Ex Christians

[Heathen Hammer]

Firstly Heathen Hammer, jesus is definitely not the name of the Messiah as is Heathen Hammer not your name. But yes David and Joseph was forgiven their Pesa sins by "looking forward" to that which Yeshua paid for, for "the bride" as redeemer.

The Sotah (Hebrew: סוטה, "wayward wife") rules applied to the "bride" after she went whoring after heathen stuff.

Yeshua as "Messiah son of Joseph" tried to remove the fences which the Talmud placed around Torah. When he returns as "Messiah son of David" he will surely set down "the instructions" as they should be observed.

maybee I did not quite get your question ?
..

Thanks. Hm, well I'm not sure if you did, or maybe I wasn't clear.

What I was getting at is, why is Jesus expected to come and show the righteousness of the following of the laws, if, we humans are already capable of attaining that righteousness simply by following them as observant Jews [as the case might be] ourselves? In other words, from what I read from that link and subsequent thoughts, to me it seems redundant. His mission of 'justifying the law', seems to have already been accomplished. The laws, in effect, are self-justified.

Also, maybe we can start hammering about why having the laws justified by Jesus, means they are no longer to all be observed [as the Christians like to think]? They are in full effect, until a perfect Hebrew comes and shows all others how to follow them perfectly, then, they are invalidated and expire?

Lastly, and not overly important, where you said 'Jesus' is not the actual name... at that point I was trying to discover if you believed, or not, that the person we refer to as 'Jesus' was actually qualified to be Moschiach or not. IN my reading and searching, I do not believe so, as he did not fulfill all the requirements. I simply wanted to see what your stance was.

 

[roberto]

Thanks. Hm, well I'm not sure if you did, or maybe I wasn't clear.

What I was getting at is, why is Jesus expected to come and show the righteousness of the following of the laws, if, we humans are already capable of attaining that righteousness simply by following them as observant Jews [as the case might be] ourselves? In other words, from what I read from that link and subsequent thoughts, to me it seems redundant. His mission of 'justifying the law', seems to have already been accomplished. The laws, in effect, are self-justified.

Also, maybe we can start hammering about why having the laws justified by Jesus, means they are no longer to all be observed [as the Christians like to think]? They are in full effect, until a perfect Hebrew comes and shows all others how to follow them perfectly, then, they are invalidated and expire?

Lastly, and not overly important, where you said 'Jesus' is not the actual name... at that point I was trying to discover if you believed, or not, that the person we refer to as 'Jesus' was actually qualified to be Moschiach or not. IN my reading and searching, I do not believe so, as he did not fulfill all the requirements. I simply wanted to see what your stance was.

I "see" a problem with regards to Pesa sin for 10 Israel/Northern tribes as they are still scattered among the Nations. How will they attone for their Pesa sins other than the Messiah having done so ?

"jesus" was invented to change everything Yeshua stood for. So, no "jesus" is not my Messiah.

Yeshua still has to come and fulfill the Moshiach ben David role/jobdescription. He accomplished fulfilling the Moshiach ben Joseph role when he was here first time.

As Judaism laws are applied/followed , people are kept away from the Kingdom, I mean how many people in Israel today are secular ? Ask yourself if Judaism was that easy to follow then why so many seculars ?

Abraham was the father of all the Nations and received the "total law" including oral law...
So if Abraham was given this, what makes a christian think to call Abraham his or her father but does not want to follow what was given to Abraham ?
And for that same matter what makes a Jew think to tell the Nations that thewy are not allowed to follow Torah ?
It simply boggles my mind.
.

 

[Vadergirl123]

What of Jephthah's daughter?

What about her? This law doesn't apply to her since she didn't even sleep with a man.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Do you consider it just to punish billions of people for the actions of one of their ancestors?

Personally I think it's kind of harsh. However sin doesn't bother me the same way it does God, and I'm not the one who choses what's just or unjust for everyone.

So why did God punish humanity in the first place?

Because of Adam's sin

And why did God have to send Christ and have them sacrificed in order to redeem humanity from the sin he put on us in the first place?

Because someone perfect and holy had to die for our sins

Garbage. Sin was created by God, and God tempted Adam into it.

As I said earlier God didn't create sin. Adam chose to sin against God, and why do you believe he tempted Adam into it?

