To my Jewish friends on this forum...

[Kenny]

Hey, I know there are some atheists and agnostics who have a better understanding of the scriptures than some Christians, let me tell ya.

LOL... no argument here. What I do know is that they are real good at twisting scriptures too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I do know is that they are real good at twisting scriptures too.

For example?

 

[Kenny]

Any outsider can give you a more open-minded, objective account of what the words mean. He has no agenda to make it seem like the words of a god, so he has no need to try to explain why failed prophecies aren't really failed prophecies, and internal contradictions aren't really contradictions, and errors in history and science aren't really errors at all once you look at them just right.

The skeptic is fine with the idea that the scriptures are flawed. The believer won't even consider that. It's not an error - it's an allegory. And a day isn't a day. And saved by faith and saved by works mean the same thing. The skeptic has no reason to invoke such verbal gymnastics, and that makes him a more objective interpreter of what scripture says.

I guess you proved my point?

1) I was an outsider until 28. Are you saying I wasn't open minded? Wasn't objective?
2) Do you assume that somehow a believe is not objective but an outsider is because somehow he is better?
3) Are you the judge of what are failed prophesies at the expense of what believers interpret the prophecies to mean?
4) Is it you are more of a literalist?
5) The fact that you say "skeptic" could be a show that one isn't open-minded. Maybe could be but potentially not because a skeptic can be sayinge, "You have failed prophecies, IYO, and you won't convince me otherwise"... quite close-minded IMV.

So, in reality, you just validated my position.

But I'm OK with it.

 

[Kenny]

For example?

God is a genocidal maniac.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

God is a genocidal maniac.

I don't see that as twisting Scripture, personally.

That's reading Scripture, then applying modern-day views and critical thinking.

 

[Kenny]

I don't see that as twisting Scripture, personally.

That's reading Scripture, then applying modern-day views and critical thinking.

It would be like us saying that the Allied Forces were war-mongering nations when they attacked German forces. Seems like a twisting to me and a lack of critical thinking. Now... "modern-day anti-Christian God view?" yes.. .that would nail it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

It

That is a nice excuse to use when others saw through the deception. That is a defensive verse. They are indicative that a work did not come from God.

It also seems to point out that according to the gospel authors jesus did not want to be undrestood. I guess, according to the gospel authors, the point was for people to walk away confused or not having an idea what jesus was even talking about.

 

[DNB]

I would trust a Jewish person's interpretation of the scriptures, since they are originally theirs, than a Christian.

Jesus, the twelve Apostles, Paul, and all the early Church members were devout Jews, to which Jesus insisted that they should receive the Gospel exclusively - how in the world are Christians not qualified to interpret the TaNaKh?

 

[InChrist]

I'm sorry but you are simply mistaken. We have the story of Elijah raising a child from the dead -- but this resurrected child was not the messiah (or God).

Basically, Jesus had his chance. He tried. He failed. Time to move on.

In what way do you specifically believe Jesus failed to demonstrate He is the Messiah? I am just curious and sincerely interested in your thoughts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In what way do you specifically believe Jesus failed to demonstrate He is the Messiah? I am just curious and sincerely interested in your thoughts.

Well let's look at what the messiah is supposed to due, which is basically reign during the idyllic messianice era. He is to usher in an era of worldwide peace (Jesus didn't). He will bring all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Jesus didn't). He will rule from Jerusalem (Jesus didn't). Is this making sense to you?

 

[RestlessSoul]

It also seems to point out that according to the gospel authors jesus did not want to be undrestood. I guess, according to the gospel authors, the point was for people to walk away confused or not having an idea what jesus was even talking about.

I think it was more a case of Jesus being aware that the language of the spirit is meaningless to those who have closed themselves off to spiritual matters.

 

[Brian2]

Only they didn't. Just look at what was done to Leviticus, or the entire process of the King James Version bible.

What was done to Leviticus?
The KJV has errors and the good thing is that many errors have been fixed in the KJV. This site gives some reason for those errors.
King James Bible Errors
Over the years the study of texts has revealed errors which have entered the Bible and which have not been pointed out and in many instances eliminated. But even in modern translations there are still errors it seems.
There are also differences in Jewish translations into other languages of course so your concentration on the KJV seems unwarranted. It is just another translation with errors like other translations.

So which one actually happened?

There are four Canonical Scriptures (which right there is a problem) that have numerous contradictions between themselves. Contradictions that, while small, present a narrative issue with the claim that "This is what happened". As well, elements like the lineage of Jesus that must be explained away with dubious "historical" cultural norms. Did you know in the Gospels Judas has three very different deaths? As well, this discounts other accounts of "what happened", other gospels that were written, because politically they presented a narrative that the Church did not want. So they favored stories written down 50-100 years after Jesus' death by anonymous authors.

This ex cold case cop says that the differences (or many of them at least) indicate witness reports which vary between witnesses.
Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability (Video) | Cold Case Christianity
There are of course many things that a lot of people call contradictions but which are not and are just the story from a different perspective and leaving out or adding what other versions have or have not included. The story of Jesus birth and early years can be harmonised along with other things in the gospels that look like contradictions to some.
I think the different versions of the death of Judas also can be harmonised into one story.
From the pov of a believer the genealogies also can be explained.

