Jesus Prayed

[IndigoChild5559]

That's quiet a relevant list. You are right, and it could be a lot longer than that.

Now tell me: Isn't it true that you can make a list as long as that about the contradictions between the different factions of Judaism that exist and have existed since the second temple until now?

What's more: isn't it true that you could make a list as long as that among the different anti-religious groups? ... or the issues on which the laureate scientists differ from each other?

Is there a community that is relevant to this world in some way and is not divided in some way? Satan's world is divided, and that includes all the religions that are part of his human system of government.

That is why they find so outstanding, and causes them so many mixed feelings, that Jehovah's Witnesses around the world, although we number more than 8 million, do not have major differences among us. And isn't it supposed that the people who let themselves be guided by God have no divisions?

Judaism is not a religion that doles out salvation depending on whether you have correct beleifs. The point in Judaism is to live ethically. Judaism values debate as a way of revealing the truth, so a diversity of opinions is valued, and binds us rather than divides us.

And despite the diversity of views, you really only have a handful of movements. Compare this to the tens of thousdans of Christian denominations.

 

[Eli G]

Judaism is not a religion that doles out salvation depending on whether you have correct beleifs. The point in Judaism is to live ethically. Judaism values debate as a way of revealing the truth, so a diversity of opinions is valued, and binds us rather than divides us.

And despite the diversity of views, you really only have a handful of movements. Compare this to the tens of thousdans of Christian denominations.

I was talking about exactly the same you were talking about ... Or the rule is diferent for Jews?

In my opinion, modern Jews and Catholics are the same; they want to appropiate something that is not theirs and transform it into something else that never was supposed to be. Modern Jews try to appropiate Jehovah's worship and Catholics (and its thousand sects) the Christianity. None of that is theirs; it is God who choose, and reject.

 

[Eli G]

In Jesus time, two millenials ago, some Jews believed in the resurrection and angels, others not. Sometimes the fight among them got really nasty, as we can see in the NT. Do you think now is better than then?

Acts 23:6 Now Paul, knowing that the one part was made up of Sadducees but the other of Pharisees, cried out in the Sanʹhe·drin: “Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Over the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am being judged.” 7 Because he said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was split. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is neither resurrection nor angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees accept them all. 9 So a great uproar broke out, and some of the scribes of the party of the Pharisees rose and began arguing fiercely, saying: “We find nothing wrong in this man, but if a spirit or an angel spoke to him—.” 10 Now when the dissension grew great, the military commander feared that Paul would be torn apart by them, and he commanded the soldiers to go down and snatch him from their midst and bring him into the soldiers’ quarters.

They even had the temple in Jerusalen at that moment ... LOL.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was talking about exactly the same you were talking about ... Or the rule is diferent for Jews?

In my opinion, modern Jews and Catholics are the same; they want to appropiate something that is not theirs and transform it into something else that never was supposed to be. Modern Jews try to appropiate Jehovah's worship and Catholics (and its thousand sects) the Christianity. None of that is theirs; it is God who choose, and reject.

What are Jews "appropriating" that is not ours? We have our covenant, which is spelled out in the Torah, ours, and reinforced by the Prophets, ours. Your entire Old Testament is essentially OURS, and it is you that is appropriating Jewish writings.

 

[Eli G]

What are Jews "appropriating" that is not ours? We have our covenant, which is spelled out in the Torah, ours, and reinforced by the Prophets, ours. Your entire Old Testament is essentially OURS, and it is you that is appropriating Jewish writings.

The authentic Judaism, the one that was practiced for the real and authentic people of God when they had temple, Davidic king, priesthood, Law, genealogies, familiar territories, prophets speaking in the name of God, etc. Modern Jews are just a new religion.

The OT is not Jew, even if it was written by some Israelites. The OT is the written word of Jehovah, that HE, not Jews, gave to his prophets. Do you realize the reality about it?

You just have a race proud that many centuries ago has nothing to do with the God who chose your ancestors and later rejected them.,

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The authentic Judaism, the one that was practiced for the real and authentic people of God when they had temple, Davidic king, priesthood, Law, genealogies, familiar territories, prophets speaking in the name of God, etc. Modern Jews are just a new religion.

