The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW

[Tumah]

Leave God out of this one. What is actually GOOD about your standard of goodness? I would argue that if you took a step back from your myopic perspective you'd see that all these people you think are evil and wicked and worthy of genocide in the right context care for their own the same way you do. Even scumbags love their own kids. Even bigots love their own race. If your religion says for you to be the same as a scumbag bigot who gets to think he's better than other people because the LORD of the universe draws His line separating good and evil in the middle of the deli aisle, what good is your religion?

All you are saying is that there are people who do evil and do goodness. You are right. As someone pointed out in another thread, even the Nazis went home and loved their families and fed their dog (excuse me for not quoting you whoever you are). I'm sure Hitler had someone he cared about as well.

However in some cases, you can observe that this is a wicked person who also does a good deed or two once in a while. And that is a good person who does a wicked deed once in a while. And then there are some that just straddle the line.

To me it seems like you are stereotyping me with Christian fundamentalists who look at everyone who is not a Christian fundamentalist as Satan. Some of your side-comments also suggest to me that you don't know much about Judaism, but that's a side issue.

I am observing that everything has its time and place and that includes love and hate. Hating doesn't mean violence. You believe that everyone should only love and this is the mandate of your god. I see no good coming out of loving Hitler. In fact, I see more violence coming out of it, when he takes the opportunity to shoot you in your back while you're giving him a hug.

I think your views on love are very extremist.

 

[Prophet]

All you are saying is that there are people who do evil and do goodness. You are right. As someone pointed out in another thread, even the Nazis went home and loved their families and fed their dog (excuse me for not quoting you whoever you are). I'm sure Hitler had someone he cared about as well.

Yay. Semblance of common ground.

However in some cases, you can observe that this is a wicked person who also does a good deed or two once in a while. And that is a good person who does a wicked deed once in a while. And then there are some that just straddle the line.

Evil people do not perform good deeds, because deeds and acts are not good or evil in themselves. It is the motive behind the act that is good or evil. It is in this way that the prophet Isaiah said these things:

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

To me it seems like you are stereotyping me with Christian fundamentalists who look at everyone who is not a Christian fundamentalist as Satan. Some of your side-comments also suggest to me that you don't know much about Judaism, but that's a side issue.

I am judging you alone as a Jewish fundamentalist who believes that God says you can reserve your goodness for those who share your race and ideas, and that is bigotry.

I am observing that everything has its time and place and that includes love and hate. Hating doesn't mean violence. You believe that everyone should only love and this is the mandate of your god. I see no good coming out of loving Hitler. In fact, I see more violence coming out of it, when he takes the opportunity to shoot you in your back while you're giving him a hug.

I think your views on love are very extremist.

If you were able to love Hitler, fully seeing him and accepting him exactly where he was at, you would cultivate the self-awareness to identify his failings like bigotry in your own life. Furthermore, loving Hitler does not preclude one from his assassination. Wouldn't a man who loved Hitler, but knew he must be killed for the good of the human race and did so be even more selflessness by giving up a cherished relationship on top of doing his duty?

 

[CMike]

If Jesus was not of the Levitical priesthood, nor of the Aaronical order he could be at times contrary to their Law.

What?

 

[Porque77]

So, when it fits your purpose context is important, but when I mention context you dismiss the idea that context matters.

Keep in mind that what disqualifies "your context" is the Gospel.

You, the non-Christians do not accept the Gospel, and from here come your wrong teachings.

The Gospel is the most wonderful thing ever known to mankind. And the Gospel reveals the true law and true commandments given by God to Moses.

 

[CMike]

Keep in mind that what disqualifies "your context" is the Gospel.

You, the non-Christians do not accept the Gospel, and from here come your wrong teachings.

The Gospel is the most wonderful thing ever known to mankind. And the Gospel reveals the true law and true commandments given by God to Moses.

Yeah.

Extremely beautiful

Luke 19:27"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

If you don't accept jesus as your ruler you are supposed to be murdered.

Sounds really compassionate to me.:clap

 

[Tumah]

Yay. Semblance of common ground.



Evil people do not perform good deeds, because deeds and acts are not good or evil in themselves. It is the motive behind the act that is good or evil. It is in this way that the prophet Isaiah said these things:

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

You are playing a semantics game here, because even according to what you are saying here, the evil thought behind the deed is what renders it evil.

