you won't be able to say, "Gosh, I didn't know....."
Dear Dave,
Your decision to become an anti-christ drove you to create a website so
that you could take as many people to hell with you as possible....Am I
right?
Whatever you do, just remember this:
(1) The Bible tells us that, in the end times, there would be many
false prophets spewing forth lies about God and the Bible. You fit that
bill.
(2) The Bible tells us that, in the end times, many would be beheaded
for their belief in Jesus. "Beheaded" - not "shot", "drowned", or
"choked to death". Beheaded. The only people in the universe who still
behead are the Muslims - and you'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not
see that they have already begun to behead and torture the "infidels",
and are slowly taking over the planet!
(3) The anti-christ (who should be showing his face anytime now,
because the time is ripe) will be making a seven-year peace treaty with
Israel. When that happens, I would urge you to rethink your position about
God, because it won't be long before His return. There WILL be a
Judgment Day, and those who preached AGAINST God will suffer the
consequences throughout eternity.
And since you supposedly used to be a "Christian", you won't be able to
say, "Gosh, I didn't know....."
Carmen @ The Refiner's Fire
http://www.therefinersfire.org/
Your decision to become an anti-christ drove you to create a website so
that you could take as many people to hell with you as possible....Am I
right?
Whatever you do, just remember this:
(1) The Bible tells us that, in the end times, there would be many
false prophets spewing forth lies about God and the Bible. You fit that
bill.
(2) The Bible tells us that, in the end times, many would be beheaded
for their belief in Jesus. "Beheaded" - not "shot", "drowned", or
"choked to death". Beheaded. The only people in the universe who still
behead are the Muslims - and you'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not
see that they have already begun to behead and torture the "infidels",
and are slowly taking over the planet!
(3) The anti-christ (who should be showing his face anytime now,
because the time is ripe) will be making a seven-year peace treaty with
Israel. When that happens, I would urge you to rethink your position about
God, because it won't be long before His return. There WILL be a
Judgment Day, and those who preached AGAINST God will suffer the
consequences throughout eternity.
And since you supposedly used to be a "Christian", you won't be able to
say, "Gosh, I didn't know....."
Carmen @ The Refiner's Fire
http://www.therefinersfire.org/
Comments
You said: (Disgusting words deleted)...You should " RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!! If my Pagan Spirituality is Wrong, then I will gladly go to hell. The good thing is... people like you won't be there.
Why should anyone respect your "authoritah"? Who are YOU? (You can't spell, for one thing....) Trust me, you WILL go to hell for your "pagan spirituality"! And when you're there, you won't like it one bit.
What is it you people hate so badly about God? From the looks of what 99 percent of you have written, you don't even have a clue as to who He is! So, what's your problem? Are you simply letting off steam because you can be anonymous?
And to "cdmon" who said, "I bet it was some fundie hackers trying to close down this site." - Why don't you PROVE your unfounded allegation with some facts. Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!
All you people on this site love to accuse and rant and resort to name-calling. Somebody told "Carmen" to "grow up". What makes you think she's NOT grown-up? Do you know her? Are you simply angry because she dared to post something on your precious site that you don't agree with?
I've read much of this thread, and most of you haven't said anything coherent. So what's the purpose of responding? You just want to rant?
If anybody should "grow up" it's those who have written a bunch of stuff and said NOTHING!
Define God... and provide a means to discern between the singular term of god, and the many gods that can exist metaphysically...
Anonymous: "Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!"
Really... Well, seems god is still no more competent than when he created our species, who are naturally defective and born sinful, according to religion...
Since you are here, "Anonymous"... and its obvious you have nothing to lose here, so no cool points are going to fall off of your plate... Can you answer a few questions... Why are many religious people in general ashamed to be nude in front of other people in society? Is it because, its natural to be ashamed of ones' body, or... is it because they were taught shame and guilt as little children based on the episode in the garden of eden... Do you think there should be laws banning nudity in society?
Why?
You dumbass. I HAVE THE FUCKING T-SHIRT. It says in simple english.
"RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH". I guess you never watch the show: SOUTH PARK. It is above your intelligence to understand. That is why you are a CHRISTIAN LOSER.
If my PAGAN & WICCAN ways are wrong, and I do go to YOUR HELL. I will go happily. Is SATAN that bad???? Who told you so??? Thew same folks that told you Mary Magdalene was a WHORE. She was no WHORE, that was you mother.
Ok Ok Ok. A simple solution. I want GOD to appare here, right now. Tell me I am wrong. Show me a few easy magick tricks. You bet your ass I will be on my knees, blowing his cock for all eternity.
well well well!!! He is a no-show. I am still sitting here typing. No God. No burning bush. Not even a fart outa the old GEEZER.
BLIND FAITH is not for me. So Anonymous if you can base your whole life, on BLIND FAITH that is your choice. Not mine. You will never win me over to your DARK SIDE.
Now go away and cry like the babe you are.
Blessed Be
Lemming
Trust you? Why in the world would I trust an anonymous poster on such a matter? I think it far more prudent for me to rely upon my own research and reasoning, and to reach my own honest conclusions. If you think otherwise, please give some justification.
Anonymous: "What is it you people hate so badly about God? From the looks of what 99 percent of you have written, you don't even have a clue as to who He is!"
Those are some very broad and inflammatory assertions. By "you people" do you mean to include all the regulars here? Maybe just those you disagree with? Who? And how does one "hate" something that is thought to be nonexistent? I don't hate the god of Abraham any more than I hate Zeus, Qetzaqoatl, or poltergeists. Many other here will tell you the same thing.
As for not knowing who "He" is, I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. Most of us know the Bible very well, and were at one point believers. We discuss points of theology continually with visitors like you, and have earnestly studied your religion. So, what is your assertion based on?
Anonymous: "So, what's your problem? Are you simply letting off steam because you can be anonymous?"
The only "problem" I have is with those who wish to push their religious beliefs on others, and who fail to show basic courtesy toward those who disagree with them. I am not "letting off stream," but confronting what I think to be groundless accusations, and also trying to understand what motivates belief in supernatural entities. Finally, I am not anonymous, but you are. As a rule, I do not fault those who wish to remain anonymous; however, you are the one who raised the issue, so perhaps you would like to explain.
Anonymous: "And to 'cdmon' who said, 'I bet it was some fundie hackers trying to close down this site.' - Why don't you PROVE your unfounded allegation with some facts. Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!"
First, cdmon made no allegation; he prefaced his statement with "I bet", which indicates that it is a "guess" or a "conjecture." Given the venom that is routinely directed at the webmaster, this site, and its participants from fundamentalists, I'd say there is more than sufficient grounds for voicing such a guess. And, of course, your guess has even less to back it up (unless you're simply not sharing your evidence with us).
Anonymous: "All you people on this site love to accuse and rant and resort to name-calling."
I do not accuse, nor do I rant, nor do I name-call. Thus, your statement is false.
Anonymous: "Somebody told 'Carmen' to 'grow up'. What makes you think she's NOT grown-up?"
How about this: She came to this site, which is populated by people who have made a deliberate decision to leave Christianity, and she started a thread with ugly threats of Hell. She asked incredibly simple-minded questions, which betray little or no understanding of the historical roots of her own religion, and she made broad accusations (as you too have done) with absolutely nothing to back them up. To me, all of that indicates immaturity, so I think the admonition to "grow up" was not out of place.
Anonymous: "Are you simply angry because she dared to post something on your precious site that you don't agree with?"
No. I discuss things daily with people who disagree with me. In fact, I feel that such discussions are a good way to learn and to grow. Are you angry that we don't agree with you?
Anonymous: "I've read much of this thread, and most of you haven't said anything coherent. So what's the purpose of responding? You just want to rant?"
To me that looks like an excuse to not reply. If you want to discuss something of substance, I'm always open to that, as are many others here. And, by the way, I believe I've been perfectly coherent. If you think otherwise, then it's up to you to demonstrate where I have lacked coherence.
Anonymous: "If anybody should 'grow up' it's those who have written a bunch of stuff and said NOTHING!"
As cdmon said above, you protest to much... (and say nothing). Your blanket dismissal suggests to me that you do not care to face any of the substantive issues raised here. For example, can you explain the extensive similarities between Christianity and older religions? Can you explain why nothing specific was written about your purported savior until decades after his (alleged) death? Can you provide any evidence or cogent argument to support the existence of *anything* supernatural? Can you articulate *one* attribute of your god that can be supported by evidence?
Looking forward to a substantive (and civil) response from you.
Well, I just checked back to see what other responses my initial comment got, and it seems nothing has changed. Now you’re all over somebody for wishing to remain “Anonymous”. If you don’t like people being anonymous, why do you offer that choice in your “Post a comment” link?
You are all still very snotty and sarcastic. That being the case, why do expect believers in Christ to lay down and play dead? I couldn’t help but smile at your latest comment to “Anonymous”:
“Looking forward to a substantive (and civil) response from you.”
It’s amazing that you didn’t make the same comment to “Lemming” whose vocabulary seems limited to cussing and childish rants, and who has no problems spouting off that he is a Wiccan and ends his posts with “blessed be”. Nobody seems to mind his cussing or his belief. There wasn’t ONE response to his “blessed be” post! But that’s typical for unbelievers and those who believe in pagan gods….
It seems all beliefs are tolerated in your chatroom – except, of course, belief in Jesus, which immediately has people all over it like dung flies, spitting and hissing and screaming bloodymurder. The Bible tells us that this would happen, and sure enough, it’s just another truth gleaned straight from the Word of God.
I know you asked the following of “Anonymous” but since he/she is obviously not bothering to respond, I will do it for him/her.
Jim said: “Trust you? Why in the world would I trust an anonymous poster on such a matter? I think it far more prudent for me to rely upon my own research and reasoning, and to reach my own honest conclusions. If you think otherwise, please give some justification.”
Carmen’s response: Anonymous, or not – if someone has some insight, why not listen? If you were ever a “Christian”, then you know that it’s dangerous to rely on your own limited, human mindset. Although we’re an intelligent species, we are not God; we ARE limited. If you don’t believe that, then just try to create a planet from nothing, or explain why water is the ONLY liquid substance that freezes from the top down, or why it is impossible for bombardier beetles to evolve. Explain, if Man evolved from apes, WHERE did the apes come from? And if your immediate response is “From some warm pond at the beginning of time” then please tell me WHERE the pond and its amoebas came from….
We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing. For instance, I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence. But it wasn’t until I “found God” that I became free – free from the bigoted and arrogant “anything goes” world which is slowly going to hell in a hand basket. If Man is so smart, then how come we have high school “graduates” who can’t read or write? How come we have college graduates who couldn’t tell you how many moons the earth has, or how many continents there are! Why didn’t Man stop Hurricane Katrina or any of the other Bible-prophesied natural disasters (“the worst in history”) that have already or will take place in the near future? (For that matter, if Man is so smart, why the heck did he build New Orleans BELOW sea level?) Why hasn’t Man conquered all the diseases of the world? Why is it that even old diseases such as Foot and Mouth, or Bubonic Plaque are returning?
GOD put everything in the universe exactly where it needed to be. For instance, the earth is placed "just the right" distance from the sun; any closer and we'd burn up. Earth's orbit is nearly circular, this slightly elliptical shape means that we enjoy a quite narrow range of temperatures, which is important to life, and the speed of Earth's rotation on its axis is perfect for humans because it allows the sun to warm the planet evenly. What causes this phenomenon? Do you honestly believe it "just happened" that way? How could so many things working in perfect tandem "just happen"?
Unless you are willing to realize that God truly IS, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that He IS in charge, you will be bound up in Man’s condition – Satan’s plan.
I don’t say all this to make you angry, but think. I’ve got an article (still in draft form but already uploaded onto my website) which tries to explain God. If you’re honestly interested in an answer to your questions, please read it: http://www.therefinersfire.org/personal_relationship.htm
Anonymous said: "What is it you people hate so badly about God? From the looks of what 99 percent of you have written, you don't even have a clue as to who He is!"
Jim responded: Those are some very broad and inflammatory assertions. By "you people" do you mean to include all the regulars here? Maybe just those you disagree with? Who? And how does one "hate" something that is thought to be nonexistent? I don't hate the god of Abraham any more than I hate Zeus, Qetzaqoatl, or poltergeists. Many other here will tell you the same thing.
Carmen continues: I don’t know what “Anonymous” meant by “you people”, but I happen to agree with him/her. None of the comments in this thread indicates that anyone actually KNOWS a thing about God. And you all indeed DO “hate” Him. Just re-read the threads! The moment anyone mentions the name of Jesus, people go bonkers! Only Jesus can provoke people like that, and that’s because the Truth hurts, and their “carnal” selves simply cannot take it because they think THEY are in charge…. Nobody seems to think about the fact they don’t have any “power” or real control over anything, or that their lives could end at any time, and there’s nothing they can do to stop it. We are NOT in charge of anything, really. We are very limited.