The OT is not Jew, even if it was written by some Israelites. The OT is the written word of Jehovah, that HE, not Jews, gave to his prophets. Do you realize the reality about it?

You just have a race proud that many centuries ago has nothing to do with the God who chose your ancestors and later rejected them.,

The Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament, was written by Jews about Jews for Jews. Now if you want to read it and be inspired, more power to you. But it is you who is appropriating our scriptures, not the other way around.

 

[Eli G]

The Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament, was written by Jews about Jews for Jews. Now if you want to read it and be inspired, more power to you. But it is you who is appropriating our scriptures, not the other way around.

Hehehe. Jews were who killed Jehovah's prophets, my friend.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yes. There is so much profound wisdom and truth in all the religions that we can learn from to make us better people. I have all the holy books and whatever I read is beautiful and truth whether it be the Gita or the Bible, the Quran or the Dhamapadda.

Yes. There is so much profound wisdom and truth in all the religions that we can learn from to make us better people. I have all the holy books and whatever I read is beautiful and truth whether it be the Gita or the Bible, the Quran or the Dhamapadda.

Very true. But we need to deal with forcible conquest of Canaan, inquisitions, jihad and caste.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hehehe. Jews were who killed Jehovah's prophets, my friend.

Apart from Jezebel, who single handedly killed many prophets, which prophets are the Jews supposed to have killed? I want names.

 

[HaEmeth]

These verses, though very ancient, were probably not part of the original text of Luke. They are absent from the oldest papyrus manuscripts of Luke and from manuscripts of wide geographical distribution.

Interestingly, Westcott and Holt's New Testament in the Original Greek, though mainly based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and after employing much textual criticism on many of the ancient manuscripts you alluded to, included Luke 22:43-44 in their translation thus proving that those verses have their rightful place in the Greek Scriptures.

Referring to this translation, the Wikipedia article on Westcott and Hort says:

"It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time." ​

"The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. (...) In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. (...) Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort. "— Comfort 2005, p. 100​

You're probably referring to the account in Luke 22:43, 44, hereunder reproduced, which is in Codex Sinaiticus but doesn't seem to be in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, the three main manuscripts of the Septuagint in koine Greek.

Luke 22:43, 44 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. - KJV​

But Luke 22:43, 44 is not the only recorded instance of Jesus praying to God in the Scriptures. Others include:

Matthew 26:39 And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.”
Matthew 26:42 Again, for the second time, he went off and prayed, saying: “My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.”
Matthew 26:44 So leaving them, he again went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word.​

Jesus frequently prayed to God and, therefore, he is not God but a created being asking HIM to do something in his behalf - just as you and I would pray.

Colossians 1:15 underlies this point of Jesus being a created being himself when it says: "Who [referring to Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE"- KJV

 

[loverofhumanity]

Very true. But we need to deal with forcible conquest of Canaan, inquisitions, jihad and caste.

Religion teaches to love and respect life. But over time it deteriorates and man made doctrines corrupt its purity. So in the Gita Krishna says He returns from time to time to renew religion. In this day the things you mention are being done away with.

 

[HaEmeth]

3 in 1
And if you look at the New Testament (which is divinely inspired) it clearly states that Jesus is God

I agree with the first half of this statement "the New Testament (which is divinely inspired)". The second half: "it clearly states that Jesus is God", I'm sorry to say, is not true.

True, the King James Version says in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho loʹgos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

However, the context says otherwise. The King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (italics mine.) Surely, someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. If the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·osʹ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [loʹgos] was with God [a form of the·osʹ]”). This first the·osʹ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·osʹ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.”

Therefore, John1:1 should be properly rendered as: “and a god was the word.” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson (1864). On what authority?

Note what the brochure "Should You Believe in the Trinity" says:

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the loʹgos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·osʹ] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”​

The original Bible is God's Word and, therefore, is divinely inspired - Bible translations are not. Be careful. Sometimes, the only thing we need to properly understand the Scriptures is common sense and a little bit of knowledge of the Biblical languages used.

