out accusations of a most heinous nature, engage in classic Karl Rove-type labeling, and character assassinate because they either disagree with the substance of the information sent out, or are blaming me for childhood experiences that really arent my responsibility.

The thread was not aimed at one person. And this particular link being aimed at a particular group ( and i've posted many things that were NOT aimed at one group so im hardly "picking on" one group overall) is only because of the common interest SOME Jews have with Christians in the Old Testament. Its the common thread that helped me to come to know Christ. Its an interesting connection and for me a major source of my scriptural belief.

I in no way demand, command, insist, or require anybody to do anything, least of all, convert.

But if the information helps one person to think about the idea of considering the possibility of being open to maybe looking into it, i must admit, i would be very pleased about it.

I do regret the focus being moved away from ************, and from here on im going to focus more of my attention on talking about the Love and Forgiveness of ************. This is someone who didnt have to die for us, but did because He wasnt here for himself. He was here so that we might have life. Before He died, He washed the feet of his disciples, to teach them to love and serve others first. He did this knowing what was going to happen to Him. I pray for forgiveness if my words didnt convey properly the spirit I started with this.

Jesus came to me and changed my life, filled it with joy and the security of knowing that this life will come and go in a blink of an eye. Its a great and humbling thing. I no longer have to be unable to admit foibles and weaknesses. I no longer need to be right.

You heard (read) me right. I dont need anybody to agree with me. Go on doing and believing what you do and believe. I'll sleep ok and so will you.

But im wondering why this thread has gotten over 460 views. it might be the curiosity that comes while passing a car wreck. Or it might be something else. All I know is when the name ************ is out there, something good is going to happen.

Bless you all. Jesus Loves You.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'm with the train wreck theory. They like seeing this --> :enranged: Can't blame em, 3 to B. We are relatively amusing.

Anyway, you go ahead being Christian, and enjoy. If you do read the Greek bible as requiring you to proselytize, then you have no choice. Reason requires me to regard proselytizing as I do, for reasons far too repetitively enumerated. Many, many people feel the same about it. You may disregard their perception -- I think it is the correct one -- but regardless the perception does not go away.

Manana,

PFnV

 

[CPF]

Shmessy, you're much more patient than I am at this point; the troll was quoting at me, not you... I didn't know from what you were saying, whether you saw that. I've honestly had a mixed bag of interactions with 3 to B, and am sure he truly believes whatever he comes out with in any given period of a few days, and he's very earnest and don't mean nothin' by it, etc. I'm just out of patience with the whole "Oooh look! A Jew! I'm a gonna convert him, ma!" phenomenon. So you're a better man than I, to remain so civil!

CPF, please seek professional counseling to address your control issues.

Sure maybe we can carpool and you can drop me off on the way to your anger management class. Wait a minute did you just call me a troll…….I don’t think I have ever been called a troll before……hmmm, the jury is still out on whether or not I like it.

I'll post as much as I like to this thread, in order to make known to anybody who is not wearing culturally imposed blinders, that this thread is by nature anti-Semitic. This form of proselytizing, by the standards of any thinking person, can only be described as anti-Semitic. This should be known, or at least considered, by both those who engage in it, and by third parties.

Come on PFV, this isn’t anti-Semitic it’s simply, “take a look at this if you like and think about it……or don’t….your choiceâ€. Key word, choice. 3 to be, happens to think the Messiah that the Jewish Nation has been waiting to appear for so long has in fact come, and he wants to point that out to you, you don’t want to hear it…….to me…..that should be the end of the conversation. Instead what we have seen is you consistently bait and belittle 3 to be, in a very snide and condescending way mind you, for even considering posting this information. You my friend are mean and disrespectful and I honestly don’t know why 3 to be has even involved himself in this conversation as long as he has. I hope that he lets you have the “parting shot†you seem to so desperately need and lets this thing die…..I certainly will.

Oh and here is that website again for anyone who chooses to take a look. http://www.parentalguide.com/Documen...t_of_jesus.htm

Wait, here’s the home page too. http://www.parentalguide.com/index.htm Take care, CPF

 

[3 to be 4]

Bah,. Humbug. You are an anti-Semite, although you don't know it.

Religion is the cause of more death, and destruction on this planet over the course of history, than anything else. With no religion,especially Christianity, this would be a far more safer, and peaceful, planet.

Religion-you may have an arguement there. But more likely its the lack of God and the spirit of Gods enemies, that is even more a culprit.

But ************ brings life and hope. Strip the religion away and open your heart to Jesus and the difference is clear.

