There ain't no Jesus here.

[Akivah]

What do you see?

It looks just like jesus! Or perhaps Krusty.

 

[Akivah]

All I can say is Mary must have been one hot babe that God Himself chose her to have His kid.

Probably just as hot as Alcmene. Zeus choose her and sired Hercules. Hercules has as much claim to be a messiah as does jesus.

 

[rosends]

These passages confirm what I have been saying. Jesus, as Israel was first-born (physically begotten). Jesus lived under the law (of Israel) until he was about thirty. At about thirty he was baptised by John in the Jordan. This baptism is the anointing (of Christ), the point at which the spirit of God is begotten in Jesus. Jesus is physically begotten and Christ is spiritually begotten.

These passages go against what you are saying. Remember "Jesus is referred to as 'the only begotten son of God'." And now you say "Israel was first-born (physically begotten)." Your later distinction between "physically" and anything else is a necessary invention on your part, unsubstantiated by the texts in question. Later quotes on your part from the gospels to support your point only further show that one cannot read the original text and find what you claim is there. One needs later texts.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Probably just as hot as Alcmene. Zeus choose her and sired Hercules. Hercules has as much claim to be a messiah as does jesus.

Wait a second! Mary was engaged to Joseph when God got her pregnant! If I was Joseph, I would be mad, not just at Mary but God. I would say, "Mary, you cheated on me. And God, you expect me to raise your kid?" I mean shouldn't God have offered some kind of child support? And if God can get an engaged woman pregnant, does that mean we are allowed as well?

 

[metis]

I think it is far more likely that the early church believed that Jesus was of God but not God because there are many verses whereas Jesus talks about "the Father", so they simply cannot be one and the same.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The preposterous is in the nature of the event. That G-d should impregnate a woman is ridiculous and baseless.

If you consider the impregnating of a woman to be 'ridiculous and baseless' then you can't have much regard for God as the giver of life. JSB Psalm 139,13-16. 'It was You who created my conscience, You fashioned me in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am awesomely, wonderously made; Your work is wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from You when I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in Your book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of them.'

Acceptance of miraculous events is not the same as acceptance of ridiculous events. Further, the concept negates the possibility for the messiah to be a king of the Davidic line.

As above. The Psalm makes it clear that in God's eyes such miracle is not ridiculous.
Matthew chapter 1 gives us the Davidic line for Jesus. Some translations can cause difficulties, but the original Greek is helpful.

No they didn't.
It's 200 years emptiness, 2000 years Torah and 2000 years for the [time frame] of the Messianic Age. We are currently in the year 5776.. That would place the start of the Messianic Age in the year 240 CE.

Not according to my copy of the Talmud. 'The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'
That accounts for the six days of creation. Where your calculations of AM lose the 240 years I do not know - but it's worth checking out. I do know that Bishop Ussher's calculations of time from Adam onwards took him to Jesus' birth in 4004 AM.
We also know that Jews were expecting a Messiah because a Jew called Simeon spoke to Mary at the Temple saying,'Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.'
Another, a woman called Anna, also prophesied. She 'spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.'

No, I'm not going to take the word of the guy who made up the whole story to begin with.

This guy was a Jew and a Roman citizen. He was so much against Christians that he persecuted them. Maybe you should take an interest in what he has to say. He was a learned Jew and knew what it meant to be zealous of the law.

These words have no meaning.
In all the passage, I have sought to understand the passage within the context they were written. Any other understanding of the passage is you reading into the verse what you want, rather than taking out of the verse what it says.

The immediate context is important, but so too is the wider context and application. Let's not forget that this is God's word and it needs to be revealed. The scripture cannot be broken, which means that the true interpretation must lie in the Word itself.

That's you're way of writing me off, and is false. I completely accept that prophecy is the Word of G-d. That has no bearing here. You are making G-d's word say something that is not being said. You are twisting G-d's Word for your own needs.