 

[YoursTrue]

Judaism is not a religion that doles out salvation depending on whether you have correct beleifs. The point in Judaism is to live ethically. Judaism values debate as a way of revealing the truth, so a diversity of opinions is valued, and binds us rather than divides us.

And despite the diversity of views, you really only have a handful of movements. Compare this to the tens of thousdans of Christian denominations.

It doesn't matter if Judaism "doles out" salvation. Or does not. You are expecting the Messiah, aren't you? What does you believe will happen after that, and ... who do you believe will go to heaven? And you don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, right? I don't blame you, however, that so many don't believe because of the mixed opinions about matters of concern in the various sects calling themselves part of Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament, was written by Jews about Jews for Jews. Now if you want to read it and be inspired, more power to you. But it is you who is appropriating our scriptures, not the other way around.

Let me ask you a question. You say it was written by Jews about Jews for Jews. As I understand it, without going into too much detail, it starts the history of mankind with Adam. Do you believe that? Just wondering. Because maybe you believe Adam existed as written, or maybe you believe he was or was not a Jew.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It doesn't matter if Judaism "doles out" salvation. Or does not. You are expecting the Messiah, aren't you? What does you believe will happen after that, and ... who do you believe will go to heaven? And you don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, right? I don't blame you, however, that so many don't believe because of the mixed opinions about matters of concern in the various sects calling themselves part of Christianity.

What will happen after teh messianic era, which is the last era of the earth? I personally have no opinion. But I can tell you what Judaism teaches. That we will be resurrected and live in the world to come. This is kind of a sideline in Judaism, however. We don't obey God in order to obtain the world to come. We obey God because he is God and worthy of our obedience. It's a completely different mindset from that of Christianity, where the main teaching is to avoid hell and gain heaven.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let me ask you a question. You say it was written by Jews about Jews for Jews. As I understand it, without going into too much detail, it starts the history of mankind with Adam. Do you believe that? Just wondering. Because maybe you believe Adam existed as written, or maybe you believe he was or was not a Jew.

Adam was not a Jew. Adam was not even a historical person. A small part of Genesis speaks in mythological terms of the time before Abraham. Starting in chapter 12, it really doesn't address the non-Jewish world again. The focus is on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendents the rest of the Torah, and in the prophets.

 

[Eli G]

Adam was not a Jew. Adam was not even a historical person. A small part of Genesis speaks in mythological terms of the time before Abraham. Starting in chapter 12, it really doesn't address the non-Jewish world again. The focus is on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendents the rest of the Torah, and in the prophets.

OMG, and still thinking of themselves as the people of the God of the Bible!!!!

1 Chro. 1:1 Adam,
Seth,
Eʹnosh,
2 Keʹnan,
Ma·halʹa·lel,
Jaʹred,
3 Eʹnoch,
Me·thuʹse·lah,
Laʹmech,
4 Noah,
Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OMG, and still thinking of themselves as the people of the God of the Bible!!!!

1 Chro. 1:1 Adam,
Seth,
Eʹnosh,
2 Keʹnan,
Ma·halʹa·lel,
Jaʹred,
3 Eʹnoch,
Me·thuʹse·lah,
Laʹmech,
4 Noah,
Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth.

This genealogy is mytholgical.

 

[Eli G]

This genealogy is mytholgical.

Would you tell that to the authentic Jews in biblical times? What do you think they may answer to you?

In Hebrew HUMAN is "sons of Adam".

Deut. 32:7 Remember the days of old;
Consider the years of past generations.
Ask your father, and he can tell you;
Your elders, and they will inform you.
8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
When he divided the sons of Adam from one another,
He fixed the boundary of the peoples
With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.
9 For Jehovah’s people are his portion;
Jacob is his inheritance.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Would you tell that to the authentic Jews in biblical times? What do you think they may answer to you?

In Hebrew HUMAN is "sons of Adam".

In Jewish history, there have always been those who took it literally, and others who understood it was myth.