Again, garbage. God set the rules, controls everything, everything goes according to his will,

You are right to some degree that God sets rules, but he doesn't force us to follow them(obviously) and he is IN control, but he DOESN'T control us. There's a difference. If God controlled you, then you wouldn't be arguing over this with me(you'd be a strong believer in God)

but when sin is concerned suddenly "we started the problem"? Nope, sorry. That makes no sense. If God wants credit for creation and wants to set all the rules, then God gets the blame for sin. Seems only fair.

God didn't start sin, Adam chose to. Yes God is the one in charge of creation and he does set rules, but his rules aren't always followed. Sin results by people chosing to break those rules. If everyone followed God's rules we wouldn't even have sin, but that's just not the case.

 

[Vadergirl123]

wow...
you mean with a the massacres that were done in the name of god in the OT were not crusades?

Oh I thought you were talking about the Crusades in the 11th-13th century. I've never thought of them as crusades, but why does that matter. The Crusaders weren't the nation of Israel and God didn't order them to attack anyone in his name.

 

[Vadergirl123]

The problem I see with this is that it presents a frail human
being (Adam) as being more successful at influencing
mankind through his actions than an all-powerful God is
through His actions.

Okay, however God did influence mankind through his actions when he sent Jesus to "overturn" Adam's sin. When you accept Christ you are in a sense destroying the curse Adam brought upon mankind. This shows that's God's actions are more powerful then mans

The bible mentions that in the same way all died in Adam,

all will be made alive again in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22).
How did all die in Adam? Did anyone have to believe in
Adam before Adam's actions impacted them?

The verse means Adam brought death and sin to everyone.

So why the teaching that says, essentially, that God's remedy cannot be just as instantaneously effective as Adam's
recklessness was without mankind's cooperation in the
process? It doesn't make sense to me (anymore ).
Salvation actually is "instantaneoulsy effective against Adam's recklessness."

 

[Rakhel]

What about her? This law doesn't apply to her since she didn't even sleep with a man.

I was responding to your "G-d doesn't allow an innocent to die" comment.
Further it was not her that committed the crime(based on law), it was her father..

 

[Vadergirl123]

Exodus 22:18 clearly says that witches should be killed,

Yes God commanded the Israelites to kill them, but not the people who weren't Israelites.

Even if the God of the Bible didn't want the crusades, people still did them in His name.

So what? People could go kill others in my name. That doesn't mean that I approved it, it just means they feel like using my name to justify their actions.

Sin has no meaning if God didn't define it. God decided what was sin and God decided what the punishment was. Therefore it is not of free choice that we choose hell,

How do you get this conclusion? Just because someone defines something and decides on a punishment for it, doesn't mean he created it. I can decide that I want to invent a new sandwhich name and even decide what will go in it, but someone has to make(create) the sandwhich.

it is because God is forcing us. It is either obey or be tortured forever. So the metaphor still stands.

He's not "forcing" us though. Forcing is would be saying you're going to hell. Again he gives us teh option to chose him over eternal separation from him. I think what you mean to say is "he's giving us an unfair option?"

Probably not when I was a little kid, but I think it's quite logical to accept a pacifist way of life.

Goctha and when did you acecpt a pacifist life?

 

[Vadergirl123]

you still have a big problem in your hands...
the fallible method in determining if there was a problem to begin with...

You still can't know if the method was fallible. You're simply assuming inoccent girls died. You should say, "you believe the method was fallible."

 

[Vadergirl123]

IOW, You think the Bible is lying when it tells you unambiguously that the proof was a bloody sheet.

No I don't think the Bible is lying about anything.(I don't even understand how you get that conclusion form my above post) It does mention a cloth being presented as proof. NEVER have I said I think it lied about this fact. I just said that maybe there were other sources of proof presented besides the cloth(and before you ask again, No I don't know what they were.)

 

[Vadergirl123]

Your assumption that it is more likely that Jewish women always bleed on their first time

I NEVER said, it's, "more likely jewish women bled on their first time" I said maybe the women bled their first time.

than it is that the law is unfair tells me everything I need to know about whether you'd be gleefully hurling stones at a girl who didn't bleed. Your idea of morality is absolutely terrifying to me.

I've said COUNTLESS TIMES that I wouldn't stones at an inoccent women. For you to say that I would is a lie. You don't even know what my morality is. Especially since you seem convinced that I'd throw stones at an inoccent women(when I've said I woudn't).