Jim said: “As for not knowing who "He" is, I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. Most of us know the Bible very well, and were at one point believers. We discuss points of theology continually with visitors like you, and have earnestly studied your religion. So, what is your assertion based on?”
Carmen’s response: I wouldn’t go so far as to say “most” of you know the Bible. (“Most” said nothing of value and gave only their own unproven opinions about the Bible.) SOME of you might have read the Bible, but even so, just because you’ve read a book doesn’t make you the author. Unless you have the Holy Spirit residing in you, you can’t understand the Bible. This is evident by the comments from various atheists that “God is evil” and “He eats children”, or whatever. If you truly KNEW God and what the Bible actually says, then you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s the TRUE Word of GOD and He is NOT evil: He is JUST. Most people can’t handle that fact. They don’t want anyone telling them what to do, let alone adhere to the Ten Commandments – all of which were GOOD for Man, yet Man has turned them upside down to where “good” is now considered “evil” and vice versa.
If you had really read the Bible WITH the help of the Holy Spirit, then you would realize that hundreds of prophecies have already come true and are unfolding before our very eyes. No other “holy book” in the world can make the same claim. And if hundreds of prophecies have already come true, what makes you think the rest of them won’t? See my Israel, Bible and Prophecy page: http://www.therefinersfire.org/ibp.htm along with http://www.therefinersfire.org/accurate_messiah_prophecies.htm
I challenge anyone in this thread to refute these prophecies using actual PROOF that they didn’t happen! I also challenge YOU to prove that God doesn’t exist….
Jim said: The only "problem" I have is with those who wish to push their religious beliefs on others, and who fail to show basic courtesy toward those who disagree with them.
Carmen’s response: So why don’t you tell people like “Lemming” the same thing? Does he show “basic courtesy” to believers? I don’t think that his comment “You bet your ass I will be on my knees, blowing his cock for all eternity” is exactly courteous…..So, how about YOU showing some fairness to all sides. Why do you even allow such nastiness at all?
Jim said: For example, can you explain the extensive similarities between Christianity and older religions?
Carmen’s response: Can you PROVE that Christianity “borrowed” from “older religions”? The Jewish religion is “older” than any of the pagan religions. Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. The idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah. That was at least 8,000 BC, right after we are told that God created the universe and everything in it….
Mithraism, for instance, only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.
In the meantime, many have copied from the Bible. Take Islam, for example. Their “final prophet” Mohammed (who was a murdering, thieving pedophile) took Scriptures straight out of the Tanach (Old Testament) and twisted them to suit his purposes – 600 years AFTER Yeshua (Jesus) was nailed to the cross.
Jim said: Can you explain why nothing specific was written about your purported savior until decades after his (alleged) death?
Carmen’s response: Partly because most people of that time couldn’t read or write. However, His teachings WERE written down because they ultimately reached through generations and time and STILL touch people! Immediately after Yeshua’s death, numerous followers spread his teachings, and the result of those teachings eventually developed into what is known as “Christianity” (even though Christianity is off the mark because they keep forgetting that Yeshua was a tallit-wearing, synagogue-attending, Sabbath and feast-keeping, Torah-observant Jew who said He came not to abolish but to fulfill/establish/confirm the Torah).
“Nothing specific” was written down about most of our forefathers until decades later, either…. And NONE of them are able to say they are known worldwide to the extent that Yeshua is. None of them touched the world and changed people’s lives like He did.
Jim said: Can you provide any evidence or cogent argument to support the existence of *anything* supernatural?
Carmen’s response: In order to believe in God, all you have to do is look at the universe and life. If you can’t see something “supernatural” in that, then I’m wasting my time here. Also, since I “got saved” I have had several supernatural experiences – which I won’t bother to post because no doubt everyone reading it will jump all over and try to debunk it. But the fact remains, I WAS instantly cured of a “lump” immediately after God “touched” me 12 years ago. I WAS rewarded in several ways including financially after I became a believer. Those are facts that happened and nobody can take away from me.
Jim said: Can you articulate *one* attribute of your god that can be supported by evidence?
Carmen’s response: One attribute? Besides the fact that He was able to create the universe out of nothing and that you were able to be born as a result of His making the wonderful anatomy of male and female reproductive systems? How about His grace and mercy which allow you to have eternal life, should you desire it? He sent Himself to earth in the form of a man so what Man could better understand God and the things of God, and then that aspect of God allowed Himself to be killed on the cross as the Final Sin Sacrifice. Yeshua alone is evidence of God’s grace and mercy, for rather than to kill us all off and start over again, He has given us a final chance to live with him forever. Since you’re an “ex Christian” you should know that it’s all in the Bible – the very Bible which has been and still is unfolding before our eyes.
Unfortunately, most people don’t and won’t understand. They prefer to think we evolved from apes and that Man has the power to chart his own course. Well, keep your eyes on current events. It won’t be long before the Anti-Christ signs that seven-year peace treaty with Israel. And then all hell WILL break loose!
Carmen @ The Refiner's Fire
First of all, I know it is hard for you to believe, but most of the people that frequent this site are indeed ex-Christians. A few have been quite rude and used words that would warrant a slap from grandma, but most are actually quite normal everyday people.
I believe the webmaster himself was a Christian for over 30 years. I am sure he was able to absorb about everything about Christian theology that you could possibly tell him.
I'm sure you haven't taken any time to read anything on this site or you would realize that most of these people stopped being Christians, not because as you put it, "decided to become an anti-Christ and take as many people to hell..",
Rather they for various reasons stopped believing in the existence God, Christ, Hell, the Devil, the whole thing.
I haven't come across anyone here, or any Atheist/Agnostic that just woke up one day and said, hey, I think I will start hating God today!
How can someone "spew lies about God" if they don't believe he exists? How can they hate God if they believe he doesn't exist? That would be like you hating the easter bunny, even though you know there is no easter bunny to hate!
In response to the "End Times" comment. I'm sure you realize that the end times have been predicted every year since the dawn of Christianity. It says in the Bible itself that Jesus would return before all of the disciples were dead.
You can say, well, nah, the times are more obviously ripe for it now than ever! The signs are there:
Natural disasters, civil problems, and other catastrophes.
The problem is, those are all things that happen every year in every part of the world.
The only beheading I have been hearing about is related to the Iraq war, and they (the fundalmentalist nutjobs that horrify Muslims themselves) are beheading people that are working with the "coalition forces", and they could care less if they are Christian, Muslim or Atheist. (read up on news articles about this)
In any case if you are trying to witness, you are not doing a very good job at it, no offense, but in the first place, you're preaching to the ex-choir here- we've seen everything you posted many many times before (lots of us used to even believe it!)
Second of all threatening and namecalling is not very "Christ-like", and whats more, even human nature tells us you gather more flys with honey than vineger!
You should study the Atheist/Agnostic positions on various subjects to understand them better to help you in your debates.
However, we are graced with your human mindset, and rhetoric.
Carmen: "We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing. For instance, I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence."
And, now you no longer need intelligence to respond to posts, just pure faith.
Carmen: "If Man is so smart, then how come we have high school “graduates” who can’t read or write?"
Carmen: "We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing. For instance, I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence."
Its obvious that high-schoolers are taking the advice of the religious, to leave intelligence behind, to the point, that all they have is faith in what someone tells them, because faith did't teach them to read and write.
Carmen: "How come we have college graduates who couldn’t tell you how many moons the earth has, or how many continents there are!"
Because all they need is faith. No knowledge, and they are happy to be led around mystified by some religious leader.
Carmen: "Yeshua’s death, numerous followers spread his teachings, and the result of those teachings eventually developed into what is known as “Christianity” (even though Christianity is off the mark because they keep forgetting that Yeshua was a tallit-wearing, synagogue-attending, Sabbath and feast-keeping, Torah-observant Jew who said He came not to abolish but to fulfill/establish/confirm the Torah)."
"Pronouncement about the Sabbath - Of all the problem passages plaguing the New Testament, Mark 2:23-28, Jesus' pronouncement about the Sabbath, surely ranks as one of the most troublesome. It reads as follows:
"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And Jesus said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."
Here the disciples were clearly breaking the law of the Sabbath as the Pharisee correctly pointed out. But Jesus defended them by saying that they were hungry and needed food. So their situation made an act that would otherwise have been wrong proper for them to do. This story has Jesus advocating situation ethics, an anathema to most Bible believers. Situation ethics denies the doctrine of absolutism so fundamental to the devout Christian. But there are other problems with this passage more serious than that of the application of situation ethics. Jesus here condones the breaking of the law - - 4th Commandment. It reads - Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. How does this square with Jesus' famous statement in Matthew 5:17-19? While delivering the hallowed sermon on the mount he declares with passion, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
The writer of Mark obviously did not do his homework before composing this passage. He has Jesus make two statements that are inconsistent with the Old Testament story to which it refers. This story is found in I Samuel 21:1-6. In it the high priest is Abimelech not Abiather as Jesus says. Also according to I Samuel, David was not in the company of other men. He was alone. He only pretended to have others with him. It makes Jesus appear foolish."
Jesus, didn't follow the Sabbath, Carmen.
___________________________________
Lesson One:
TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (613 commandments enumerated in the Torah (five books of Moses), or (b) any Jewish law at all.)
remain binding forever, and anyone coming to "Change" the Torah is immediately identified as a FALSE PROPHET (Deut. 13:1-4.
Deuteronomy 13:1 - If there arise among you A Prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deuteronomy 13:2 - And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; (The Romanized God, starting at Paul, using Jesus as a Prophet or the Sign)...
Deuteronomy 13:3 - Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deuteronomy 13:4 - Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. He if fact, is keen to disregard the Sabbath, on a number of occassions.
Jesus claims the following, which contradicts the Torah, or commandments, which said false prophets would come and attempt.
John 1:45 - Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 9:16 - Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
Jesus fulfilled the prophesy that there would be false prophets, who would show up, and teach against the Torah, any self respecting Jew who has a modicum of understanding of the Torah understands this, well, that is, if they are intelligent and capable of reading, which requires slightly more than blind faith, that seems to be running rampant in the school systems.
WRONG! He most certainly did - Read the Scriptures! He was a Torah-observant, Sabbath and feast-keeping Jew!
In John 15:10 Jesus said "I have kept my father's commandments" and we can also find from scripture that Jesus attended church on the Sabbath day. "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16
Most Christians don’t even understand the fact that He said He came NOT to abolish but to FULFILL Torah. The Hebrew word properly translated is “establish” or “confirm”. He never said He came to do away with His own, original teaching and instruction!
Matthew 5: 17 Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah – not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot (words/commands) and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachers and P'rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Has everything happened that must happen? Have heaven and earth passed away yet? If not, why are you NOT observing Torah?
What did the Apostles do?
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2. "Paul and his company ... went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14. "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13. "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.
Did the Gentiles also worship on Sabbath?
God commanded it: "Blessed is the man ... that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it." "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer ... for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:2, 6, 7, emphasis added.
The apostles taught it:
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44, emphasis added. "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.
Please read my article at http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_not_christian.htm.
Furthermore, you won't find anything in the Scriptures that references the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday. Some argue that Constantine was responsible for changing the Sabbath because he hated the Jews. No matter who instituted Sunday worship, in Yeshua's time, both Jews and Gentiles alike, regularly attended the synagogue for worship on the seventh day, and the fact that interested Gentiles in Antioch requested further instruction of Paul "on the next Sabbath" is irrefutable evidence that no separate Sunday (1st day) meetings were being held there by those early Christians: The Gentiles were willing to wait an entire week, till the next Saturday, for a meeting because they knew that Paul and his companions did not normally meet for worship on a Sunday. Acts 13:42-44 tells us that, on the next Sabbath (Saturday) almost the whole city arrived for the meeting.
Furthermore, the fact is, neither the Father nor the Son has ever claimed the first day as His own in any higher sense than He has each or any of the other laboring days. Neither of them has ever placed any blessing upon it, or attached any sanctity to it. The Bible tells us God expressly reserved the seventh day to Himself, placing His blessing upon it, and claimed it as His holy day. (Genesis 2:1-3.) Moses told Israel in the wilderness of Sin of the sixth day of the week, "Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Exodus 16:23.