I am judging you alone as a Jewish fundamentalist who believes that God says you can reserve your goodness for those who share your race and ideas, and that is bigotry.

And yet, since I've never expressed that my goodness should be reserved for those of my race and ideas, nor do I maintain such feelings, that would be imply that you are indeed stereotyping me with other religions' fundamentalism.

In fact, I don't believe that becoming Jewish is a necessary requirement to becoming righteous. Nor are all Jews righteous.

Unless you are referring to the fact that I'm Caucasian and are accusing me of racism...?

If you were able to love Hitler, fully seeing him and accepting him exactly where he was at, you would cultivate the self-awareness to identify his failings like bigotry in your own life. Furthermore, loving Hitler does not preclude one from his assassination. Wouldn't a man who loved Hitler, but knew he must be killed for the good of the human race and did so be even more selflessness by giving up a cherished relationship on top of doing his duty?

The first part of this is pure rubbish. Love and self-awareness are two completely separate things. For that matter, love and selflessness are also two completely separate traits.
Love is also blind. If you truly loved Hitler, you would wait to see if he might stop on his own that that he shouldn't have to die. Why are the Jews' blood more red than Hitler's?

 

[Prophet]

You are playing a semantics game here, because even according to what you are saying here, the evil thought behind the deed is what renders it evil.

I don't believe that I am. You said that bad people occasionally do good things. I demonstrated through understanding of your Isaiah that this is actually not the case. I do not understand the point that you think you are making. I'd love to hear you present a rationale, including what you believe Isaiah was really saying there.

And yet, since I've never expressed that my goodness should be reserved for those of my race and ideas, nor do I maintain such feelings, that would be imply that you are indeed stereotyping me with other religions' fundamentalism.

In fact, I don't believe that becoming Jewish is a necessary requirement to becoming righteous. Nor are all Jews righteous.

Unless you are referring to the fact that I'm Caucasian and are accusing me of racism...?

Sorry I was overlapping your bigotry with CMike's a bit. He's a bit more gung-ho on the nationalism I guess. But my mistake was only in identifying the extent of your bigotry. You probably just think goodness is required of you when others are good to you--that also is not goodness. That is completely self interested behavior--a trade for the treatment you want in return. And you'll prove that it's not actual goodness if you do not receive what your self-interested behavior was after by feeling cheated... and people blindly call acting in this way loving.

The first part of this is pure rubbish. Love and self-awareness are two completely separate things. For that matter, love and selflessness are also two completely separate traits.
Love is also blind. If you truly loved Hitler, you would wait to see if he might stop on his own that that he shouldn't have to die. Why are the Jews' blood more red than Hitler's?

I did not equate love and self-awareness. I only related them. I said love cultivates self-awareness. Maybe you have a rationale to present against that?

Ask CMike about the different shades of red as he expresses beliefs that some races are evil and should be wiped off the planet, because you're preaching to the wrong person.

Attached people commonly see love as an intense attachment when it is the end of attachment. For such people, what was love one moment can become hatred in the next because they are blinded by selfish desires they hide behind their "love".

 

[Tumah]

I don't believe that I am. You said that bad people occasionally do good things. I demonstrated through understanding of your Isaiah that this is actually not the case. I do not understand the point that you think you are making. I'd love to hear you present a rationale, including what you believe Isaiah was really saying there.

I'm not even sure what you were bringing the verses for.

29:13 is saying that people are paying lip-service to G-d, worshiping Him by wrote.

64:5 is saying that since G-d killed the righteous (in the previous verse), all that are left are the unrighteous, who don't call out to G-d (in the following verse).

Both of these verses are obviously generalizations, speaking about the nation as a whole, rather than the individual. Otherwise, Isaiah would be including himself. If there is one exception, there could be two or three or four or more. So what he is saying is that the general nature of the nation is one that is following a wicked path.

One could say the same thing about Nazi Germany. Despite the fact that Nazism is applied to Germany as a whole when discussing it, obviously not all Germans were Nazis. But since the general direction of the nation was towards Nazism, we call it Nazi Germany.

Sorry I was overlapping your bigotry with CMike's a bit. He's a bit more gung-ho on the nationalism I guess. But my mistake was only in identifying the extent of your bigotry. You probably just think goodness is required of you when others are good to you--that also is not goodness. That is completely self interested behavior--a trade for the treatment you want in return. And you'll prove that it's not actual goodness if you do not receive what your self-interested behavior was after by feeling cheated... and people blindly call acting in this way loving.