 

[Vadergirl123]

Ya know, the forum has this cool feature that let's you quote multiple posts in a single response.....

Haha I don't know how to do it?

 

[Vadergirl123]

You are the one who claims the Bible is the true word of God, and that it contains everything we need as a moral guide.

Yes I did say that.

But you are also saying the bloody sheet as proof of virginity NOT the true word of God

Nope I NEVER said that. Give me the page number.

because it is missing essential information.

I NEVER said the Bible was missing "essentail information" again show me the post where I used those exact words.

What are the other places where God fails to include essential information in his laws that would help determine guilt or innocence in a matter of life and death?

Nowhere.

 

[Vadergirl123]

But but but but.......but.....she wasn't innocent. She was a sacrifice made to fulfill a promise. And so it wasn't murder. It was okay. It really was okay. *rocks back and forth repeating this over and over again*

Uh guys... the law we're talking about doesn't even apply to Jephtha's daughter.

 

[Tarheeler]

Haha I don't know how to do it?

That's an easy situation to remedy.

On the bottom right of any post, right next to the "quote" button, is a button with a "+". Click that rather than the "quote", and you can string together miltiple posts to respond to.

So, for example, of there are three seperate posts you want to address, click on the "+" for the first two, and click the "quote" button on the last one. All three will will show up in your response, in the order you selected, with the appropriate names and linkbacks attached.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Where does your certainty about what God is like come from? If you say from the Bible, that what others are doing. Relying on what they understand the Bible to be saying.

I believe some people have a wrong understanding of the Bible.

I have an idea of what I think God is like. I have no certainty.

Hmm well if everyone talked about God based on their own personal ideas you woudln't be takling about one god, you'd be more of talking about the god you formed in your mind. For example to me God could be a loving, merciful being who just wanted to make us happy, but to someone else he might be a wicked tyrant who just wants control of everything.

I don't think something that is true needs to be defended. If it is true then it remains only for the individual to discover it's truthfulness. Not for me to convince them that it is true.

Fair enough, but I personally like defending truth.

But Jesus is your mentor. Not the Hebrew or the Hebrew teachings. If you want to become a Jew, that's a different story. It's their religion, their beliefs, their views. You are not going to beat them at their own belief.

Jesus is more than just a "mentor" haha and the O.T tells alot about God and shows why Jesus even had to come to earth in the first place.

Jesus is the base, or should be IMO, of the Christian concept. Why is there a need for a Christian to defend anything beyond what Jesus said? Yes someone may take it out of context but it is with Jesus your focus and understanding should be. If you work on understanding Jesus, what else do you need?

Okay, but you ahve to be able to defend the Bible's authority as well. I mean without the Bible you know nothing of Jesus.

You want to defend the Hebrew Bible, go ahead. I just don't think as a Christian you should feel a requirement to in order to justify your faith in Jesus and what he taught.

I try to defend the authority of the entire Bible yes. I think I see what you're saying, but if the O.T doesn't matter why would Christ even come to earth? You can't have Jesus without the O.T.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe some people have a wrong understanding of the Bible.

But how do you go about determining who has the "wrong" understanding of the Bible and who has the "right" understanding of it?

 

[waitasec]

I still don't know. Aren't you bored of asking me?

of course you know. you claim the bible is infallible. the fact that this fallible method is the only method mentioned proves the bible is fallible.

Then why do you have faith that some inoccent girl was killed?

because for the sake of argument, if you say the bible is infallible and that fallible method was the only one mentioned...

Yes I know he chose not to put it in the Bible b/c it wasn't there.

how do you know he chose not to include it in the bible?
because your hope of a loving god is being challenged as the idea of a infallible god would only put one fallible method of determining if a girl was innocent or not based on a very flawed human test?

Maybe none of the jewish girls had a problem not bleeding or maybe it was rare and the other forms of proof weren'tmentioned...I still don't know why he didn't mention it.

sure, whatever makes you feel better about your faith

 

[waitasec]

Yes I would

why wouldn't god include the "other infallible method" you so desperately want to have existed in his infallible book?

 

[waitasec]

Believe what blindly? The Bible? God exists? or that inoccent virgins weren't killed?

yes.
yes.
not really concerned about god's existence but your ideas of gods attributes.
yes.