You people are unbelievable. I’m sorry, but the responses you’ve been giving me are typically “Christian”. Christians all think “Jesus nailed it to the cross” (a totally misunderstood prhase!). That is because you are looking at the Bible through a Gentile “Greek” mindset. You’re not grasping the smallest facts because you haven’t got a clue about the Hewbrew language. For instance, the woman with the “issue of blood” supposedly touched “the hem” of Yeshua’s garment. That would imply she crawled down on the ground to touch the bottom of his “dress”. But the Hebrew says she touched his “tsit-tsit” – which are the braids/tassels (no English word for them) on the four corners of his tallit (prayer shawl). These “braids” spell out the Name of God….
Someone said: “Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. He if fact, is keen to disregard the Sabbath, on a number of occassions.”
Yeshua NEVER contradicted Torah! READ your New Testament again because YOU are seriously misunderstanding what He said! Paul’s teachings, especially, are the most misunderstood in history. Read: http://www.therefinersfire.org/book_of_romans.htm
The following is a small sampling of some of the misinterpretations of Paul's writings:
Question: Did Paul say the Law (Torah) was nailed to the cross?
Col 2:14 - He wiped away the bill of charges against us. Because of the regulations, it stood as a testimony against us; but he removed it by nailing it to the execution-stake.
Answer: No. He wiped away the documented opinions of men (bill of charges) against us and took them from our midst....
The Torah is holy, righteous and good. To suddenly have it "nailed to the cross" would mean that the things of God were originally evil, something to be done away with.
Paul also said, concerning the opinions of men:
Col 2:16 - So don't let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat.
This doesn't mean Paul was negating Torah. He was warning about the opinions of men concerning these things - NOT giving permission to transgress or dismiss them.
Someone said: “The only beheading I have been hearing about is related to the Iraq war, and they (the fundalmentalist nutjobs that horrify Muslims themselves) are beheading people that are working with the "coalition forces", and they could care less if they are Christian, Muslim or Atheist. (read up on news articles about this)”
Excuse me, but WHO are the ones doing the beheading? It’s the MUSLIMS and the Muslims ONLY! WHO flew airplanes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers? The MUSLIMS! The Muslims have been busy terrorizing the US and the world for over 25 years, and the worst is yet to come. The Bible warms us about them. Islam is the “beast” of Revelation. If you don’t believe me, check out this link which includes a link to an Ex-Muslim’s website that shows actual beheadings by MUSLIMS: http://www.therefinersfire.org/islam_peace_or_beast.htm
Someone said: “ I believe the webmaster himself was a Christian for over 30 years.”
Someone can be a “Christian” for a hundred years. That doesn’t mean he was “saved”. If you’ve truly been saved, you CAN’T turn back. I know this from experience. I’d venture to say that many , if not most Christians, are nothing more than “pew warmers” who wouldn’t know God if they fell on Him. Yes, they talk a good game, or they might know the Bible inside out, but if their head and their hearts have never connected, then they are just as lost as atheists. Like that old adage goes: Just because you eat at McDonald’s it doesn’t mean you’re a hamburger….
Well, it’s the Shabbat, and I’m through for the weekend. I would suggest you all open your hearts and try to digest what I’ve said. But, judging from your responses, you won’t. You are all too busy being snotty and arrogant, with a driving desire to lash out and put people down.
I love the comments about my not being “Christ-like”! You can’t take it when someone tells it like it is, can you? It really irks you to think that a believer in Christ would DARE to talk back to you like you talk to us. Well, these are the end times and there isn’t much time left. The time for pussy-footing around is over with. I’m not “witnessing” as someone tried to insinuate.
Personally, I couldn’t care less WHAT you believe! I just like to let people know that God IS, and whether you accept Him or not is not my problem. Like I always say, “At least on Judgment Day, you won’t be able to say, ‘I didn’t know’.”
Carmen
Carmen: "...Now you’re all over somebody for wishing to remain “Anonymous”..."
I think you are confused. Go back and re-read my comment regarding this.
Carmen: "You are all still very snotty and sarcastic. That being the case, why do expect believers in Christ to lay down and play dead?"
You are calling me "snotty" and "sarcastic"? Let me ask you a very straightforward question, and I do expect an answer. Who has been more civil in this discussion: You or Me? Next, asking questions is in no way equivalent to expecting someone to "lay down and play dead". In fact, it's quite the opposite. I've quite consistently asked believers to STAND UP and DEFEND their ideas.
To "Anonymous" I said “Looking forward to a substantive (and civil) response from you.” Carmen replied "...It’s amazing that you didn’t make the same comment to “Lemming”..."
I did not enter into a discussion with Lemming. I don't have the time to engage every poster.
Carmen: "...But that’s typical for unbelievers and those who believe in pagan gods…."
What is typical? I don't follow.
Carmen: "...It seems all beliefs are tolerated in your chatroom – except, of course, belief in Jesus, which immediately has people all over it like dung flies, spitting and hissing and screaming bloodymurder."
This is an EX-CHRISTIAN site, so CHRISTIANITY is more germane than, say, paganism or Buddhism. As for "spitting and hissing", far more of that issues from believers than the regulars here. But it proves absolutely nothing, regardless of where it comes from.
Carmen: "...The Bible tells us that this would happen, and sure enough, it’s just another truth gleaned straight from the Word of God."
Yes, the Bible does indeed "predict" that there would be those who will not believe, and will rise up against the church. Frankly, I can't think of a safer bet than that, so it seems totally unremarkable to me. EVERY religion has its detractors.
Carmen: "...Anonymous, or not – if someone has some insight, why not listen?"
You miss the point entirely. The TOTAL content of the message was "X is the case, Trust me." There was NO insight of any kind offered. Thus, the full weight of the argument rested upon the trustworthiness of the poster, who was ANONYMOUS!
Carmen: "If you were ever a “Christian”, then you know that it’s dangerous to rely on your own limited, human mindset."
Human reason is not foolproof; with that I agree. I've rambled on about this countless times on this site. As a mere human, I (like everyone else) am susceptible to all sorts of errors, and I've committed practically every fallacy in the book at some point in my life. However, I've yet to see what alternative is available, other than making my best effort to learn and to honestly look for and try to mitigate errors in judgment. You clearly believe that an there is a channel of supernatural knowledge that can be tapped into; however, after extensive study, I have reached the conclusion that your claim is based on myriad fallacies, and I therefore reject it. That does not make my reasoning perfect; it simply circumvents one more source of fanciful and ungrounded thinking.
Carmen: "...If you don’t believe that, then just try to create a planet from nothing, or explain why water is the ONLY liquid substance that freezes from the top down, or why it is impossible for bombardier beetles to evolve. Explain, if Man evolved from apes, WHERE did the apes come from? And if your immediate response is “From some warm pond at the beginning of time” then please tell me WHERE the pond and its amoebas came from…."
Water is NOT the only substance that freezes from top to bottom. Other substances also expand when they form crystals (e.g. bismuth and gallium). You ask where the apes came from. You could as well ask where any multi-cellular creature came from. The evidence from paleontology, genetics, embryology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, etc. all point to the very same answer; from a single common ancestor. All of your subsequent questions of the form "Where did X come from?" have two properties: 1) at least partial answers can already be given by science, and 2) even if they were completely mysterious, they would still not indicate the presence of a deity. (The latter would be a fallacious argument from ignorance, which is a species of ignoring alternative explanations).
Carmen: "We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing...."
No, I think that is exactly what we must NOT do, for the simple reason that if belief precedes reason, then belief is unfounded. Having no rational grounds for a particular belief means that it is left to chance: i.e. to the prevailing beliefs when you were raised, etc.
Carmen: "...I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence. But it wasn’t until I “found God” that I became free – free from the bigoted and arrogant “anything goes” world which is slowly going to hell in a hand basket."
How is it that you can claim to have once thought like me? You know very little about me; you know nothing of my education, or my beliefs, or how I came to hold those beliefs. Then you seem to imply that I am a resident of some imagined "bigoted and arrogant" world. You have no basis for that either. It appears that you are simply hurling accusations at me because I do not subscribe to your particular belief system. If so, then I could quite legitimately pin the labels of "bigot" and "arrogant" on you.
Carmen: "If Man is so smart, then how come we have high school “graduates” who can’t read or write?"
Because many schools are abysmal. Because many teachers are sub-par. Because many kids have a terrible home environment.
Carmen: "How come we have college graduates who couldn’t tell you how many moons the earth has, or how many continents there are!"
Same a above.
Carmen: "Why didn’t Man stop Hurricane Katrina or any of the other Bible-prophesied natural disasters (“the worst in history”) that have already or will take place in the near future?"
Just because man cannot accomplish something, it surely does not follow that there is a god who can. Also, please show me where Katrina is unambiguously prophesied in the Bible. Does it specify a time, location, severity, or anything that could not apply to countless other disasters at virtually any time in history?
Carmen: "GOD put everything in the universe exactly where it needed to be."
You've not provided one iota of evidence that said being exists, let alone that he/she/it is responsible for any specific action. Thus, your statement is simply a dogmatic assertion. It does not further the discussion at all.
Carmen: "...the earth is placed 'just the right' distance from the sun; any closer and we'd burn up. Earth's orbit is nearly circular...."
All such arguments are fallacious, as they *assume* a collection of a priori attributes that must be satisfied, rather than acknowledging the possibility that the environment SHAPED THE ATTRIBUTES. More on this below.
Carmen: "Do you honestly believe it 'just happened' that way? How could so many things working in perfect tandem 'just happen'?"
No, I don't believe it "just happened". However, I like to have my cart BEHIND my horse, not the other way around. That is, our needs match what is available on this Earth, it is not the Earth that was provided by divine fiat to fulfill our needs.
Carmen: "Unless you are willing to realize that God truly IS, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that He IS in charge, you will be bound up in Man’s condition – Satan’s plan."
So, unless I believe in one invisible conscious entity, another invisible conscious entity will do harm to me. Yet neither one of these invisible conscious entities can be directly detected, and neither wishes to show themselves. Moreover, the evidence that you provide for these entities comes from 1) personal (subjective) experience, 2) ancient scripture that exhibits all the hallmarks of legend, and 3) unexplained phenomena in the physical world. I see no reason to think your explanation is any more real than those of other religions.
Carmen: "I don’t say all this to make you angry, but think."
And I wish to make *you* think. Fair enough?
Carmen: "I’ve got an article (still in draft form but already uploaded onto my website) which tries to explain God. If you’re honestly interested in an answer to your questions, please read it: http://www.therefinersfire.org/personal_relationship.htm"
I just took a quick look at what you wrote. I'm going to try to be as civil as I can in expressing this, but I'm afraid it's going to sound harsh if I am honest about it. Virtually every sentence of your article is filled with absurd assumptions, so it would take a tome to sort through it. Let's take your very first paragraph....
From Carmen's article: "It seems that people will argue to the death about the fact that Man evolved from monkeys. But hardly anybody ever says, 'Okay, so where did the monkeys come from?' Evolutionists always want to start with a "warm little pond" someplace on Earth, as opposed to discussing such incidentals as the source of matter, space, time, planets, stars and operational laws such as laws of planetary motion, First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc. They never tell you that there is Evidence Against Evolutionism From Molecular Biology, or that some things that couldn't possibly have 'evolved', such as the bombardier beetle."
Your first "observation" about scientists not wondering where the monkeys came from is so outlandish I'm almost speechless. To me it indicates that you've not availed yourself of any scientifically sound treatments of the subject. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You are projecting a six-year-old mentality onto scientists, and then scoffing, which is simply a straw man argument.
Concerning a "warm little pond" (Darwin's quaint phrase): Evolutionists are generally concerned with EVOLUTION, not the origin of life. The two issues can be and are routinely studied independently. In fact, many choose to believe that life began through divine fiat, then evolved. There is nothing inherently contradictory in that statement (albeit, I see no reason to believe it is so). Similarly, the "origin" of space and matter is another independent question. Modern physics has shed considerable light on this, although I think it's prudent to still regard it as largely a mystery. As for molecular biology, it is a STUNNING VINDICATION of evolution. It's one of the pillars of the theory. Yes, there remain many unanswered questions, and a few pieces that seem not to fit, yet the overall theory is an absolute goldmine of confirming evidence for evolution. The existence of pseudo-genes is the "smoking gun" that Darwin could have scarcely imagined, and the detailed comparisons of proteins and their encodings has validated the overall structure of the phylogenic tree. The argument about the bombadier beetle is a tired old fallacy, used by creationists, that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. But the fact is that such mechanisms have very plausible evolutionary paths (just like the flagellum, the eye, blood clotting, the mammalian inner ear, etc.), which are described in numerous sources if you care to look. One book I recommend is "The Blind Watchmaker", by Richard Dawkins.