CPF, my man, you show some wisdom in your advise. I regret engaging as much as I did. It distracted me from where my focus should be. And I have learned from it. I have learned from everybody on this Board and on this thread and im grateful for it.

 

[CPF]

Bah,. Humbug. You are an anti-Semite, although you don't know it.

Ahhh yes, that timeless wisdom we have all come to expect from our resident sage, NEM. You keep that cutting edge stuff coming you hear NEM.

Religion is the cause of more death, and destruction on this planet over the course of history, than anything else. With no religion,especially Christianity, this would be a far more safer, and peaceful, planet.

More safer???? Really though, would you care to have a serious conversation on the topic? Of course not, this is just another in and out pot shot isn't it NEM? Take care, CPF

 

[3 to be 4]

Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don't lean on your own understanding. In all things acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way.

- Proverbs 3:5-6

 

[3 to be 4]

some more food for thought: "He cant be God, He healed people on the Sabbath!"

The Joy of Torah

In Christian churches, the Bible is used for teaching, disciplining, correcting, and for training in righteousness. God's Word is held in high regard and considered infallible by many. However, we usually regard the words that originate from the Pastor, though based on the Bible, to be open to discussion and interpretation-- they are not infallible because, as a human, the Pastor is not infallible. Modern Judaism takes quite a different approach to the Torah and to the lessons that are derived from it by sages and Rabbis. We shall see that this approach is contradictory to Jewish values and is even un-Biblical.

Jacob Neusner has said that "the central, dominating motif of the Judaic consciousness is Torah" (23). In fact, the Torah scroll is the "holiest ritual object in Judaism in that it contains both the name and message of God" (Eckstein, 27). There are many rules about how to handle the scroll with utmost reverence and respect so as to not defile it. In addition, reading the Torah is such an important part of Judaism that there is a day set aside for rejoicing over the Law--Simchath Torah. The initiation of celebrating this day began soon after the establishment of the system of reading the Law through in the period of one year in the synagogues. It is on this day that the reading of the book of Deuteronomy is finished and the reading of Genesis is begun again (Buksbazen, 56). During the Simchath Torah ceremony, a blessing is said before the reading of the Law and the scrolls are then carried seven times around the assembly while they sing joyful hymns in honor of the Torah, kissing the coverings of the scrolls (Buksbazen, 58).

Since the Torah is so highly revered, the study of Torah is very important for proper training and education--just as Christians consider the study of the Bible to be. Indeed, "the Jews hold their devotion to study of the Torah. . .to be their chief glory. This sentiment is repeated in song and prayer, and it shapes the values of the common society. The important Jew is the learned man" (Neusner, 83). Rabbi Heschel says of education in general, "Genuine reverence for the sanctity of study is bound to invoke in the pupils the awareness that study is not an ordeal but an act of edification; that the school is a sanctuary, not a factory; that study is a form of worship" (Heschel, 42).

How much more a form of worship, then, is the study of Torah. The Talmud (Abodah Zarah 3b) supports this when it states, "As the fishes in the sea immediately perish when they come out of the water, so do men perish when they separate themselves from the words of Torah" (Wilson, 311). Eckstein says, " For while all other holy writ in the Tanakh are sacred and divine, none carries the same authoritative force as the Torah, wherein every word is regarded as divine and inerrant and, consequently, is to be interpreted by man. In the case of the rest of Scripture, only the concepts are sacred and divine. Laws cannot be derived exegetically from every word or letter" (30). But the Torah does not have to be meticulously poured over to be of value, for "repeating the words of the oral revelation, even without comprehending them, produces reward" (Neusner, 83). If the necessary study of Torah produces a great reward, then one may wonder how women could achieve merit in this area, since the study of Torah was closed to them until very recently. Neusner says that, in the past, "women acquired merit when they arranged for their sons' education in Scripture and Mishnah and when they waited for their husbands to return from the schools" (85). In our day, however, many schools of Hebrew learning allow women to attend and even to be ordained as Rabbis.

Despite the high reverence for the word of God in the written Torah and the importance of it's study, modern Judaism manages to undermine its own values concerning the Torah. This is accomplished by believing that, at Sinai, God divinely made a dual revelation of the written and oral Torah. It is this oral Torah that is the problem since its existence allows that "whatever the most recent rabbi is destined to discover through proper exegesis of the tradition is as much a part of the way revealed to Moses as is a sentence of [written] Scripture itself" (Neusner, 81). In essence, this makes man's word of equal importance as God's word!! This is an un-Biblical position, for how can this be when God's Word says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts' " (Isaiah 55:9).