I'm sorry that I should give that impression. I'm not writing you off. I'm trying to uncover the truth of scripture from God himself. My interpretation, devoid of the scriptural support, is of no meaning whatsoever.
The NT scriptures, particularly those written by Paul - who you have dismissed without fair reading - show that Jew and non-Jew will be included in God's kingdom. But Jesus is a stumblingstone to many, which is why only 'a remnant' of Israel are to be counted amongst that number. It may well be that many non-Jews will also be 'cut off'.
What is to happen to you if Paul's writings turn out to be true?

 

[Brian Schuh]

If you consider the impregnating of a woman to be 'ridiculous and baseless' then you can't have much regard for God as the giver of life. JSB Psalm 139,13-16. 'It was You who created my conscience, You fashioned me in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am awesomely, wonderously made; Your work is wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from You when I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in Your book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of them.'

As above. The Psalm makes it clear that in God's eyes such miracle is not ridiculous.
Matthew chapter 1 gives us the Davidic line for Jesus. Some translations can cause difficulties, but the original Greek is helpful.

Not according to my copy of the Talmud. 'The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'
That accounts for the six days of creation. Where your calculations of AM lose the 240 years I do not know - but it's worth checking out. I do know that Bishop Ussher's calculations of time from Adam onwards took him to Jesus' birth in 4004 AM.
We also know that Jews were expecting a Messiah because a Jew called Simeon spoke to Mary at the Temple saying,'Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.'
Another, a woman called Anna, also prophesied. She 'spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.'

This guy was a Jew and a Roman citizen. He was so much against Christians that he persecuted them. Maybe you should take an interest in what he has to say. He was a learned Jew and knew what it meant to be zealous of the law.


The immediate context is important, but so too is the wider context and application. Let's not forget that this is God's word and it needs to be revealed. The scripture cannot be broken, which means that the true interpretation must lie in the Word itself.


I'm sorry that I should give that impression. I'm not writing you off. I'm trying to uncover the truth of scripture from God himself. My interpretation, devoid of the scriptural support, is of no meaning whatsoever.
The NT scriptures, particularly those written by Paul - who you have dismissed without fair reading - show that Jew and non-Jew will be included in God's kingdom. But Jesus is a stumblingstone to many, which is why only 'a remnant' of Israel are to be counted amongst that number.It may well be that many non-Jews will also be 'cut off'.
What is to happen to you if Paul's writings turn out to be true?

So if I believe in my heart that Jesus came back to life and confess him as lord, I shall be saved. St. Paul said so. So here it is, I believe he came back to life and he is lord. Now I'm saved. And belief in trinities and virgin births is not even required. Now I can forget all about it and get back to studying Torah. Happy now?

 

[Tumah]

If you consider the impregnating of a woman to be 'ridiculous and baseless' then you can't have much regard for God as the giver of life. JSB Psalm 139,13-16. 'It was You who created my conscience, You fashioned me in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am awesomely, wonderously made; Your work is wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from You when I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in Your book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of them.'

Yes, G-d forms and creates man. He causes the seed to impregnate the egg and causes the man to be formed. Which is what's being discussed there. He Himself doesn't impregnate. And that concept is baseless.

As above. The Psalm makes it clear that in God's eyes such miracle is not ridiculous.
Matthew chapter 1 gives us the Davidic line for Jesus. Some translations can cause difficulties, but the original Greek is helpful.

Yes. A futile attempt to pass the Davidic line through a foster-father. Another baseless claim.

Not according to my copy of the Talmud. 'The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'

That's probably because like everything else you receive, your translation comes through a Christian.
What it actually says is:
It was taught in the house of Elijah: The world exists for 6,000 years. 2,000 years of desolation, 2,000 years of Torah and 2,000 years of the Days of the Messiah. And in our sins that have multiplies, it was taken out from that, what was taken out."
Meaning the last 2,000 years was meant to be the Messianic Age. But our sins have caused the total number of actual years to diminish.