Your first paragraph is so completely off base that it would take me far longer than I care to spend spelling it all out (and besides, I've already addressed most of these fallacies in other posts). I'm not even going to touch your comments about thermodynamics because I've explained those misconceptions ad nauseam already in dozens of other posts at this site. However, if you can show me that you are resourceful enough to look up the actual definitions of these laws, and spell out what difficulties you think they present, I will be happy to discuss it further with you. I'd also like for you to consider why thousands of competent scientists who use these laws on a daily basis in fields such as molecular biology do not see any contradictions with evolution.
Carmen: "...None of the comments in this thread indicates that anyone actually KNOWS a thing about God."
None of your comments indicate that you "know" god either, if you interpret that word in the personal sense. However, nearly all of us here "know" god in the academic sense (i.e. having learned about the purported being through books and discussions). Moreover, most of us *thought* we "knew" god/Jesus (in a personal sense) at one time, then came to realize that it was a mind-game of sorts that exploits our inherent human proclivity to see things in the light of interpersonal relationships. (Recent scientific evidence points to this inherent tendency as the root of religious conviction.)
Carmen: "...And you all indeed DO “hate” Him. Just re-read the threads!..."
You've simply asserted the same faulty proposition, only with an exclamation mark this time. You did not address the issue of how one "hates" something that is thought to be non-existent. Until you can address that issue squarely, the ball remains in your court.
Carmen: "...The moment anyone mentions the name of Jesus, people go bonkers! Only Jesus can provoke people like that, and that’s because the Truth hurts, and their “carnal” selves simply cannot take it...."
You are projecting imaginary mental states on those of us who deem your god mythical. That type of ad hominem attack is both foolish, as you have no means to back it up, and it's also fallacious, as it ignores the substance of the arguments.
Carmen: "...Unless you have the Holy Spirit residing in you, you can’t understand the Bible...."
Perhaps one cannot understand the Koran unless one believes in Allah. Perhaps one cannot truly understand the communist manifesto unless one is an ardent communist. The problem with this type of reasoning is that it is actually circular. It boils down to this: "You will not choose to believe until you are a believer." It's also another species of ad hominem attack, for it asserts "You disagree with me not for legitimate reasons, but because of a personal shortcoming." In other contexts, you would not buy such an argument, so why should I buy it from you?
Carmen: "If you truly KNEW God and what the Bible actually says, then you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s the TRUE Word of GOD and He is NOT evil: He is JUST...."
This is circular. If I were a BELIEVER (i.e. "KNEW God"), then I would be a BELIEVER (i.e. "know... that it's the... Word of God"). Unless you can present some REASON for me to believe in your deity, all else is a non-starter.
Carmen: "Most people... don’t want anyone telling them what to do, let alone adhere to the Ten Commandments – all of which were GOOD for Man, yet Man has turned them upside down to where “good” is now considered “evil” and vice versa."
Another fallacious ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the arguments that have been put forth, you dismiss your opponent(s) by asserting a personal shortcoming (for which you have no evidence, I might add).
Carmen: "...hundreds of prophecies have already come true and are unfolding before our very eyes...."
The "hundreds of prophecies" are not the least bit convincing to me, nor to most who examine them critically. I've gone through those lists many times, and virtually every purported prophecy fails for one or more of the following reasons:
1) They are not prophecies are all when read in context.
2) Those that ARE prophecies are not MESSIANIC prophecies when read in context.
3) They are midrashic inventions after the fact.
4) They are too vague to be of value, or the words need to be greatly distorted to make them specific.
5) They are too easy to guess ahead of time, and hence fail to indicate divine foreknowledge.
6) There is no corroboration from known reliable sources that they actually took place.
7) There is no reliable evidence that they were written before the purported event.
I invite you to offer up a few of your "favorite" prophecies, and we can all examine them together, including their original context. We'll see (for the 1,000'th time) if any of them stand up.
Carmen: "I challenge anyone in this thread to refute these prophecies using actual PROOF that they didn’t happen!"
Asking for "proof" that they didn't happen is a red herring. For most of them the issue is WHETHER THEY ARE LEGITIMATE PROPHECIES, regardless of whether they actually happened or not. See my comments above.
Carmen: "I also challenge YOU to prove that God doesn’t exist…."
Lacking infinite knowledge, I cannot prove a SINGLE empirical negative (i.e. "X does not exist anywhere in the universe"). However, that is once again a red herring, for that is not the issue. The issue is whether belief in your deity is WARRANTED. If you still insist on "proof", then I will insist you first prove that Zeus does not exist. Deal?
I said "The only 'problem' I have is with those who wish to push their religious beliefs on others, and who fail to show basic courtesy toward those who disagree with them." Carmen replied "So why don’t you tell people like “Lemming” the same thing?... So, how about YOU showing some fairness to all sides. Why do you even allow such nastiness at all?"
That's the first good question you've asked, in my opinion. Here is a short answer: 1) I have on many occasions tried to tone down the rhetoric from *all* sides, not just from Christians, 2) I am often more interested in what the visitors here have to say, so I frequently skip past the comments of the regulars, 3) by default I give the ex-Christians far more slack in what they say *at this site* because one stated purpose of this site is to allow ex-Christians to vent if they wish, and 4) despite all of that, I probably *should* be more vocal from time to time when Christians are attacked.
Carmen: "Can you PROVE that Christianity “borrowed” from “older religions”?"
Of course not. Another red herring. What is at issue is evidence, not proof. We cannot *prove* that Julius Caesar existed either, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Carmen: "The Jewish religion is “older” than any of the pagan religions."
Not true. Krishna, for example, dates back approximately 5,000 years. And the "dangerous child" motif seems to have originated with Krishna, by the way. It turns up it a surprising number of religions, including Christianity and Judaism. But, more importantly...
Carmen: "Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament."
You are making an enormous assumption here. You are *assuming* that motifs such as the virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, etc. are actually foreshadowed in the OT. That is a peculiarly Christian perspective. As a Jew you no doubt realize that the such claims are generally rejected in Judaism. That is, most Jews do not accept the midrash that validates the NT stories by means of the Torah, and there is no evidence that anybody EVER entertained these interpretations before the advent of Christianity. Thus, the notion of other religions borrowing these specific motifs from Judaism is extremely far-fetched.
Carmen: "The idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah."
Please be specific about the messianic prophecy you allude to. Which verse? Was it recognized as a messianic prophecy before the advent of Christianity? Why do you think it points to Jesus, specifically?
Carmen: "That was at least 8,000 BC, right after we are told that God created the universe and everything in it…."
Where did the 8,000 figure come from? The genealogies in Matthew and Luke?
Carmen: "Mithraism, for instance, only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism)..."
Of course. No two religions are identical.
Carmen: "...What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts."
It clearly *was* influenced by Christianity! No historian familiar with the time would deny that, as both Mithaism and Christianity flourished in early Rome (up until the 4'th century CE) and therefore competed and influenced one another. It is also fairly well established that Christianity was influence by Mithaism. What is at issued is the EXTENT and NATURE of the influence in both directions. There is evidence that many specific motifs adopted by Christianity first appeared in Mithraism (e.g. the notion of a god-man savior, which was alien to Judaism). Furthermore, Mithrism has roots in Persia that are centuries older than Christianity.
Carmen: "In the meantime, many have copied from the Bible. Take Islam, for example. Their “final prophet” Mohammed (who was a murdering, thieving pedophile)..."
That's rather disrespectful of Islam, don't you think? Can you offer any evidence to back up those allegations about Mohammed?
Carmen: "...took Scriptures straight out of the Tanach (Old Testament) and twisted them to suit his purposes..."
As happens with every religion I am familiar with.
In response to "Can you explain why nothing specific was written about your purported savior until decades after his (alleged) death?", Carmen said "Partly because most people of that time couldn’t read or write...."
So it took decades for the message to reach anyone who had the means to write it down? Why did the historians of the time not take note? Did none of the great poets and philosophers of the time catch wind of the fantastic events that were unfolding? Did Jesus not see any advantage in having his words committed to paper (or papyrus)? Was nobody inspired enough to make a statue of Jesus?
Carmen: "“Nothing specific” was written down about most of our forefathers until decades later, either…."
Who do you have in mind? Are you talking of statesmen, or philosophers, or other religious leaders? If so, many had copious material written about them in their lifetimes, or wrote themselves (e.g. Julius Caesar, Plato, Confucius), so why would GOD HIMSELF not warrant such a record?
Carmen: "None of them touched the world and changed people’s lives like He did...."
Buddha did. Allah did. Krishna did. Osiris did.
Carmen: "In order to believe in God, all you have to do is look at the universe and life. If you can’t see something “supernatural” in that, then I’m wasting my time here."
I'll take that as a "no", you cannot offer evidence for anything supernatural. I do not "see" anything supernatural, and nor do you. We are both left to infer from what we do see. How is it that you can infer something that is infinitely more fantastic than anything in this world simply by the existence of things that we cannot (currently) explain? I readily admit that there are things I do not know; I refrain from CONCLUDING anything from ignorance, however.
Carmen: "Also, since I “got saved” I have had several supernatural experiences – which I won’t bother to post because no doubt everyone reading it will jump all over and try to debunk it...."
How do you know the experiences were "supernatural"?
I asked "Can you articulate *one* attribute of your god that can be supported by evidence?". Carmen responded with "One attribute? Besides the fact that He was able to create the universe out of nothing and that you were able to be born as a result of His making the wonderful anatomy of male and female reproductive systems?"
You are asserting that these were performed by your god. On what evidence? Scripture? If so, then you must show why scripture is reliable. Prophecy falls far short, as I explained above. There is also far too much evidence that scripture underwent extensive embellishment over time; it appears to have undergone the same process of incorporating bits and pieces of existing legends, just as countless other religions have. (There is a vast assortment of evidence supporting this.)
Carmen: "How about His grace and mercy which allow you to have eternal life, should you desire it?"
That is circular. If I believed that was the case, I would already believe in your god, wouldn't I?
Carmen: "He sent Himself to earth in the form of a man so what Man could better understand God and the things of God, and then that aspect of God allowed Himself to be killed on the cross as the Final Sin Sacrifice."
He sent himself to be sacrificed TO HIMSELF. Is that right? And what was the sacrifice? It could not be his life, right?, because he was only dead temporarily. And why did god "require" a blood sacrifice? Could he not forgive without it?
Carmen: "Yeshua alone is evidence of God’s grace and mercy, for rather than to kill us all off and start over again,..."
As he did once before...
Carmen: "He has given us a final chance to live with him forever. Since you’re an “ex Christian” you should know that it’s all in the Bible – the very Bible which has been and still is unfolding before our eyes."
I think it takes a very vivid imagination and selective reasoning to see any such thing.
Carmen: "Unfortunately, most people don’t and won’t understand."
I agree that most people simply want to believe what they were taught to believe. There is an acute lack of critical thinking which, in my opinion, is precisely why religions still exert so much influence in the world.
Carmen: "...They prefer to think we evolved from apes and that Man has the power to chart his own course."
I prefer to follow the evidence where it leads, as best I can. I try my best to not decide which outcome I prefer in advance, and then look only for confirming evidence. This is another way in which religions mislead, in my opinion. They legitimize conclusions that are based on preference (e.g. wishful thinking).
Carmen: "...It won’t be long before the Anti-Christ signs that seven-year peace treaty with Israel. And then all hell WILL break loose!"
How many times, in your estimation, would Christians, Messianic Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. need to make erroneous predictions in order for them to begin to lose credibility? Just curious.
That about sums up my opinion of all your rants too, Car-Main.
And, if you hadn't stopped by to share your cute little viewpoint, the only thing we wouldn't have the "privilege" of knowing, is that you believe.
You believe in your flavor of Christianity - you believe it - that's all - it's just your belief - it's not anything else, except YOUR belief - believe it.
"John 9:16 - Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them."
And you state, that Jesus in fact did attend the sabbath. Is there something about, "keepeth not the sabbath day" you don't get.
___________________________________
Since, you claim to be of MJ background, care to explain the following. And, if you want, I can pull out some Hebrew, to make you feel more at home.
Jesus, The Jewish Messiah?
KJV:
Matthew 1:22-23 - "22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Per Christian proposition, Matthew is supposed to be fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14.
KJV:
Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
However, Here is the direct Hebrew translation from Isaiah.
Hebrew Translation:
Isaiah 7:14 - "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."
Lets take a closer look, at the context of the book of Isaiah, with the following facts in mind.
1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars;
2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and
3) The verse implies "the young woman" "shall call", his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call." Again, referring to the "time" of this "young woman" to be known to Isaiah.
Now, this child who is to be born during Isaiah's time, from a young woman, and was to be called Emmanuel. What is the signigicance?