So you apologize for vilifying me based on an assumption and then make another assumption about me and base your opinion of me on that??

I did not equate love and self-awareness. I only related them. I said love cultivates self-awareness. Maybe you have a rationale to present against that?

Self-awareness is unrelated to love. You can have a grudge against some real wrongdoing someone did to you and still be aware that subsequent or other issues you have with that person are a matter of your own projected faults onto that person.

Maybe you personally use love as a medium to encourage yourself to self-awareness. But the two do not have to go hand in hand.

Ask CMike about the different shades of red as he expresses beliefs that some races are evil and should be wiped off the planet, because you're preaching to the wrong person.

Sorry, I actually do love CMike unconditionally. So I'm sure he had good intentions when he said that, because I know he is a good person at heart. You should try to be more understanding of where he is coming from.

Attached people commonly see love as an intense attachment when it is the end of attachment. For such people, what was love one moment can become hatred in the next because they are blinded by selfish desires they hide behind their "love".

Ok...

 

[Prophet]

So you apologize for vilifying me based on an assumption and then make another assumption about me and base your opinion of me on that??

You said yourself that God only says you have to be good to some people, not all people. What is that if not bigotry? I say you are applying your own human imperfection to God.

Self-awareness is unrelated to love. You can have a grudge against some real wrongdoing someone did to you and still be aware that subsequent or other issues you have with that person are a matter of your own projected faults onto that person.

Maybe you personally use love as a medium to encourage yourself to self-awareness. But the two do not have to go hand in hand.

You can shut one eye and see more poorly than you could have, but still see. You can shut one ear and hear more poorly than you could have, but still hear. Does it follow that eyes and ears are unrelated to seeing and hearing?

It is the same when you decide only to love some people--you only use a portion of your heart, so while you can be minimally self-aware, there's more you could see. Actually shut both eyes--love no one; then you'll see what zero self-awareness feels like.

Sorry, I actually do love CMike unconditionally. So I'm sure he had good intentions when he said that, because I know he is a good person at heart. You should try to be more understanding of where he is coming from.

I know its hard to see, but I'm understanding of both CMike and Nazis in the same way. It's very easy to trust superiors and peers and follow orders, just like Jews and Nazis did when they committed their respective atrocities. It's easy to hate on Nazis, but at least the Nazis didn't advertise the Holocaust as a good like the Jews did when they committed wholesale slaughter.

 

[Tumah]

You said yourself that God only says you have to be good to some people, not all people. What is that if not bigotry? I say you are applying your own human imperfection to God.

So you call hating, I don't know, let's say a serial murderer, bigotry. That's a little too extremist for me. Real life is not so black and white.

You can shut one eye and see more poorly than you could have, but still see. You can shut one ear and hear more poorly than you could have, but still hear. Does it follow that eyes and ears are unrelated to seeing and hearing?

It is the same when you decide only to love some people--you only use a portion of your heart, so while you can be minimally self-aware, there's more you could see. Actually shut both eyes--love no one; then you'll see what zero self-awareness feels like.

Then I would say you are shutting at least one eye. As much as you might have learn about yourself from loving one person, you can learn other things about yourself by examining who you hate. And I think that applies to all traits.

I know its hard to see, but I'm both understanding of both CMike and Nazis in the same way. It's very easy to trust superiors and peers and follow orders, just like Jews and Nazis did when they committed their respective atrocities. It's easy to hate on Nazis, but at least the Nazis didn't advertise the Holocaust as a good like the Jews did when they committed wholesale slaughter.

So your love of CMike causes you to believe that he is unable to think for himself and make his own decisions? I am happy not to be your wife.

You also appear to be stereotyping again.

 

[Prophet]

So you call hating, I don't know, let's say a serial murderer, bigotry. That's a little too extremist for me. Real life is not so black and white.

Those who feel they have a moral responsibility to hate murderers do so out of insecurity in their own goodness.

Feel free to ignore these verses if you want, I get the impression you don't respect much Jesus had to say.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Given the right circumstances, anyone who justifies hating another can justify murder just the same.

Then I would say you are shutting at least one eye. As much as you might have learn about yourself from loving one person, you can learn other things about yourself by examining who you hate. And I think that applies to all traits.