That accounts for the six days of creation. Where your calculations of AM lose the 240 years I do not know - but it's worth checking out. I do know that Bishop Ussher's calculations of time from Adam onwards took him to Jesus' birth in 4004 AM.

Oh, that's cute. The Rabbis make a statement that would support you, but their caluclations ruin it, so you kick their calculations and take their statement.
Your bishop doesn't help you here.

We also know that Jews were expecting a Messiah because a Jew called Simeon spoke to Mary at the Temple saying,'Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.'
Another, a woman called Anna, also prophesied. She 'spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.'

Says a book written long after the supposed event, trying to convince other that the event happened...

This guy was a Jew and a Roman citizen. He was so much against Christians that he persecuted them. Maybe you should take an interest in what he has to say. He was a learned Jew and knew what it meant to be zealous of the law.

Elisha ben Abuya was also a learned Jew. It means nothing.

The immediate context is important, but so too is the wider context and application. Let's not forget that this is God's word and it needs to be revealed. The scripture cannot be broken, which means that the true interpretation must lie in the Word itself.

The wider context is what you've imposed on it. It doesn't get wider than the Torah itself. G-d's Word doesn't need to be revealed, it was already revealed. That's what the book is. Stop making up your own theology to support your claims and just read what it says.

I'm sorry that I should give that impression. I'm not writing you off. I'm trying to uncover the truth of scripture from God himself. My interpretation, devoid of the scriptural support, is of no meaning whatsoever.
The NT scriptures, particularly those written by Paul - who you have dismissed without fair reading - show that Jew and non-Jew will be included in God's kingdom. But Jesus is a stumblingstone to many, which is why only 'a remnant' of Israel are to be counted amongst that number.It may well be that many non-Jews will also be 'cut off'.

If you were really trying to uncover the truth, you'd read the book on its own terms and not the terms that men put on it.

What is to happen to you if Paul's writings turn out to be true?

What is to happen to you if Paul's writings turn out to be false?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Wow, that was easy. It takes 5-10 years of study for a convert to become Jewish but I got saved (according to St. Paul) in about 5 minutes. And there is nothing I have to do or change about my life, as all my sins past, present and future are forgiven. And on top of that, there is still no need to read the New Testament, go to church or even think about Jesus ever again! Why didn't I get saved a long time ago?

 

[metis]

Yep, I call such an approach "rocking-chair religion"-- just sit back, think some politically-correct thoughts about Jesus, and you're saved!

Fortunately, most Christian denominations don't teach that.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Yep, I call such an approach "rocking-chair religion"-- just sit back, think some politically-correct thoughts about Jesus, and you're saved!

Fortunately, most Christian denominations don't teach that.

Yeah Christianity is too easy. Maybe that's why it spreads like a wildfire. To join just takes reciting a magic formula. Maybe the reason there are only 13 million Jews in the world is because it's so difficult. There must be hundreds of millions if not over a billion Christians. Most people choose the path of least resistance. Christianity just doesn't challenge me.

 

[First Baseman]

So if I believe in my heart that Jesus came back to life and confess him as lord, I shall be saved. St. Paul said so. So here it is, I believe he came back to life and he is lord. Now I'm saved. And belief in trinities and virgin births is not even required. Now I can forget all about it and get back to studying Torah. Happy now?

No, you sound insincere. You wish to express belief in the Christ and yet refuse to hear His teaching?

 

[First Baseman]

Yep, I call such an approach "rocking-chair religion"-- just sit back, think some politically-correct thoughts about Jesus, and you're saved!

Fortunately, most Christian denominations don't teach that.

Getting saved is a spiritual experience, it isn't going to a ball game or kicking back in a chair. It is the moment the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to you and you accept it.

 

[Brian Schuh]

No, you sound insincere. You wish to express belief in the Christ and yet refuse to hear His teaching?

Already read his teachings and read all the apostles too. No matter if I'm sincere or not, having an obsession to read the same book over and over and over again or to ritualistically recite the Nicene Creed or to say the same prayers out of the same prayerbook day after day after day is not required. I don't know why or how people get addicted to religious ritual.