The Christians claim, that the Book of Matthew is accurate, as it refers to the birth of a child, during Isaiah's time to be none other than The Jewish Messiah, who was to have lived and died on the cross, to save the world from sin.
However, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, this chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth.
Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). As its obvious Jesus was not a 600+ year old geriatric, hanging on the cross.
Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear:
KJV:
Isaiah 7:16 - "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to a young woman. As prophesied, while Isaiah was indeed living, 600+ years prior to Jesus.
KJV:
Isaiah 8:4 - "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria."
This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.
Isaiah: Isaiah lived during the late 8th and early 9th centuries B.C., which was a difficult period in the history of Jerusalem. He was part of the upper class but urged care of the downtroden. At the end, he was loyal to King Hezekiah, but disagreed with the King's attempts to forge alliances with Egypt and Babylon in response to the Assyrian threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
Carmen, no matter how you slice this, most biblical scholars accept almah to mean "young woman". However, that aside, if Matthew is accurate, and refers to the child delivered to Isaiah, via a female of his time, the child could not be Jesus, who was said to have died on the cross CE.
If Matthew is accurate, meaning the child in the Book of Isaiah was born 600+ years prior as prophesied, it sure wasn't Jesus/Yeshua, seems someone needs to go figure out who that child is. In any event, Jesus is then a fraud, either by circumstance or choice. Oh, and the Child wasn't "The" child, as its obvious the OT messianic prophesies never came to pass.
Oh, and the word Messiah, per Hebrew, described a mortal to the Jews who was sent to carry out their Gods' will. Not a man-god. But of course, being MJ, you know this, right.
The thing I actually like about "Anonymous" is that he actually has something tangible to say (however misguided it might be)....
I find it really strange that the "webmaster" jumped all over the other "Anonymous" poster for posting "anonymously, yet he doesn't say a thing about this Jewish "Anonymous". It goes to prove what I said earlier - anything goes UNTIL you mention Christ.
It is such a pity that Webmaster didn't do any jumping on anyone except you...
Carmen vomits forth - 'It goes to prove what I said earlier - anything goes UNTIL you mention Christ.'
No, but it does prove that you can't manage to keep the facts straight...
Jesua was born of a spirit per the Christian account, and per your account as you believe in the emmaculate conception. Therefore, there is no "biological" ties to he house of "David". Leniage is passed from the father.
Carmen: "Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Its been refuted per earlier post. The word "almah" means young woman in context, you haven't provided a refutation on your website, just this biblical passage as "proof" of "itself". Again, it doesn't matter, the fact is, the prophesy of a child being born was to occur during Isaiah's time, 600+ years prior to a Jesua. If you hold that the prophesy fulfilled, you have to hold that a child was born six centuries earlier than CE.
In your addendum, on your website, you quote this passage. Making claim that there would only be one alpha and one omega.
"Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."
And, of course you posted a passage to support the claim, while not engaging in the true underlying argument.
The Jews believed in only "One" LORD, and he was to be in heaven and never come to earth. The Jewish Messiah, was to be mortal, and there were "many" Jewish messiah's back in the day.
Accordingly, lets see if Jesua is from the line of David. Even if he were to be considered a mortal messiah.
Luke 1:32-33 - "The Messiah was to be a descendant of David. Jesus was!"
Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.
There are two problems with this claim:
a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:
a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.
b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14)
I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
Well, Carmen, perhaps the Jews are wrong. However, the Jews believed that a "messiah" was someone doing service in the name of their Lord. The Jewish god by all accounts was a god of war, the almighty warrior. He didn't need to martyr one of his servants to bring in the New Kingdom. The Messiah, once on earth would bring in the New Kingdom with the help of the Jewish god, and not be left to "hang" on a cross, as per the Christian belief.
There have been many messiah's throughout the bible. And, because none of them fit the bill for "The Messiah", they have all been discounted. To include; Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
Furthermore, the claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance per the Hebrew OT/Jewish Tanakh. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure
The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as the second coming don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.
The first coming perspective where the Jews will live as a united community in the New Kingdom and age of perfection; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.
Well, Carmen, as an MJ, one could assume that you know enough of your religion, to realize that the TaNaKh, and NT conflict based on cultural perspective, and thus, the shows in the personality of each of the god concepts portrayed. The Jewish God, a warrior god, who is to save the Jews and bring them into their New Kingdom in "one" powerful shot, is a far different god than the NT god, who has to re-send his son back to earth again because he couldn't get the job done right the first time, and who is so weak that he has to sacrifice himself, or his son in order to get the job done right.
Oh, and Carmen, I don't want to be considered oned sided, or biased, as portraying myself as a "Jewish Missionary". So, I'll end with a few Talmudic laws, to allow the gentle reader to ponder, regarding Judaism in general.
Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass."
Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung."
Schabouth Hag. 6b: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
Zohar 1,160a: "Jews must always try to deceive Christians."
Hilkkoth Akum Z1: "Do not save Goyim (gentile) in danger of death."
Choschen Ham 388, 15: "If it be proven that someone has given the money of israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of this earth."
The true Jewish business ethic above, coupled with the below, makes for a great business partner, well if ethics are necessary.
Choschen Ham 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
Well, Carmen, enjoy Shabbat. There have been a few posts recently stating that man-kind has a stronger tendency towards yetzer ha'ra rather than yetzer ha'tov. Do you believe the Talmud and its guidance pulls many towards yetzer ha'ra. If you want to speak about, Christ, please by all means, throw it out there.
Peace
Since someone made the comment about almah (again), here’s what it says on my website:
According to the 70 Jewish rabbis who worked on the Septuagint translation of the Old Covenant, the Hebrew word "almah" (Isaiah 7:14) is translated "parthenos" meaning virgin. Furthermore, the word "almah" is used just seven times in the Old Covenant and refers every time to what can only be a virgin. So when you say "almah" is mistranslated, you are disagreeing with traditional Jewish thought.
Even if the word almah in Isaiah 7:14 meant "a young woman" - in the context of the Tanakh it always referred to "a young woman of unsullied reputation," which is why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Tanakh prepared 200 years before Yeshua's birth, rendered this word into Greek as parthenos, "virgin". This is also the word used at Mat 1:23.
There are hundreds of Jewish and Gentile Bible scholars who believe that the prophet Isaiah was predicting the virgin birth of the Messiah. A list of the Jewish scholars alone would include such names as Dr. Sanford C. Mills, Milton Lindberg, Dr. Arthur W. Kac, Dr. Henry J. Heydt, Dr. Leopold Cohn, Dr. Jacob Gartenhaus and Dr. David L. Cooper. All of these eminent Jewish theologians believe that the Hebrew word "almah" is best translated by the word "virgin."
In Isaiah 9:6, you will find a description of this special child who was born to a virgin: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
A child will be born who will be called "Mighty God"? Jewish commentators did not dispute the Messianic nature of this prophecy until modern times. As proof, let me cite the paraphrase of this passage given in Targum Jonathan:
"And there was called His name from of old, Wonderful, counselor, Mighty God, He who lives for ever, the messiah in whose days peace shall increase." (Targum of Isaiah)
Granted, one shouldn't read something into the Biblical story that isn't there. However, it is just as dangerous to delete or ignore things that are there....
And if you wanna discuss Yeshua’s genealogy, go to my website. It’s all there…In fact, you can find the answers to many of your assertions at http://www.therefinersfire.org/leah_rafaeli.htm
Jim Arvo said: Carmen, I am struck by how frequently you complain and hurl accusations and insults. (Say, Jim, have you read what the other posters wrote??? Have you looked at some of the things YOU’VE said?) You *have* tried to answer a few of the questions put to you, I'll give you that, but my goodness what a whiner you are! You see malevolent intent all around you, and your posts are filled with nasty jabs at people. (If you want to see nasty jabs, Jim, check that “Blessed Be
Lemming” guy’s comments – to which NOBODY said a word in protest! But the moment I dare “talk back”, I get 15 people jumping down my throat! If you want to view my “backtalk” as whining, that’s your prerogative.) You are also very careless with facts, particularly when it comes to what has been said by others here. (Good accusation, but can you provide some examples?) If you think you have something important to say, then by all means go ahead and say it. But we've heard and discussed claims of prophecy and argued over alma/bethula countless times. (Well, now you’ve discussed one more time!) If you have something new to add to the discussion, you are well advised to focus on that rather than attacking people. Capisci? (Perhaps you should take your own advice, Jim….Verstehst du?)
Like I said before, Jim, you people can’t take it when someone talks back to you the way you talk to them! I’m not whining; I’m merely stating the facts. You people love to rant and rave and toss out your tidbits of “wisdom”, yet you don’t bother to respond to my questions - and when you do, most of them are opinion only, and nothing substantial that would convince me what you are saying is true. Case in point, read “CT’s” comment, above. What was his/her point in posting anything at all? Did he/she add anything to our discussion? No hardly!
Same as “webmaster” who never has anything to say, either. He just jumps on the bandwagon of jumping on, and belittling people without ever making any comments of substance – and his testimony is the reason I made my initial comments in the first place! He’s allowed everyone else to do his talking for him….
Response to “Any-Mouse” who said: “Well, Carmen, as an MJ, one could assume that you know enough of your religion, to realize that the TaNaKh, and NT conflict based on cultural perspective, and thus, the shows in the personality of each of the god concepts portrayed. The Jewish God, a warrior god, who is to save the Jews and bring them into their New Kingdom in "one" powerful shot, is a far different god than the NT god, who has to re-send his son back to earth again because he couldn't get the job done right the first time, and who is so weak that he has to sacrifice himself, or his son in order to get the job done right.”
Yikes! You are SO lost! Actually, the Tanach and the NT DON’T conflict; MAN’S hard-headedness is the problem. The OT is the NT concealed; and the NT is the OT revealed.
Yeshua was foreshadowed throughout the Tanach, but the traditional Jews didn’t get the picture! Yeshua has fulfilled four the seven Biblical feasts so far, with only three more to go (http://www.therefinersfire.org/feasts2.htm), and traditional Jews don’t get the picture. Yeshua fulfilled everything He had to fulfill while on earth. Just because there are a few more prophecies to go doesn’t mean “he couldn’t get the job done right the first time”. The prophecies will be fulfilled in GOD’s timing, not ours. (See http://www.therefinersfire.org/the_prophecies.htm)
How do you explain the fact that Yeshua has fulfilled around 300 prophecies in HIS short LIFETIME? Have YOU ever fulfilled even ONE prophecy? If not, then give some credit where credit is due, okay? Let's discuss THE ODDS of so many prophecies being filled by one Person:
Speaking, for instance, of just eight key prophecies fulfilled by one person, Peter Stoner, a mathematician, points out, "We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled eight of the prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000" (Science Speaks, Moody Press). And the probability of any one man fulfilling all of these hundreds of prophecies is a number too large to write down: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm
He also discussed the probabilities of just the 48 prophecies (http://www.therefinersfire.org/accurate_messiah_prophecies.htm) being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157!
As for “Any-mouse” and his Talmud stuff, I guess he doesn’t realize that, unless you can read fluent Hebrew and translate/understand it from a Hebrew mindset, you can mistranslate and misinterpret anything!
I’d like to submit that you got your “wise sayings” from some moronic Jew-hating webmaster who hasn’t got a clue. For instance, “Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass" doesn’t exist. I challenge you to find an actual TALMUD (not some moron’s stated opinions) and look up what it actually said. If you will READ it for yourself, you will see this whole lo-o-o-o-n-g commentary (not just one little sentence telling us that Jesus is a fornicator) is about several entities including Baalam (Satan). Jesus’ name is nowhere to be found!
Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung."
Really? Again, I CHALLENGE you to read an actual Talmud for yourself – and then do some research into the names mentioned there. Yeshu (which means “may his name be blotted out” – as opposed to Yeshua whose name means “Salvation”) is NOT Jesus of the New Testament. He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism. While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE.
Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together. In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam's mother being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus. You can't have it both ways.
You must remember that the Talmud is a commentary on the Oral Law
You obviously picked these stupid things off some idiotic KKK or other “white supremacist” website. If you are trying to push your supposed Talmud “proofs” off as truth, then you are not only deceived but also a liar…..
If you are willing to find the TRUTH, check out the Truth about the Talmud: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html#balaam .
Once again you abdicate responsibility by pointing a finger at others. It does not change nor justify YOUR behavior. YOU, Carmen, have engaged in name-calling from the start. Is there some justification for THAT fact?
Carmen: "Have you looked at some of the things YOU’VE said?"
Have I *looked* at them? Of course, I *wrote* them, and they are consistently more civil than your rhetoric. Do you disagree with that?