I'd love to hear an example of how hatred causes one to burst forth with a fountain of self-awareness.

So your love of CMike causes you to believe that he is unable to think for himself and make his own decisions? I am happy not to be your wife.

You also appear to be stereotyping again.

No, his own testimony tells me that he thinks it's okay to commit mass genocides upon women and children for vague charges of the other side being evil. He does not allow for himself to have room to question his reasoning in this--that maybe his own side killing women and children was evil. The rules are the rules and it says in the rules that they're all from God, right?

Do you know who else was big on rules? Nazis. Born into the right time and place, he'd make a good obedient, unquestioning Nazi.

 

[Prophet]

Woa! You are getting your view of the Torah from replacement theology even if you don't seem to be aware of that. Also written laws don't only fall short but they also go too far unless you zoom in on them and apply them properly. Supporting my point, Israel's judges are commanded to 'Judge fairly', which takes them down a zooming inward path into the depths of the Law rather than just the black lettering. They are forced in effect to find the path in between to reach the promised land, since they have to deal with laws which are either too much or too little. The law of Moses claims to be from God, which if true means that it has hidden depths. In that case here is what prophets of that God are supposed to do: They are peculiarly sensitive to the depths in the Law, and they pull out truths from those depths. Then they try to expose humanity to those truths. That is why they are always getting into trouble. Jesus, then, if he is a prophet will pull truths from the Law which other people have not seen, and he will naturally get other people upset. It is not at all a condemnation or rebuttal of the law by him and cannot be. Whether he was truly a prophet or not, that is not what we are discussing. That is the frame that he is expected to fit into however.

Replacement theology? Because I think being selfless fulfills the purpose of all law? Do you think I'm talking specifically about Mosaic Law? I'm not like you. I don't need to make special scenarios for ancient teachings where I get to ignore modern reason. I'm not talking about Christian law taking over for Mosaic law. I'm talking about the laws of every single civilization, ever.

However, I completely agree that rocking the boat on people's preconceptions on good and evil will cause those who incorrectly believed they were on the side of good to become quite upset and insecure, and this thread bears witness.

Please stop trying to moot the entire thread. On the planet we are discussing Jesus is a prophet. We don't know whether he's truly born of a virgin, and we don't care. We are not defending him against the charge of blasphemy, letting that question alone, and we are discussing whether Jesus affirms or denies the Law that he has received, at least that is what I was discussing.

All I care to moot is your dishonest argument that you should be able to ignore modern day reasoning when debating religious topics like blasphemy. That is an out-of-touch fundieville crazy land belief and it fits right in with other out-of-touch fundieville crazy land beliefs like the virgin birth and magical miracles.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Tumah has a point when he says "So you apologize for vilifying me based on an assumption and then make another assumption about me and base your opinion of me on that??"

Replacement theology? Because I think being selfless fulfills the purpose of all law? Do you think I'm talking specifically about Mosaic Law? I'm not like you. I don't need to make special scenarios for ancient teachings where I get to ignore modern reason. I'm not talking about Christian law taking over for Mosaic law. I'm talking about the laws of every single civilization, ever.

Yes. Replacement theology teaches that the Law of Moses was evil. It wasn't. The way M. Luther portrays it and the way that Christians today skim it corrupts its meaning.

However, I completely agree that rocking the boat on people's preconceptions on good and evil will cause those who incorrectly believed they were on the side of good to become quite upset and insecure, and this thread bears witness.

It bears witness that you entered into conversation presuming the dishonesty of everyone else which is natural fundamentalism.

All I care to moot is your dishonest argument that you should be able to ignore modern day reasoning when debating religious topics like blasphemy. That is an out-of-touch fundieville crazy land belief and it fits right in with other out-of-touch fundieville crazy land beliefs like the virgin birth and magical miracles.

I don't ignore modern day reasoning, but its useless for defining the ancient concept of blasphemy. I can't defend against accusations of both dishonesty and fundamentalism, but at least I'm not arguing from ignorance of the things I'm talking about. I'm not making presumptions about the Law of Moses and then saying that we were talking about modern laws. My knowledge of the topic of Moses Law doesn't derive only from the Jew hater M. Luther, and I'm willing to consider that I may not completely understand what its about. I'm not accusing people I've not met of hating me simply because I don't understand them very well.

 

[Tumah]

Those who feel they have a moral responsibility to hate murderers do so out of insecurity in their own goodness.