Neusner also says that,

in heaven God and the angels study Torah just as rabbis do on earth. God dons phylacteries like a Jew and prays in the rabbinic mode. He carries out the acts of compassion Judaic ethics call for. He guides the affairs of the world according to the rules of Torah, just as the rabbi in his court does. One exegesis of the creation legend taught that God had looked into the Torah and created the world from it. . . It is therefore possible to participate even in the giving of the law by appropriate, logical inquiry into the law. God himself, studying and living by Torah, is believed to subject himself to these same rules of logical inquiry. If an earthly court overrules the testimony, delivered through miracles, of the heavenly one, God would rejoice, crying out, "My sons have conquered me! My sons have conquered me!" (81-82)
This passage raises many theologically important questions. Why does God need to study the Torah? Did He not create and write it in the first place? If He did not, then who did? And is this "being" then more powerful and in place of higher glory and honor than God such that God would study this "being's" works and obey this other "being"? Why does God study as the rabbis do--instead of the rabbis studying as God does? To whom is it that God is praying? Why does God follow Judaic ethics? Is the Torah greater than God that God follows Torah as His authority? How can man prove God wrong and thus "correct" His revelation? Just who is God the Creator and who is Man the Created here, anyway???

Perhaps Judaism's problem is seen most clearly in Neusner's statement that "Honor is due to the learned rabbi more than to the scroll of Torah, for through his learning and logic he may alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He is Torah, [emphasis mine] not merely because he lives by it but because at his best he forms as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as does a Torah scroll itself" (82). Eckstein confirms this Judaic principle when he says, "It is man who assumes the prominent role of final arbiter of God's will and intent (40) . . . God revealed himself and gave his Torah to Israel . . . It is now the rabbis' right and obligation to interpret that divine word according to the proper hermeneutical principles of the oral tradition that God himself ordained. Biblical authority rests not with God, but with the rabbis who were given that authority by him" (41).

It is very strange that a high respect for God's Word as holy can co-exist with the ability, yea even obligation, of a mere human to alter that Word and have it be considered as valid and as truthful as the original, no matter how a human claims they got authority. Unfortunately, this reversal of authority positions is not a new one. The embellishments of the Law by the Pharisees and Sadducees (rabbis of Jesus' day) were condemned by Jesus in Matthew 15:6, Luke 11:46, 52, and other similar verses. Not only do all the extra rules just make the worship and obedience of God into a legalistic system, but they violate the Law itself for in Deuteronomy 4:2, God's Law says, "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Holding God's Word in reverence, reading and studying it are good things. But we have seen that Judaism has greatly exaggerated man's role and authority in the interpretation of that Word. The resulting attitude that Biblical interpretation rests with man, and not God who wrote the Scriptures, is contradictory to the respect Judaism gives to the Torah, and is un-Biblical. The oral Torah, as an integral part of the idea of Torah, is a major falling away of Judaism from it's Biblical roots, and Neusner's statement is sadly true that "Judaism begins in the Hebrew Scriptures, which Christianity calls the Old Testament, but Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament . . . [it] is the religion of the dual Torah" (2).

Bibliography

Buksbazen, Victor. The Gospel in The Feasts of Israel. Fort Washington, Pennsylvania: Christian Literature Crusade, Inc., 1954.

Eckstein, Rabbi Yechiel. What You Should Know About Jews and Judaism. Waco, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1984.

Heschel, Abraham J. The Insecurity of Freedom. New York: Schocken Books, 1972 .

Neusner, Jacob. The Way of Torah. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1988.

Wilson, Marvin R. Our Father Abraham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Note: Biblical references from The Open Bible (NASB), New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.

 

[PonyExpress]

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Jews_Information_Desk/Forcast_of_jesus.htm

I think reading and understanding the Bible in its original language is a must. There is a lot of room for misinterpration via mistranslation. If you study the supposed references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible you will find they are wilfull mistranslations. Why was this done? To capture the ignorant in a web.

 

[3 to be 4]

I think reading and understanding the Bible in its original language is a must before trying to convince others about anything. There is a lot of room for misinterpration via translation (see: Reformation).

Just saying "food for thought". Pushing along a dialogue. Most folks dont want to discuss it. Im saying "reasons to...." and "food for thought", being careful not to tell anyone they MUST do anything.

The more God is mentioned, the more times the name Jesus is out there, the better it is, I believe, for this world.