Carmen: "If you want to see nasty jabs, Jim, check that “Blessed Be Lemming” guy’s comments – to which NOBODY said a word in protest!"
Frankly I'm not that interested in what Lemming wrote. (Sorry Lemming... there's just too much stuff to wade through.) More importantly, how would his behavior justify yours, especially toward others?
Carmen: "...But the moment I dare “talk back”, I get 15 people jumping down my throat!..."
That's a bit of an exaggeration.
Carmen: "...If you want to view my “backtalk” as whining, that’s your prerogative."
I don't know what you mean specifically when you say "backtalk"; I am referring to your continual complaints about name-calling when you yourself engage in it, and your numerous complaints concerning anonymous posters, which have been misrepresentations on your part.
I said "You are also very careless with facts, particularly when it comes to what has been said by others here." to which Carmen replied Good accusation, but can you provide some examples?"
1) You accused the webmaster of jumping "all over" someone for posting anonymously when he did nothing of the sort.
2) You accused me of being "all over" someone for posting anonymously when I did nothing of the sort.
3) You insinuated that I expect "believers in Christ to lay down and play dead" when my words suggest nothing of the sort.
4) You insinuate that I've been nasty to you, when in fact the worst you can say of me of is that I called you a "whiner" and I sarcastically referred to your questions as "tricky".
I said "If you have something new to add to the discussion, you are well advised to focus on that rather than attacking people. Capisci?" to which Carmen replied "Perhaps you should take your own advice, Jim….Verstehst du?"
I get the sense that you cannot bear to examine your own behavior, even for a moment, since you immediately deflect every criticism toward somebody else (in this case back toward me). Okay, Carmen. I'm no longer going to waste my time pointing out what is obvious to everyone else.
Carmen: "Like I said before, Jim, you people can’t take it when someone talks back to you the way you talk to them!"
You are so very wrong about that, Carmen. Do you honestly think that your behavior is somehow unusual? Believers with attitudes comparable to yours stop by here all the time (however, you are the first MJ that I recall). I've engaged in *many* very long debates with people here, including several who show a true aptitude for analytical reasoning. So, once again, you are projecting fictitious mental states on us (with your discerning use of "you people") which the facts simply do not support.
Carmen: "I’m not12/4/2005stA whining; I’m merely stating the facts...."
That's not a very accurate statement. You state opinions (as does everyone else), you state your INTERPRETATION and PARAPHRASING of the facts (as does everyone else), you insult others (as do many of the posters here), and you apparently take offense when somebody articulates a viewpoint that you disagree with.
Carmen: "...You people love to rant and rave and toss out your tidbits of “wisdom”, yet you don’t bother to respond to my questions - and when you do, most of them are opinion only, and nothing substantial that would convince me what you are saying is true."
I've answered every question you've asked of me, and then some. I've answered questions from your web site, and addressed some of the points that you raise there. I will provide you with mountains of links and references if that's what you want, but our discussion has not even progressed to a point where that would make sense. For example, I challenged you (as I have others) to state the definitions of the first and second laws of thermodynamics (which you allude to on your web site), and to clearly state what problems you think they raise for evolution, or any other theory for that matter. Nothing I say, and no references I provide, will make much of an impression on you unless you are willing to array the facts for YOURSELF first. If and when you choose to do that, we can discuss the specifics.
Carmen: "If anybody’s interested, they’re certainly welcome to read the articles at http://www.therefinersfire.org/ and then refute each and everything I’ve said - BIBLICALLY (meaning NOT personal opinions)..."
A refutation needn't be either "Biblical" or "opinion"; it might be extra-Biblical. Clearly, your scientific statements that are off-base (e.g. those I mentioned in an earlier post) need not be refuted using the Bible. Moreover, the credibility of the Bible itself cannot be adequately addressed using only the Bible.
Carmen: "There are hundreds of Jewish and Gentile Bible scholars who believe that the prophet Isaiah was predicting the virgin birth of the Messiah."
So, are we going to count noses, or are we going to talk about the REASONS for holding that opinion? That is, after all, the very crux of the matter, is it not? (With regard to counting noses, hundreds of Christian scholars also maintain the divinity of Jesus, but I do not find their REASONING to be sound, so I feel no obligation to accept what they say.)
It seems to me you must argue one of the following if you wish to interpret Isaiah as a messianic prophecy:
1) The overt meaning of Isaiah is a messianic prophecy (e.g. all of it is simply a metaphor for the coming messiah).
2) While the overt meaning of Isaiah is that of a prophecy fulfilled long ago, the *parallel* or *hidden* meaning is that of a messianic prophecy to be fulfilled hundreds of years later.
There may be other avenues open to you was well, but those are the only ones apparent to me. Moreover, I have only seen the second one seriously argued by apologists. Is that the position you maintain? If so, what is the essence of your argument?
Also, please do list several more prophecies that you think are most compelling. As I stated earlier, there are many specific reasons to discount a prophecy, and I believe that virtually every one cited by Jews and Christians fail on one or more of them. For instance, I maintain that the "virgin birth" prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 fails because it was clearly NOT intended as a messianic prophecy, and I have yet to see a compelling reason to believe in hidden parallel prophecies.
Oh really. On what evidence? Much more concerning this below...
Carmen: "Yeshua was foreshadowed throughout the Tanach, but the traditional Jews didn’t get the picture!"
Here is an alternative hypothesis: The traditional Jews DID get it, and it's the followers of Yeshua that do not. How do you propose to show that your hypothesis is more likely than the other one?
Carmen: "Yeshua has fulfilled four the seven Biblical feasts so far,... and traditional Jews don’t get the picture."
Again, you need to show that your hypothesis is more likely than theirs.
Carmen: "Yeshua fulfilled everything He had to fulfill while on earth...."
But you need to FIRST establish that "The OT is the NT concealed..." Without that, most of your prophecies are moot.
Carmen: "How do you explain the fact that Yeshua has fulfilled around 300 prophecies in HIS short LIFETIME?"
That is a fallacy known as a "complex question"; i.e. by its phrasing is ASSUMES that the in fact DID fulfill 300 prophecies. But most of those prophecies rely on your assertion that "The OT is the NT concealed...", which you need to supply some independent evidence for.
Carmen: "Let's discuss THE ODDS of so many prophecies being filled by one Person:..."
Carmen: "...Peter Stoner, a mathematician, points out, 'We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled eight of the prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000'...."
That is a 100% bogus computation. As *any* mathematician will tell you, in order to compute such a thing one needs to know 1) correlations (e.g. are the events independent?), and 2) priors (i.e. the probabilities of the basic events). First, the probabilities of the basic events are little more than wild speculation, but FAR MORE importantly, there is an ENORMOUS assumption that the events played out as stated in the Bible. I think it FAR more likely that they were midrashic inventions (for reasons that I'll get into later if need be).
Carmen: "...the probabilities of just the 48 prophecies (http://www.therefinersfire.org/accurate_messiah_prophecies.htm) being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157!"
That is completely bogus, as it simply ASSUMES that 1) the events actually occurred as stated, 2) that they fulfilled actual prophecies, 3) that the probabilities can be estimated, and 4) that all events are independent. This computation has even less credibility than the bogus figures that are often touted by creationists for the spontaneous generation of life from non-life (which also involve HUGE and unwarranted assumptions).
Without independent evidence supporting your assertion that "The OT is the NT concealed...", your argument crumbles.
Okay, instead of my wasting my time kicking your comments back, again, with substance, and you coming back with no references and mere opinion, and promoting yourself as The New Jew authority for "all" Jewish thought, lets just post some Other Jewish views.
-----------------------------------
Question: Were the New Testament authors contriving anti-Jewish episodes or simply stating historical fact? Did they distort even factual events so as to blame the Jews?
Answer: To answer these questions objectively one need only to read and compare the Gospel narratives of events surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus. These accounts show wide discrepancies, but it is the manner in which the blame for Jesus' death is shifted away from the local Roman authorities and placed upon all Jews, everywhere, that is most telling of the intent of the Gospel authors. Events, whether real or imaginary, are recorded in such a way as to condemn the Jewish people. A distinct effort is made to involve and accuse the entire Jewish people of being responsible for Jesus' death. Jews, especially their leader, are portrayed in the Gospels as constantly plotting the demise of the innocent Jesus, but the accusations do not stop there. THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTHORS PORTRAY THE JEWS AS INNATELY EVIL AND PERVERSE. Yet, at the same time, not one Roman is held culpable for the execution or portrayed as evil.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq001.html
-----------------------------------
Okay, Carmen, you say you are MJ. And everyone else in the world has got it "all" wrong. Well, go sort it out amongst your peers. You say there is no "rift" between the OT and NT, because you are an MJ trying to keep the best of the oldies while trying to be hip with the new fad. However, its plainly evident per Other Jews, that the NT is fact, doesn't portray them in a "good" light, more like, "Perverse", and "Innately Evil". But, on the contrary, the OT, Jewish Tanach/Tanakh presents the Jews as the "Chosen" people. If you don't see the conflict, its okay, just don't engage in a discussion, as it will make you look foolish. Er-well, maybe just hard headedness.
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "To “Any-Mouse”: Er – NOTHING was refuted “in an earlier post about almah.” What you said was absolutely wrong, and EVERYTHING you have mentioned HAS been refuted on my website!"
Before, I begin, you still never reconcilled the 600+ year prophesy fulfillment of the child that was born in the years of Isaiah, and the "fill in the blank with your flavor of Jesus" atoning for sin.
You either must admit that Matthew tied to Isaiah is falsely pointing to your flavor of Jesus, and the NT is "wrong", or you can choose to say, that the pick your flavor Jesus born in CE was not "The Messiah".
Now, if you want to discuss what I have posted, then, by all means, contact the Jews for Judaism webmaster, and their assisting Rabbi, I am more than confident you will receive a differing "view". Here is the web page refuting your claim, that your flavor of Jesus was indeed The Jewish Messiah come to bring the end of the OT, and the beginning of the NT.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.html
And just, because I "know" you are going to say, that these Jews, aren't the "Real" Jews, here is another link. and what More Jews are saying about Jesus, pick your flavor.
"What About Jesus?
Jews do not believe that Jesus was the moshiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.
http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "According to the 70 Jewish rabbis who worked on the Septuagint translation of the Old Covenant, the Hebrew word "almah" (Isaiah 7:14) is translated "parthenos" meaning virgin. Furthermore, the word "almah" is used just seven times in the Old Covenant and refers every time to what can only be a virgin. So when you say "almah" is mistranslated, you are disagreeing with traditional Jewish thought."
Still, no explanation for the 600+ year differential between the prophesy of Isaiah, and child, and a pick your flavor CE Jesus. However, here are what some Jews are saying about, the Virgin birth.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_refuting.html
Don't like that refutation, here, go see a free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth_%28Christian_doctrine%29
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "There are hundreds of Jewish and Gentile Bible scholars who believe that the prophet Isaiah was predicting the virgin birth of the Messiah."
And, they predicted that the child would be born in his era, per my earlier post. That leaves a 600+ year gap, between the pick your flavor Jesus and the child born in Isaiah's time.
Carmen: "A list of the Jewish scholars alone would include such names as Dr. Sanford C. Mills, Milton Lindberg, Dr. Arthur W. Kac, Dr. Henry J. Heydt, Dr. Leopold Cohn, Dr. Jacob Gartenhaus and Dr. David L. Cooper. All of these eminent Jewish theologians believe that the Hebrew word "almah" is best translated by the word "virgin."
Here, go argue with your bretheren.
"Even apart from these inaccuracies, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, from which this verse is taken, it is obvious that Christians have taken this verse out of context.
This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."
In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years."
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_refuting.html
By the way, if you don't like the site posted, or the myriad of sites I can pull from, I have friends who can directly e-mail you telling you, that your "skewed" view of Judaism, is "not" mainstream. It comes with the territory, I suppose, trying to hold together two entirely different accounts of theology, the OT and NT.
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "And if you wanna discuss Yeshua’s genealogy, go to my website. It’s all there…In fact, you can find the answers to many of your assertions at http://www.therefinersfire.org/leah_rafaeli.htm
"Jesus' Genealogies - Of all the glaring absurdities, obvious fabrications and irresolvable contradictions plaguing the New Testament gospels the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38) outdo them all. The authors of Mark and John wisely chose to ignored this subject. Having said that, I point out that the purpose of the genealogies, to establish a direct family linkage from Jesus to King David, is an important one since Jewish prophetic writings makes it clear that the Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16, Psalms 89:3-4 and 132:11-12,) although this requirement is brought into serious question by Jesus himself (Mark 12:35-37.)4a That, along with the Old Testament prophecy in Micah 5:2, is the reason the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke has Jesus born in Bethlehem, the city of David. In his epistle to the Romans (1:3) Paul tells us without proof that Jesus was in fact a descendant of King David. Because they were determined to fit Jesus into the Jewish messianic scriptural mold, the writers of Matthew and Luke separately concocted detailed genealogies each giving Jesus an elaborate, but phony, family tree directly linking him not only to King David but far beyond. The writer of Matthew starts with Abraham, the first of the Jewish patriarchs, and works forward through David to Joseph thence to Jesus while the writer of Luke outdoes him by going backward all the way to God.
