How and why did you reject christ?

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't deny it. I asked, though, why it matters. Why do you ask?

Because all skeptics love to say they left the church for reasons of logic or problems with theology, when they leave to be immoral (just as the Bible says, proving again the Bible is always accurate).

 

[BilliardsBall]

To my best knowledge, the Tanakh does not mention a Hell, and without a Devil it seems odd to me to have a Deviless Hell, as Hell was created as a prison, more or less, for Satan and his angels after the Rebellion.

Read the last chapters of Daniel and Isaiah and see if you still think the same thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You aren't suggesting that this is WHY he left? I mean, that would be a totally different ball of wax.

Typically, skeptics say they leave born-again Christianity for theological or logical reasons, when it is to indulge the flesh (as both testaments indicate--people walk away from God to commit heinous sin).

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's not what Rambam said that I am challenging. It's your interpretation of it (claiming that Rambam believed in multiple gods.) After all, Rambam wrote the 13 principles of the Jewish faith, and believing in just one God' absolute and unparalleled unity (#2).

I didn't say Rambam taught God is plural. I saw his use of yachid (for example, in the 13 principles) showed he knew as well as we both should that echad implies plurality.

My wife and I are an echad plural oneness (Genesis 2:24). The two are one flesh while any logical person knows they are two persons joined!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nor does it teach you must have faith in the Messiah when he comes. No such inkling of such a thing is ever mentioned.

Not so! Moses warned that if the people didn't follow a prophet in his likeness that there would be diaspora and suffering (Deut 28-30). A forerunner to Messiah would turn families together or there would be diaspora and a cursed land (Malachi 3). Isaiah said a child would be born who is the everlasting Father and counsels us (Isaiah 9).

Four different Tanakh prophets say Messiah will be revered by Gentiles. Others that he'd dwell in the Galilee, be born in Bethlehem, betrayed with a kiss for silver pieces, die and resurrect, atone for sin, and come 483 years after the decree to rebuild (dying therefore on Pesach in 30 AD). Etc., etc., etc.

"Nor does it teach you must have faith in the Messiah . . . "

The Messiah is the Lord and those who trust in Him cannot be shaken, have a great masada and shield (Psalms). He is wisdom personified (Proverbs). Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Harel13]

I didn't say Rambam taught God is plural. I saw his use of yachid (for example, in the 13 principles) showed he knew as well as we both should that echad implies plurality.

My wife and I are an echad plural oneness (Genesis 2:24). The two are one flesh while any logical person knows they are two persons joined!

Hey @BilliardsBall, I'd appreciate a source on where you saw the Rambam say this:

To paraphrase, RAMBAM, in his zeal to keep his distinct against persecutors, said "Ha Shem made a mistake choosing echad and not yachid," a clear indication that this great sage KNEW echad implied a plural God. The 13 principles come over a millennium after people were asking Yeshua if He was the Son and God.

 

[Rival]

I didn't say Rambam taught God is plural. I saw his use of yachid (for example, in the 13 principles) showed he knew as well as we both should that echad implies plurality.

My wife and I are an echad plural oneness (Genesis 2:24). The two are one flesh while any logical person knows they are two persons joined!

This is wrong. Ehcad and yachid can both mean one in the same sense. Rambam infact uses both.

Deut 17:6 says this,

By the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall the one liable to death be put to death; he shall not be put to death by the mouth of one witness.

'One' here is 'echad' - so is it really referring to three witnesses? Three hundred? three thousand? No, one witness. One person.

Also, how come nobody -literally nobody- none of the Sages, none of the Rabbis, none of the scholars, came to the blasphemous conclusion you did about 'echad'? The only people who have come to this unfounded conclusion are Christians who have an obvious agenda to fit their guy into a text where he isn't.

No-one else does this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So you agree, you are one of many who after leaving Christianity, indulged the flesh. Thank you.

BillbardsBall. Can one just leave christ without having a negative, ignorant, our insane reason to do so?