 

[First Baseman]

Already read his teachings and read all the apostles too. No matter if I'm sincere or not, having an obsession to read the same book over and over and over again or to ritualistically recite the Nicene Creed or to say the same prayers out of the same prayerbook day after day after day is not required. I don't know why or how people get addicted to religious ritual.

Who told you such things were required? It certainly wasn't Jesus Christ. We don't call Him our King for nothing. He over rules the pope and any and everyone else.

John said best what makes a person a Christian and what doesn't in John 3:16-18. Paul well stated that works are not required to be saved. I think you were either taught wrong or you just totally misunderstand the entire intent of the New Testament authors.

 

[roger1440]

Already read his teachings and read all the apostles too. No matter if I'm sincere or not, having an obsession to read the same book over and over and over again or to ritualistically recite the Nicene Creed or to say the same prayers out of the same prayerbook day after day after day is not required. I don't know why or how people get addicted to religious ritual.

What is required? Quote your source please.

 

[metis]

Getting saved is a spiritual experience, it isn't going to a ball game or kicking back in a chair. It is the moment the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to you and you accept it.

But the reality is that this would only be the beginning as over and over again there's expectations of how one must act. One example, as found in Matthew 25 with the Parable of the Sheep & Goats, the "Goats" have the belief about Jesus but don't act on what Jesus taught.

Also, Paul states there's "faith, hope, and love", and he says the greatest of these is "love". In Koine Greek, "agape" is an active noun, namely one just doesn't have love, they live love. This is why so many theologians over the years refer to Jesus' message as "the law of love", and Paul refers to faith w/o love as being like "cymbals clashing"-- lots of noise but with nothing behind them.

So, the question begs whether one believes in Jesus or just about Jesus, with the former being the "Sheep" and the latter being the "Goats". The unfortunate reality, as Gandhi mentioned on a fair number of occasions, all too many self-professed Christians "elevated the man and forgot his message". The Sermon On the Mount was a call, not to just belief, but also too action, but the unfortunate reality is that all too many have the former but don't do the latter-- what I call "rocking-chair religion".

A true belief should create a fundamental change in a person for the better, but I have seen all too many cases where it hasn't done that. Sometimes I'm tempted to ask some people "Do you belong to the Church of the Pit Bull?", they're so aggressive and condescending. That's not the tone whereas I see Jesus coming from as recorded in the gospels.

BTW, ever read "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas Kempis? The above is some of the points he makes but far more eloquently than I can muster.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wow, that was easy. It takes 5-10 years of study for a convert to become Jewish but I got saved (according to St. Paul) in about 5 minutes.

Where in the 5-10 years of study does one learn how to distort and slander another religion?

Parenthetically, I know a number of converts and none of them required 5-10 years of study to effect the conversion. Apparently your sense of Judaism is as skewed and self serving as is your caricature of Christianity.​

 

[metis]

Where in the 5-10 years of study does one learn how to distort and slander another religion?

Parenthetically, I know a number of converts and none of them required 5-10 years of study to effect the conversion. Apparently your sense of Judaism is as skewed and self serving as is your caricature of Christianity.​

I took BS's post as being a sarcastic reference to what I have called "rocking-chair religion", but it appears that you interpreted what he was saying in another way. Hopefully, he'll come back and explain exactly what he was putting forth. I haven't seen hardly any previous posts by him, so I really don't know his background, therefore maybe you're right and I'm wrong on this.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Where in the 5-10 years of study does one learn how to distort and slander another religion?

Parenthetically, I know a number of converts and none of them required 5-10 years of study to effect the conversion. Apparently your sense of Judaism is as skewed and self serving as is your caricature of Christianity.​

Moses said not to let the name of false gods be on your lips. He also said not to stop hating proselytizers to idolatry.

Look, if one wants to be a Reform Jew, I'm sure it doesn't take the 5-10 years it takes to be an Orthodox Jew.