Eddy4b tells us that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled in late first century Antioch, which at that time had a large population of extremely wealthy Jews to whom the matter of family ties were very important. The genealogies were included as a means of appealing to this particular population in an effort to convert them to Christianity which was at that time a Jewish sect. Because their writers neglected to include a birth narrative, the Gospels of Mark and John, managed to circumvent the genealogy problem. In addition, John was obviously written for a gentile audience where the trappings of a genealogy and a Jewish messianic birth were not that important.
There are, however, big problems with these genealogies raising a number of legitimate questions. As pointed out by Arnheim4c, there is a huge difference between the two genealogies, especially in the number of generations separating Jesus from King David. Matthew specifically tells us that there were twenty-eight generations, fourteen from David to the Babylonian Exile and another fourteen from the Exile to the birth of Jesus. The writer of Luke gives no figures, but a count of the number of names he mentions as Jesus' ancestors yields a total of no fewer than forty-one generations for the same period represented by Matthew's twenty-eight. For the thousand-odd-year period Luke's forty one generations average out at just over twenty-four years apiece. Matthew's fourteen generations from David to the Exile average out to about twenty-eight and a half years each, but his last fourteen generations have a mean span of a whopping forty-one and a half years thereby rendering it totally unacceptable.
When the genealogies are compared, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical up to David. However, from David onward there is little similarity. For example, the writer of Matthew tells us (1:16) that Jacob is Joseph’s father where as in Luke 3:23 we are told that Heli is Joseph’s father. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son, Nathan, while the one in Matthew traces it through Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (1) How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals, Joseph and Jesus? And (2) how could Jesus, or for that matter anyone else, have two contradictory genealogies4d?
The writers of Matthew and Luke are determined to bring Jesus' genealogy into line with Old Testament prophecy at the expense of rational credibility. In so doing they rely at length on the use of the mystical number seven or its multiples in order to invest Jesus' alleged ancestry with a false aura of divine destiny.
Only one conclusion can be drawn from the discrepancies between these two so-called genealogies of Jesus. Because they were both writing fiction, the authors of Matthew and Luke simply invented a lineage linking him with King David thereby fulfilling the requirement of Old Testament prophecy. What they apparently failed to understand, however, is that by establishing Jesus blood tie to King David through Joseph they undermined the claim of a virgin birth4e, establishing Jesus as the true son of God . The twin claims that Jesus was born of a virgin and also descended directly from king David, both of which represent basic Christian doctrine, are by their very nature mutually exclusive.
Christian apologists, however, were not to take such a convincing argument lying down. So determined were they to find some means by which to counter such a devastating disclosure that they resorted, obviously out of sheer desperation, to the claim that the two genealogies were, in reality, not meant to be the same. Matthew's genealogy, they maintained, is that of Joseph while Luke's is that of Mary4f. Unfortunately for them, Luke's genealogy never mentions Mary. In fact, Luke’s author makes it quite clear that this is Joseph's lineage (3:23) and no one else’s. Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy and Luke 1:21 and 2:4 show he was from the house of David. So one can reasonably conclude that it is his lineage, not that of Mary. The point is, in fact, moot because as a woman Mary could never have been qualified to be heir to the throne of David, so she couldn't pass on what she could never possess, even if she was of Davidic descent which she obviously was not.
In Numbers 1:18 it states that family pedigrees are declared by the house of their fathers. In the Hebrew culture genealogies were traced through males only. But, this creates an even bigger problem for Bible believers. According to the claim of the virgin birth, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. Mary was made pregnant with Jesus by none other than the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20, Luke1:35). So, the Bible believer finds himself or herself squarely on the horns of a baffling dilemma. If Jesus is not the biological offspring of Joseph, he has no link to David and is thus disqualified as the long awaited Jewish messiah. But, if Joseph is Jesus’ true biological father, the claim of Davidic ancestry is established but that of the virgin birth is shown to be an out-and-out scam."
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html
If you find a problem, or would like to refute the statement posted, I'll be happy to address them. However, understand, "many" Jews take the stance that pick your flavor Jesus was not of the Davidic lineage, but perhaps you can change their minds.
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "How do you explain the fact that Yeshua has fulfilled around 300 prophecies in HIS short LIFETIME? Have YOU ever fulfilled even ONE prophecy?"
No, no, no, I can't say that "I" personally have fulfilled a prophesy, however, I know for a fact that millions have.
"Messiah : The Criteria
Judge for yourself:
Did Jesus fulfill ALL these criteria?
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html
Er-Maybe, perhaps, there is more to this that meets the eye.
"There is another problem with this missionary proof text. A major distinction must be made between a scripture that serves as a proof that someone is the Messiah and a scriptures that simply states a requirement of the Messiah. A proof must be something so exclusive that only one individual can fulfill it. For example: One criterion of the Messiah is that he must be Jewish. If an individual is Jewish, he has fulfilled this particular requirement; however, in and of itself, this is obviously not a proof that the individual is the Messiah since millions of individuals are Jewish and they all meet this criterion. Therefore, the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem would not prove a thing, since thousands of children were born there."
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_refuting.html
You say, pick your flavor Jesus somehow fulfiled 300 "requirements" to be The Messiah, and that receives a "so", becuase there were millions of other jews who fit the requirements just as easily. For instance, "must be from the tribe of Judah", well, how many Jews were part of the tribe of Judah, however many there are, is the exact same number of Jews who fit the bill for that requirement to "Be The Messiah".
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "Speaking, for instance, of just eight key prophecies fulfilled by one person, Peter Stoner, a mathematician, points out, "We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled eight of the prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000" (Science Speaks, Moody Press). And the probability of any one man fulfilling all of these hundreds of prophecies is a number too large to write down: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm"
You are going to actually bring math into this, I'm not sure we can get past the obvious critical reading piece. Anyhow, I'll play the game, if you can name "one" Exclusive prophesy or requirement that pick your flavor Jesus accomplished, that I can find or infer someone else fit the bill for, I'll play the numbers game.
In case this isn't abundantly clear, the odds of someone with my exact DNA sitting in front of a PC at this very moment, is astronomical, the odds that "anyone" is sitting in front of a PC at this time with DNA, isn't so, how shall I say this - significant.
-----------------------------------Carmen: "As for “Any-mouse” and his Talmud stuff, I guess he doesn’t realize that, unless you can read fluent Hebrew and translate/understand it from a Hebrew mindset, you can mistranslate and misinterpret anything!"
First of all, you want to speak for "all" the Jews, as one with an absolute insight. All I need do, is find just "one" Jew who doesn't agree with you, and you don't have an "absolute" case, my job is really easy. That aside, you seem to be taking the omniscient approach, because there is only two people who know my gender, and one isn't you. So, you can drop the "his" in your continued rhetoric.
-----------------------------------
And finally, the Talmud, in fact does portray Jesus, as a scumbag, actually, he is lower than that. He deserved to be punished according to the laws proscribed in Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 and 13: 2-6 for being a sorcerer and false prophet.
Sanhedrin 43a: "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy"
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html
In fact, it was the Jews who rightly held up to Torah that none stood up in his favor. However, Carmen, I am sure your views will be that the Rabbinical Jews who were following their laws were just a little too strict.
Regarding your flavor of Jesus, boiling in fluids.
"3 He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement.
Footnote:
3. [MS.M. Jesus].
http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html
Not that I really care, but, Carmen, according to the Talmud, if you read the NT to Others, you will be punished, because its a fact that Judaism, per the Talmud doesn't recognize the NT as part of their canonicals. How do you reconcile that one. I suppose you will come up with some, boomerang of an anecdote. By the way, if the NT is not to be shared per the Talmud, how do you suggest as you did earlier, that the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, prophesy.
Sanhedrin 90a: "MISHNAH. ALL ISRAEL28 HAVE A PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME,29 FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THY PEOPLE ARE ALL RIGHTEOUS; THEY SHALL INHERIT THE LAND FOR EVER, THE BRANCH OF MY PLANTING, THE WORK OF MY HANDS, THAT I MAY BE GLORIFIED.'30 BUT THE FOLLOWING HAVE NO PORTION THEREIN: HE WHO MAINTAINS THAT RESURRECTION IS NOT A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE,31 THE TORAH WAS NOT DIVINELY REVEALED, AND AN EPIKOROS.32 R. AKIBA ADDED: ONE WHO READS UNCANONICAL BOOKS."
33. Lit., 'the external books'. Graetz, Gesch. IV, p. 99, regards this as referring to un-Jewish, particularly Gnostic literature. Weiss takes a similar view. The pernicious influence of Gnosticism, particularly as it impaired the pure monotheism of Judaism, made the Rabbis very anxious to stem its spread, and hence R. Akiba's dictum. (Weiss maintains that Elisha b. Abuia's revolt against the Rabbis was in some measure occasioned by the influence of Gnosticism.) On this view, ordinary reading is referred to. There are indications, however, that something more is meant. The J. Tal. a.l. adds: 'E.g.. the books of Ben Sira and Ben La'anah. But the reading of Homer and all subsequent books is as the reading of a letter.' In spite of the fact that the Bab. Tal. forbids the books of Ben Sira, it is evident from the discussion that all its contents were well-known, and Sira's wisdom is frequently quoted by the Talmudists. It is also difficult to see why greater exception should be taken to Sira than to Homer. To obviate these difficulties the theory has been put forward that the prohibition is against reading these uncanonical works publicly, treating them as the Scripture and expounding them to the community. Private reading, however, would on this theory not come within the ban. (V. Krochmal More Nebuche ha-Zeman, XI, 5.)"
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_90.html
And, before you say the NT is part of the canonicals per the Jewish tradition. Read.
The traditional Jewish bookshelf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#Religious_doctrine_and_Principles_of_Faith
-----------------------------------
Furthermore, the NT "Gospels" are considered burnable material, along with "all" Christian produced bibles, since its understood Christians worship the "wrong" god. However, once again, I have to wonder, how you accept the NT and the gospel of Matthew, if the material is "burnable".
"14 Come and hear: The blank spaces15 and the Books of the Minim16 may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them."
Footnotes:
15] Jast. s.v. [H] translates, the gospels, though observing that here it is understood as blanks. V. Herford, R.T., 'Christianity in the Talmud', p. 155 n.
16] Sectarians. The term denotes various kinds of Jewish sectarians, such as the Sadducces, Samaritans, Judeo-Christians, etc., according to the date of the passage in which the term is used. The reference here is probably to the last-named. V. J.E., art. Min; Bacher in REJ. XXXVIII, 38. Rashi translates: Hebrew Bibles written by men in the service of idolatry.
-----------------------------------
Now, per the Talmud, there is so many people having intercourse with farm animals, to snakes, that I can't keep up with it all. However, Adam, is easy. He had sex, with "all" the animals in the garden of eden. However, its good to know, he just wasn't satisfied, until he had eve.
"R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?13 This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve."
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "As for “Any-mouse” and his Talmud stuff, I guess he doesn’t realize that, unless you can read fluent Hebrew and translate/understand it from a Hebrew mindset, you can mistranslate and misinterpret anything!"
Okay, sweetie. Why don't you peel your buttocks off of my shoe, and have a Hebrew speaking time with;
RABBI DR. I. EPSTEIN, B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit.
Who translated the Babylonian Talmud into English, with notes and indices.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html
-----------------------------------
Carmen: "You must remember that the Talmud is a commentary on the Oral Law You obviously picked these stupid things off some idiotic KKK or other “white supremacist” website."
Actually, I did search a few sites and found, a whole list of "concerns", from a myriad of religious hate groups, but they all cited the Talmud, with references. Its typically where I start when I try and get a differing perspective.
However, I'm not a bigot, and have the ability to research and check out the allegations. And, whallah, after reading the Talmud, and visiting other mainstream Jewish websites, they don't have the same perspective as you do. It appears that the Jews for Judaism site is a "hate" site also, as they obviously don't agree with your beliefs. Everyone, to include "Jews" that don't agree with "your" beliefs, are haters.