Do people have to be at some sort of mental fault to blame in order for you to understand why someone leaves christ-even on a good note?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because all skeptics love to say they left the church for reasons of logic or problems with theology, when they leave to be immoral (just as the Bible says, proving again the Bible is always accurate).

I didn't leave to br immoral. I didn't leave because I was a skeptic. I was a Christian, born again in Christ. The reasons I left is it was a very one sided and abusive relationship, I was miserable to the point of being suicidal, and when I needed god the most I turned to the Bible for guidance, but instead I found violence and cruelty. What I was taught by the Church and real facts I found are irreconcilable in many regards.
But, yes, how so "thou shalt not judge" Christianly of you to judge and assume and dismiss than accept the fact apostates of Christianity went apostate, not because we want to be immoral. But I won't worry. If your religion is true then you were explicitly prohibited from casting judgement, and by what measures ye mete it shall be measured you, which in this case is immorality and thinking you know it all, to the point hearing others out isn't worth considering. Whatever shall you do when your Lord treats you the same and proclaims he doesn't know you?

 

[Yerda]

I could never trust a man in sandles.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I could never trust a man in sandles.

They were not sandles, they were shoes! I follow the sign of the shoe!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not so! Moses warned that if the people didn't follow a prophet in his likeness that there would be diaspora and suffering (Deut 28-30). A forerunner to Messiah would turn families together or there would be diaspora and a cursed land (Malachi 3). Isaiah said a child would be born who is the everlasting Father and counsels us (Isaiah 9).

Four different Tanakh prophets say Messiah will be revered by Gentiles. Others that he'd dwell in the Galilee, be born in Bethlehem, betrayed with a kiss for silver pieces, die and resurrect, atone for sin, and come 483 years after the decree to rebuild (dying therefore on Pesach in 30 AD). Etc., etc., etc.

"Nor does it teach you must have faith in the Messiah . . . "

The Messiah is the Lord and those who trust in Him cannot be shaken, have a great masada and shield (Psalms). He is wisdom personified (Proverbs). Etc. etc. etc

YOu need to double check your work. The things you are saying are simply not true.

Some of the things you say are not supported, since you only offer a vague 1-2 whole chapters, instead of quoting the exact places that document your point.

Some of your references are misinterpreted -- Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to King Hezekiah, not to the Messiah. In fact, most of your errors are focused around misattributing verses to the Messiah that are actually not Messianic at all.

Sometimes you simply falsely sum up the verse you allude to -- fr example, there is no verse that talks about trading pieces of silver for a kiss betrayal.

Basically you are throwing out memes that you have heard from preachers in your churches, rather than actually study the Tanakh yourself.

And btw the prophet that Moses spoke of to come was Joshua, not Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Typically, skeptics say they leave born-again Christianity for theological or logical reasons, when it is to indulge the flesh (as both testaments indicate--people walk away from God to commit heinous sin).

Are you a psychic that you can read their minds????? wow, amazing. Tell me my fortune.

No, friend, you need to accept the reasons they give. You can argue that their theology or logic is wrong, but you can't say that's not the reason they left, unless you have really good evidence to the contrary, like that they stirred trouble in the church about sexual morality or whatever.

It is my experience that Christians who don't like what the Bible says about fornication simply ignore it. Christians who are single and chaste are actually hard to come by.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn't say Rambam taught God is plural. I saw his use of yachid (for example, in the 13 principles) showed he knew as well as we both should that echad implies plurality.

My wife and I are an echad plural oneness (Genesis 2:24). The two are one flesh while any logical person knows they are two persons joined!

If Rambam had thought that echad implies plurality, he never would have formed principle #2.

Face it BB. For some reason, it is important to you that Jews accept the plurailty of God. But WE DON'T. We teach that Trinitarianism is shi-tuf at best (worship of God via an associative symbol).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Because all skeptics love to say they left the church for reasons of logic or problems with theology, when they leave to be immoral (just as the Bible says, proving again the Bible is always accurate).