I was extemely moved this weekend by something that happened at my church. A woman who just started working at my office showed up for our service, which thrilled me enough but......
during his sermon the pastor shared how he had presided over a funeral for a 21 year old man who had been killed in a car accident. At the funeral service, 12 young people were so moved by what had happened that they accepted Christ right there at the service. For those poor parents, trying to find a reason why they lost their son, it must have given them some comfort to know that not only was he in heaven, but that the example of his life, and the lesson of his passing at such a young age, helped to bring 12 more souls into Heaven with him.
At the end of our church service, my coworker, having heard this, answered the alter call and accepted the Salvation of ************.
Today, she told me she had lost her 24 day old son last April and had been hating God ever since. She has slowly been dealing with the loss, but it was hearing this story that finally made her breakdown crying and it was then that Christ came to her in her surrender.
The young man who died in the accident has left quite a mark. His life touched 12 more. The telling of their story touched another, and her testimony will bring hope to many more.
In all the history, and the scriptures, and the trappings and arguements and debates, what often gets lost are the human stories.
There are lives being turned around everyday by a power that is beyond what can be expressed in words. Ive had "understandings" of God before, but it wasnt until I accepted ************ that I KNEW God.
There are indeed, very controlling Christians who arent secure enough, or maybe havnt had enough of the Holy Spirit in their heart, to abstain from abusing and accusing and threatening others, and this has been addressed by myself and the original link to this thread.
But there is that caricature of Christianity, and then there is the teaching of ************. There is infinate peace and infinate hope in the love and salvation of ************.

I know saying that gets people to react with all kinds of accusations and adjectives.
And its interesting to me that on this same board today the death and crucifixion of ************ was mocked and laughed at with some hilarity.
And not one word of protest.
Because that, in 2006, is acceptable hatred. Still, all is forgiven.
"for they know not what they do"

Having lived in New England most of my life im familiar with the rarity of such things being said. Stained glassed windows and Tom Brady t-shirts are my lasting memories of churches in Leominster and Walpole. But none of that has anything to do with ************. Hes ready to meet you right where you are. No matter what you've said or done in the past. He paid the price for our sin. And was the sacrificial lamb. He took the punishment so we dont have to. Despite the grotesque death He endured for us, a death that would be unspeakable for ANY person, let alone God come to earth, He forgave us then, and His love for us is unwavering and everlasting. All we have to do is
accept it. And His Grace will wash over us and set us free.

Rejoice in the hope. Seek out your own answers. Be open. Ask for the truth to shown to you.

Bless you all and goodnight.

************ loves you.

 

[CPF]

Pony Express: If you study the supposed references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible you will find they are wilfull mistranslations.

Care to offer anything specific? It could make for a nice conversation. Take care, CPF

 

[Patters]

Let's avoid the proselytizing. As an atheist, I find this type of thread offensive. Put it in the political forum, and we can have some fireworks!

 

[Turd Furguson]

I wish there were some sort of device that could capture the moment when all these truly devout people realize right after they die that all they're in for is a big sleep.

Talk about a letdown!

 

[Patters]

I wish there were some sort of device that could capture the moment when all these truly devout people realize right after they die that all they're in for is a big sleep.

Talk about a letdown!

I know. It's no fair. There's no way we'll get the last laugh!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Maybe you could make an Atheist comic book displaying nothingness at the moment of death... you could dwell on the misdeeds of attempting to lead a religious life, complete with whichever drama, conversion experience, or rituals are supposed to lead to everlasting life... feature a comic-book-within-a-comic book in which a proselytizer awakens the subjects terror of eternal damnation... feature a number of squandered opportunities in which the comic book's subject resists temptation etc. -- all to just fade to black at the end.

Personally, I don't believe in the typical celestial skinner box either, so I think the comic book would be a marvelous piece of propaganda. Unfortunately, I'm not into converting anybody else to my way of thinking enough to write it.

PFnV

[Edited to add the crucial "not," despite the implication of Freudian slip.]

 

[3 to be 4]

I wish there were some sort of device that could capture the moment when all these truly devout people realize right after they die that all they're in for is a big sleep.

Talk about a letdown!

think about what you are saying. Are you hoping for nothing? Just to be right? that would be a truly sad way to live.

 

[3 to be 4]

Let's avoid the proselytizing. As an atheist, I find this type of thread offensive. Put it in the political forum, and we can have some fireworks!

theres that word "offensive" again. Have I made you do anything?

were you offended by the Benny Hill parody? Forget the matter of his divinity. Was anyone offended by the hilarity over a human being getting crucified?

the silence was deafening. But in a society where its open season on Jesus im not surprised.

But whats most important, it doesnt change the fact that ************ forgives and loves us more than we can ever imagine.