So, if I get this right, everyone who doesn't agree with you does so because of their own negative qualities.

I understand why you bring up bigotry a lot.

Feel free to ignore these verses if you want, I get the impression you don't respect much Jesus had to say.

I wouldn't deny that.

Given the right circumstances, anyone who justifies hating another can justify murder just the same.

That's a fairly extreme statement. I think this is where your black and white thinking comes in. Hatred is a spectrum, just like love is. There can be too much or too little of it. The trick is to find the middle path.

I'd love to hear an example of how hatred causes one to burst forth with a fountain of self-awareness.

Sure. And this is actually true. Just this morning, while taking a shower, I was contemplating our exchange and I realized that it left me slightly tense. Then I realized debate in general increases my level of tension in some measure. Then I wondered why I would consciously debate people, when it causes me to be tense.

I realize that there is some subconscious reason I began and continue to debate people, even though I don't find it relaxing. I decided I needed to contemplate it more.

And I don't like you so much.

See?

No, his own testimony tells me that he thinks it's okay to commit mass genocides upon women and children for vague charges of the other side being evil. He does not allow for himself to have room to question his reasoning in this--that maybe his own side killing women and children was evil. The rules are the rules and it says in the rules that they're all from God, right?

Your not very good at judging favorably yet are you?
It takes time. But when you really love someone, you'll be able to see everything they do in a favorable light.

Do you know who else was big on rules? Nazis. Born into the right time and place, he'd make a good obedient, unquestioning Nazi.[/QUOTE]

You know who else is big on rules? Governments. School principles. Parents. Police. Restaurants, surprisingly. Judges. Bosses. Stewardesses. Armies.

Can you make your point again, in a way that will be meaningful?

 

[Prophet]

So, if I get this right, everyone who doesn't agree with you does so because of their own negative qualities.

I understand why you bring up bigotry a lot.

Continuous straw man fallacy. Every post. You should get that checked out by a head doc.

Again, but more general, those who feel they have a moral responsibility to hate anyone does so out of insecurity in their own goodness. Those who don't possess the same murderous intentions as any murderer won't need anyone to point at as a being worse than them to uphold their image of their own goodness in their minds, and will instead see evil beings as they are instead of making self-aggrandizing comparisons. Beings like this use lesser beings as nothing more than a convenient counterweight for their own holiness. It is for this reason that Jesus rebuked the givers of the law saying they place heavy burdens on their people's backs and won't lift a finger to help them.

That's a fairly extreme statement. I think this is where your black and white thinking comes in. Hatred is a spectrum, just like love is. There can be too much or too little of it. The trick is to find the middle path.

I am enjoying your vague gospel of moderated hatred.

Sure. And this is actually true. Just this morning, while taking a shower, I was contemplating our exchange and I realized that it left me slightly tense. Then I realized debate in general increases my level of tension in some measure. Then I wondered why I would consciously debate people, when it causes me to be tense.

I realize that there is some subconscious reason I began and continue to debate people, even though I don't find it relaxing. I decided I needed to contemplate it more.

And I don't like you so much.

See?

The great revelation given to you by hating others is that you are doing things that cause you discomfort for reasons you haven't quite wrapped around and you need to contemplate more? Sounds like a regular oracle.

Your not very good at judging favorably yet are you?
It takes time. But when you really love someone, you'll be able to see everything they do in a favorable light.

Love is not favor. Love only causes favor when you love some and not others. When I say love you should love everyone, is it not implied that we should not favor anyone above anyone else and instead endeavor to see all impartially?

You know who else is big on rules? Governments. School principles. Parents. Police. Restaurants, surprisingly. Judges. Bosses. Stewardesses. Armies.

Can you make your point again, in a way that will be meaningful?

I'm sure he'd make a wonderful little rule following drone for any of those organizations. Yes, governments have rules, and when its citizens don't question these rules, these governments will oppress and take from it's people and others around the world. It is the same moral decay present in religious views that do not allow internal questioning.

 

[Prophet]

Tumah has a point when he says "So you apologize for vilifying me based on an assumption and then make another assumption about me and base your opinion of me on that??"

You think this is scoring you debate points? You doing a victory lap for someone else makes it painfully apparent how lacking you are for for any victories against me in your own right. You don't even bring a rationale to the table. Passing this cheerleading off as debate is pathetic.