It is, generally speaking, a very very bad idea to tell someone, "No you don't really think that, you think this other thing." It would be like me telling you, "No, you don't really believe in One God, you believe in three Gods." See how unfair that is? Yet that is what you are doing, only WORSE you are doing it with motivations. LIke I said, you are not psychic. You are not even a psychologist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is wrong. Ehcad and yachid can both mean one in the same sense. Rambam infact uses both.

Deut 17:6 says this,

By the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall the one liable to death be put to death; he shall not be put to death by the mouth of one witness.

'One' here is 'echad' - so is it really referring to three witnesses? Three hundred? three thousand? No, one witness. One person.

Also, how come nobody -literally nobody- none of the Sages, none of the Rabbis, none of the scholars, came to the blasphemous conclusion you did about 'echad'? The only people who have come to this unfounded conclusion are Christians who have an obvious agenda to fit their guy into a text where he isn't.

No-one else does this.

Echad can mean one singular, yes.

Echad is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe a married couple, who is two persons.

None of the non-Messianic sages accept echad as plural oneness, even thought it's there, right there, in Genesis 2:24--because they are non-Messianic. Messianic Jewish sages describe the issue in detail. Before you assume the non-Messianic Jews are correct and the Messianic incorrect, what do you say about Genesis 2:24?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't leave to br immoral. I didn't leave because I was a skeptic. I was a Christian, born again in Christ. The reasons I left is it was a very one sided and abusive relationship, I was miserable to the point of being suicidal, and when I needed god the most I turned to the Bible for guidance, but instead I found violence and cruelty. What I was taught by the Church and real facts I found are irreconcilable in many regards.
But, yes, how so "thou shalt not judge" Christianly of you to judge and assume and dismiss than accept the fact apostates of Christianity went apostate, not because we want to be immoral. But I won't worry. If your religion is true then you were explicitly prohibited from casting judgement, and by what measures ye mete it shall be measured you, which in this case is immorality and thinking you know it all, to the point hearing others out isn't worth considering. Whatever shall you do when your Lord treats you the same and proclaims he doesn't know you?

I'm sorry for the abuse and the suffering, that is awful.

I was correct in two points regarding you, and other skeptics. 1) You left for theology reasons, rather than walked away from a relationship with a person, Jesus. 2) You turned to immorality after leaving.

 

[BilliardsBall]

YOu need to double check your work. The things you are saying are simply not true.

Some of the things you say are not supported, since you only offer a vague 1-2 whole chapters, instead of quoting the exact places that document your point.

Some of your references are misinterpreted -- Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to King Hezekiah, not to the Messiah. In fact, most of your errors are focused around misattributing verses to the Messiah that are actually not Messianic at all.

Sometimes you simply falsely sum up the verse you allude to -- fr example, there is no verse that talks about trading pieces of silver for a kiss betrayal.

Basically you are throwing out memes that you have heard from preachers in your churches, rather than actually study the Tanakh yourself.

And btw the prophet that Moses spoke of to come was Joshua, not Jesus.

King Hezekiah is not an "eternal father", he merely had a lengthened lifespan. (Isaiah 9) - here a baby is born who is an eternal father, wonderful counselor and prince of peace - Hezekiah was a wartime leader.

The Jewish people did not suffer after rejecting Joshua with diaspora. (Deut 28-30)

There are verses that describe the betrayal by a close friend and the silver pieces prophecy also.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If Rambam had thought that echad implies plurality, he never would have formed principle #2.

Face it BB. For some reason, it is important to you that Jews accept the plurailty of God. But WE DON'T. We teach that Trinitarianism is shi-tuf at best (worship of God via an associative symbol).

That is an argument from silence. Rather, yachid was used in the 13 principles, not echad, because Rambam like all non-Messianic sages rejects the sometime use of echad for plurality. How do you feel about echad being used to describe two persons, not one, in Genesis 2:42?

 

[Harel13]

Messianic Jewish sages

Who are Messianic Jewish sages, as opposed to the other sort?

Also, I would appreciate a source for the view of Maimonides that you brought.