The gospels that were not accepted were the ones written later,,,,,,,,,,,, in the 2nd century, the ones with influences of other religions eg gnosticism.
The synoptic gospels we have were written before 70AD going by the evidence. It is only John's gospel that was written late and from a different perspective, with information that the others did not include or have.
The authors of the gospels we have can be worked out from the internal evidence and Church tradition. It appears to be the false gospels, written late, that are not anonymous and I would say, that is a good way of identifying them as forgeries that the authors wanted to be accepted as real by adding their names.
What you are saying is sort of the opposite to the true history as far as I can see and you are accusing the early church of lies about Jesus from the beginning. What history books do you read that teach you these things?

 

[Brian2]

Maybe not as there was belief in resurrection, but the resurrected was not the messiah.

There was no belief in a resurrection to eternal life for Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

Can you show, based on the Hebrew language alone without translation, how that works on the below?

View attachment 68754

No, you know I don't read Hebrew.

Sorry, but I don't find what you wrote convincing. You would have to show me how all of that is supported in a Hebrew Tanakh W/O TRANSLATION.

Are you saying that you want me to show where the Messiah is said to be killed and resurrected in the Tanach?

If you don't mind me asking, do you have a Hebrew or Aramaic text from the time period where they explain all of that for themselves?

The Gospel of Matthew is said to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally but the text is lost if it existed.

Yeah. The original Jewish Christians seperated themselves from the Torath Mosheh Jews of that generation. The original Jewish Christians also appear to have beleived that what ever concept of redemption they had was going down in their generation. Thus, they decided not to marry or own property. When their end game didn't happen, they didn't have 3rd generation to continue their movement and a few of them went to the Roman non-Jewish peoples and convinced them to take up some of their concepts while inserting others.

Are you saying that the spread of the gospel message from Jerusalem to the world did not happen as written in the Acts of the Apostles?
If so, why do you think that?

 

[1213]

Most atheists were once Christians or other religion.
And many have actually read at least one version of the bible, unlike many christians

And even if not, it is not for me really annoying. It is more like amusing. Good thing about it is that it opens a chance to correct possible wrong ideas.

 

[Brian2]

You don't have to be a scholar. I am certain we are both honest adults. I will set up the zoom and I provide the most ancient of Hebrew Tanakh texts (plural). Then you call out whatever passages you know of and I will pull them up so we can both see them, in the zoom, I will explain what it means, directly from the Hebrew, show where I get every single thing I tell you from and then you show me how it supports your concept.

See, it isn't hard at all. I am the one who has do most of the leg work.

So what do you say?



Actually, what I was talking about is if you show up thinking that you know what the Hebrew says when you don't know Hebrew then yes, then it is your thinking that would make it pointless.

If you come in honest that you have no idea what is actually in the Hebrew text and we both are honest about what it says and what it doesn't when I show you visually what it says and what it doesn't then there may be a point.

So, again, you have literally nothing to lose and there would be little to no effort on your part. If you think I as a Jew have misunderstood the Hebrew Tanakh this is your chance to show me how.

So, what do you say?

I think you have done all the leg work already and have built your web and are waiting for a Christian to step into it.
I have already heard from some Jews what they say about various text and it sounds reasonable to me at times even if different to the Christian translations but a Christian scholar could do the same with this ignorant Christian.
I do know that the Masoretic text is the basis for Jewish and Christian translations of the Hebrew scriptures but the Christians also use other older texts where they think it might be appropriate and no doubt where these agree with what is written in the New Testament. These would include the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint since it seems to have been the scriptures in common usage in Jesus day.
I know Jews have their reasons for their translations but Christian scholars also have reasons.
Thanks anyway. You can go and be satisfied that what you thought would happen actually happened.
But you never know, one day I might be in the mood and accept your offer, not that I think I could teach you anything.

 

[Brian2]

No, I know of no such thing. Not only do I NOT think that Jesus ascended, I do NOT even think he rose from the dead. The gospels and the book of Acts combine a lot of legend with history. They are not reliable accounts of what actually happened. I think Jesus died, and his followers had a case of bereavement delusion. You would be surprised to hear just how common it is for those who are grieving to see the dead person.

You are the one making the claim that he rose from the dead, thus you are the one responsible to supply adequate proof, and you cannot.

No I cannot prove it but I hear it is unreasonable from a phychological perspective to say that so many followers of Jesus experiences the resurrected Jesus and heard Him speak and say Him ascend etc.
Yet the Hebrew prophecies from what I see, do point to Jesus being the only possible candidate for the Messiah, and other having come too late. And of course I see Jesus having fulfilled prophecies with His dying and rising. But all this is just silly talk for a Jew who has learned that these things in the Hebrew scriptures have to mean something else.

 

[Colt]

It also seems to point out that according to the gospel authors jesus did not want to be undrestood. I guess, according to the gospel authors, the point was for people to walk away confused or not having an idea what jesus was even talking about.

Jesus most certainly did want his spiritual teachings to be understood by the ear of the spirit.

 

[ChristineM]

And even if not, it is not for me really annoying. It is more like amusing. Good thing about it is that it opens a chance to correct possible wrong ideas.

Both ways.

Though i have found some are happy to live with wrong ideas rather than upset their faith

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Jesus most certainly did want his spiritual teachings to be understood by the ear of the spirit.

If you say so.