Yes. Replacement theology teaches that the Law of Moses was evil. It wasn't. The way M. Luther portrays it and the way that Christians today skim it corrupts its meaning.
It bears witness that you entered into conversation presuming the dishonesty of everyone else which is natural fundamentalism.

That is really an interesting definition of fundamentalism being a skeptical view but I believe I have good reason to think your argument is dishonest. Fundamentalism implies an unwavering attachment to irreducible beliefs often choosing to not be skeptical. Like the following:

I don't ignore modern day reasoning, but its useless for defining the ancient concept of blasphemy.

You will be unable to demonstrate the charge of blasphemy or heresy to be anything more than the addition of legal consequences to questioning the law. Since you already know this, you make a dishonest argument that we should not regard advances in reason in our judgments of ancient laws.

I can't defend against accusations of both dishonesty and fundamentalism, but at least I'm not arguing from ignorance of the things I'm talking about. I'm not making presumptions about the Law of Moses and then saying that we were talking about modern laws. My knowledge of the topic of Moses Law doesn't derive only from the Jew hater M. Luther, and I'm willing to consider that I may not completely understand what its about. I'm not accusing people I've not met of hating me simply because I don't understand them very well.

Anyone calling a person dishonest without support is slander, but you won't hear a retraction demand from me, only support for my own ideas and rebuttals against yours. Nor will I be crying to this own forum's law keepers, that you need to be stopped or edited, because I am not threatened by those who disagree with me. Confident, honest people know how to handle disagreement.

You are backpedaling rapidly from another hidden position previously held that you have authority to define Christianity, a position you reiterated in about ten posts, and then accused me of dishonesty for not accepting your view. What do you think of people who accuse others of things of which they are demonstrably guilty? I believe the spiritual teacher Jesus called this hypocrisy.

I edited the portion in red to talk specifically about your opinions rather my judgments upon you, yourself, to make this post fully compliant.

 

[Porque77]

Yeah.

Extremely beautiful

Luke 19:27"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

If you don't accept jesus as your ruler you are supposed to be murdered.

Sounds really compassionate to me.

That is already answered. You do not understand what the Gospel says in that passage. I remember you the answer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMike
You may remember this...
Luke 19:27
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

This teaching is for the kingdom of heaven. God is the King, and his servants, the angels will kill all demons.

But you don't may apply that law in this world of men, because the commandments that men should obey also were taught by Jesus Christ:

"Then Peter came and said: Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Till seven? Jesus said: I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven." (Matthew 18: 21-22)

"If you had known what this means, I want mercy and not sacrifice, you wouldn’t have condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12: 7)

The commandment of Jesus Christ for the men is this:

"And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill" (Matthew 19)

Quote:
The only Torah is the one given to the jews by G-D. At least the only one for jews

You are wrong, because the true God's Torah is the Torah of the Gospel. And the Gospel tells the men must preach to all peoples of the world, and that those who believe will be saved:

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned". (Mark 16:15-16)

 

[RabbiO]

...You do not understand what the Gospel says in that passage.

And you certainly do not understand the verse from Jeremiah that you keep parroting. Maybe it is about time that you finally explain how you came up with your understanding or, perhaps better put, your lack of understanding of that verse.

 

[Porque77]

And you certainly do not understand the verse from Jeremiah that you keep parroting. Maybe it is about time that you finally explain how you came up with your understanding or, perhaps better put, your lack of understanding of that verse.

It isn't mi understanding. Simply the verses from Jeremiah 8:7-8 say that God's law was changed by the scribes. And this is written and you can not deny it.

The Gospel is which gives us the true Law that God gave to Moses. And is the gospel what must follow all peoples of the world.

There is no longer Jew or Greek, nor Roman, because the Gospel is God's law for all towns of the world:

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned". (Mark 16:15-16)

 

[RabbiO]

Simply the verses from Jeremiah 8:7-8 say that God's law was changed by the scribes. And this is written and you can not deny it.

Actually, I can deny it --- but then I know Hebrew and you don't. But even if I were to accept the translation, it still, in context, does not say what you think it says. As long as you pretend that it is possible to read a verse in a vacuum, without regard to person, time and place you'll never get it right.

Apparently my skill as a writer is insufficient to convince you of the need to conduct further inquiry, to expand your knowledge, so I will leave you to play happily in the little box you have locked yourself into.