If you would like me to list entire sections, from the Mother of Jesus being a whore, murdering gentiles is like killing wild animals, Jesus deserved to be crucified, sexual practices with children less than nine years old, sexual intercourse with a child is okay if she is at least three years old, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Carmen, keep your beliefs. You have offered information, and, I provided the Talmud interpretation to support, the OT to support, and even multiple online Jewish web sites to support, an entirely different perspective than what you have posed as answers to statements. I understand your beliefs as you have presented them, if you are an MJ, then you are trying to "hold" onto the Talmud which clearly has anti-Christian leaning, to include the burning and total disregard for the NT "gospels" as cited above, while you "still" attempt to "hold" onto the NT gospels, to declare your flavor of Jesus as The Messiah.
What was the point? Well, apart from informing you that you made one heck of a mistake, the only point was to show that for someone who claims to be dealing in facts you sure can't keep them straight.
What have I added to the discussion? I've added a reminder that you need to double-check your "facts" before throwing them out.
Now, if you want to continue throwing out falsehoods, go right ahead... just don't be surprised when people spot them and call you on them.
It is easy to fulfill a prophecy when you are writing the story and using the older books as an outline. You make up the story to fit the "model". It is a great feat that Paul displayed in his time, but with all the works for us to examine, some of his stories are expose for the con that it was. As Paul told his make believe story, notice that it was to people far away from where he said it occurred so that no one could challenge his lies. People far removed from Israel built Christianity. These people knew not the reality of the Jewish faith and their customs. Therefore, they could not question this new "faith".
I just wanted to say that I applaud your well-thought-out and restrained replies to Carmen. I rarely have the time to read all the posts here (let alone reply to them all), but yours have caught my attention. One point that you raised (indirectly) is one that often gets lost: There are not *two* sides to these religious debates, there is a virtual continuum, even with a given religion. For instance, Carmen does not speak for all Jews (obviously), and her assertions that those who disagree with her "don't get it" are just as fervently directed back at her. If one cannot rationally set the differing viewpoints side-by-side, and calmly consider their respective merits, there is little hope in extracting anything of value from them (imho).
What I find most challenging in engaging posters such as Carmen is to figure out where to start. Often the discussion plunges too quickly into what is effectively hemeneutics while the more fundamental issue of grounding is forgotten; that is, establishing *some* kind of mooring to fact and credible evidence. There are usually endless layers of dogma to cut through, with no solid ground in sight, so the discussions tend to go round and round in a fog (e.g. Carmen asserts that the NT is the OT "revealed", which is implicitly used to support a good many of her prophecies, which, in turn, support the divine nature of scripture, which makes it apparent that the NT is the OT revealed, etc.). [Feel free to set me straight, Carmen, if you disagree, which I know you will.]
Anyway, thanks for sharing your insights.
Harlot: "Prostitute: a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
"R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'42"
Footnote:
42] 'Shipdraggers,' (v. Rashi). Herford, Christianity in the Talmud, p. 48, suggests that Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus (v. also pp. 64-70). Though no name is mentioned to shew which woman is meant, the mother of Jesus may be alluded to, which theory is strengthened by the statement that she mated with a carpenter. (The Munich MS. has [H] in the margin instead of [H], i.e., singular instead of plural.)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html
Jim, I wholeheartedly agree. Things would go much more swimingly if some were capable of grounding or anchoring their beliefs in a premise, statement, etc. It seems many are willing to accept a belief, by initially buying into a view that's beneficial. Then when they try and sell their unique view, find it much more difficult to sell to others who require more than just 'trust' in their word.
Trying to find a starting place with some posters, to include Carmen, seems arbitrary as even she as a self proclaimed Messianic Jew, places more weight on certain parts of her belief than another MJ may. The keystone of her beliefs with the highest weighted element, is probably not even being considered in this discussion. She possibly, places less weight to what doctrine states, than on other more personal factors where needs are being met.
Good hearing from you, take care.
As for the Talmud garbage, you misunderstood: I think while the Jewish “sages” might have been smart and said a lot of good things, they also said a lot of junk that doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Talmud isn’t Gospel, and it’s been – whether you believe it or not – misunderstood and misinterpreted by those with an agenda. I do not adhere to the Talmud in any way, but it upsets me for people to throw other people’s silly opinions around and try to pass them off as gospel. Why don’t you read it FOR YOURSELF, rather than to accept someone else’s opinion? Oh, that’s right – you don’t have the YEARS it would take to slog through the Talmud….
“You have offered information, and, I provided the Talmud interpretation to support, the OT to support, and even multiple online Jewish web sites to support, an entirely different perspective than what you have posed as answers to statements.”
What you have done, “Any-mouse” is taken info from the websites and “authorities” that supported YOUR viewpoint. That is all. For every guy with a Doctorate, I could find one who supports MY viewpoint, as well. The thing is, there is only ONE Truth, and you either accept it, or you don’t. Man’s ideas don’t matter much when push comes to shove. The only thing that matters is what God thinks.
If you all think we are nothing but worm fodder when we die, knock yourselves out. It’s your prerogative.
Someone mentioned that Yeshua didn’t meet the qualifications of Messiah. Well, He did and I challenge you to PROVE with REAL EVIDENCE that He didn’t: http://www.therefinersfire.org/qual_mess.htm
As for whoever said they weren’t impressed with my website, I didn’t expect you to understand what you were reading, and couldn’t care less whether or not you were “impressed”. Furthermore, I don’t recall getting an email from you challenging with EVIDENCE the things I said. All you’re doing is telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about – and yet you failed to show me HOW. If you believe my stuff is “weak” SHOW me via REAL EVIDENCE! Matthew 7:13 tells us that most humans won’t be taking the gate that leads to eternal life. You just happen to be among them. You’ll have a lot of company because at least 2/3 of the human race will not end up in heaven….
As for your beliefs that Yeshua never even having fulfilled one prophecy, I challenge YOU to prove He DIDN’T do these things. If He didn’t, then this “myth” sure managed to touch the entire world and change people’s lives, and spur on both true believers and kooks who twisted His Word with their skewed version of what they THOUGHT He taught.... (And “not believing he existed” doesn’t count. What you believe or don’t believe doesn’t make something so. PROVE to me that He DIDN’T exist; debunk the entire Bible with real, tangible EVIDENCE! You keep telling me to prove God exists – well, prove he DIDN’T.)
NOW:
If the Bible is a lie, how do you explain Isaiah 66:7-8, in which the prophet foretold the re-birth of Israel, which happened in 1948 when the world briefly felt sorry for the Jews and returned Israel to them – and, as we are told, it would happen “in one day”.
How do you explain that the Bible said in Genesis 15:18 that the descendants of Abraham (Abram) would have their own country, between Egypt and the Euphrates (Israel). This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 3400 years ago, the Jews first established Israel. Then, about 2900 years ago, Israel divided into two kingdoms, called Judah and Israel. Both kingdoms were later conquered by the Assyrians and Babylonians. But, in 1948, the Jews regained independence for Israel. It was the first time in 2900 years that Israel was both united and independent.
How do you explain away Joel 3:2 where the prophet said that the nations of the world will be judged for having scattered the people of Israel and for having "divided up" (or "parted" or "partitioned") the land of Israel. If you don’t think the world and the U.S. is already being judged for her part in dividing Israel, then you were asleep during the recent floods in Europe, or the tsunami, or during 9/11, or during Katrina, etc. The Bible tells us there will be natural disasters of amazing proportions in the “end times”, and it’s only just begun. Of course, “the world” will explain it away via “El Nino” (which coincidentally happens to also refer to the Christ Child), or to such things as “global warming”). Funny how all these things are happening now, in the very days before Israel’s near destruction, at a time when the “Anti-Christ” will show his ugly face and make a “seven-year peace treaty” with Israel ….
How do you explain away Ezekiel 36:8-10 where the prophet Ezekiel said that the Jews would return, rebuild and repopulate their fallen cities. Ezekiel, according to the Bible, lived about 2600 years ago during the time of the Babylonian Captivity, when many Jews, including Ezekiel, were taken as captives to Babylon. After the Babylonian Captivity ended, many Jews left Babylon and returned to their homeland. But about 1900 years ago, the Jews again were forced into exile, this time by the Romans. However, since the late 1800s, millions of Jews have returned to their ancient homeland. And, once again, they have been rebuilding and repopulating their ancient cities. In 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews living in Israel. Today there are about 6,000,000. And more Jews throughout the world are returning to Israel each year.
How do you explain that, prior to 1948 after the Jews regained Israel, NOBODY wanted Israel? It was a barren desert. As the Bible tells us, once the Jews were back in THEIR God-given Land, the land prospered once more, and now suddenly EVERYBODY wants it, especially the Muslims. Gosh – that leads to yet ANOTHER prophecy that began with the jealousy between Isaac and Ishmael….
And how do you explain the Books of Daniel and Revelation which tell about the end times in which crimes and decadence would become “the norm”; that children would be so disobedient that they would even kill their parents, or that there would be diseases caused by beasts of the field that threaten much of the earth’s population (AIDS is just one!), and disasters of Biblical proportions such as we’ve never seen (this past year, according to meterologists, etc., is the “worst in history” as far as natural disasters go – and guess what: we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet!)…..
If you don’t believe anything else, I hope you hear this: The Bible tells us that the Anti-Christ will make a seven year peace treaty/covenant with Israel (and this is right on the heels of another major round of anti-Semitism which is already happening in horrendous proportion – one example is France: there has been a steady exodus by Jews from France lately because they are being physically and violently attacked). But, just prior to or immediately after a WWIII type scenario, a charismatic man will appear who will “magically” solve the world’s problems, make a 7-year peace treaty with Israel, and start up a “one-world religion” which will supposedly make everybody happy. When these things happen, remember what I told you, for these things are just around the proverbial corner. Our entire future hinges on what happens in Israel. Believe it or not.
Having said this, I’m through posting because I don’t want to continue “offending” you good, sweet, and kind-hearted people (especially the guy who wants to suck off my God!), with my arrogance - so go ahead and argue amongst yourselves again and hack around on someone else. I have a life.
And, by the way “CT” – AGAIN you said nothing.
I challenge you to PROVE that JESUS was NOT an alien from a UFO! PROVE IT!!!!!!!!
Idiot - you have the burden of proof. You are the one making fantastic claims. YOU must PROVE your claims.
You say you are filled with the amazing redeeming unconditional love of God, yet you get pissed off and start whining like a little kid (I can almost hear your voice getting higher and higher) who has been smacked just because we think your religion is whacked. Get over yourself. If you have the all-powerful creator of the universe in your back pocket, you should be able to take a little verbal resistance from people who think you're wrong.
For over 3000 years the religion of Egypt comforted millions of people. For thousands of years Zeus and his entourage provided a comforting religion for millions of people. Still, I think you'd agree, just because those religions existed for thousands of years, it doesn't make them true. Christianity is not true because people believe in it.
You come here to our site, tell us off, and then get surprised when you're not treated with kid gloves. Now run along and have your little temper tantrum.
Your Binky is on the table.
On the contrary, I said enough...
You accused the Webmaster of jumping on someone for posting anonymously while not jumping on another anonymous poster. I pointed out that you had managed to get the facts mixed up.
I also pointed out that this does cast some doubt on your ability to keep the facts straight.
If I said nothing, which I take to mean that my comments have no bearing on the subject at hand, then you didn't make that mistake and I was in error.
Since that error is there for everyone to see, and since you seem unable to admit to making a mistake, I now call into question your attitude as it's now showing arrogance.
I also submit that, by refusing to admit that a claim is false, you are insisting that your claim is truth. As such, I also call into question your integrity by claiming a falsehood to be truth. (ie. lying)
You are making mistakes, arrogantly insisting that you aren't and lying. Oh, and you've been insulting from the start.
Now explain why we should listen to you...
Uh, Carmen, I am reading it literally, right from someone who has dedicated many years of their life to the insights it literally provides. Regarding the Magi, and your wisdom that they spoke a lot of trash, and junk. Perhaps, the same could be said of the authors of the OT and NT, who in theory were wise themselves according to followers.
You started earlier in this discussion stating that the Talmud says different things to different people, depending on how they read the passages - Oral Tradition dictating. This of course, leaves "all" reading to be interpreted differently, and according to the "desire" of the person reading. Any person with a desire to see the words using eisegesis has already pronounced their agenda. Their agenda, being, I will read and interpret words, not for the literal meaning shown on the pages, but for what I can take from the passages.
Carmen: "Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together. In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam's mother being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus. You can't have it both ways.
12/03/2005 11:11 PM"
Carmen: "God tells us not to argue with unbelievers or cast our pearl before swine. You people will not believe ANYTHING I say, which brings me back to my favorite line: At least on Judgment Day you won’t be able to say “I didn’t know.”
Well, its obvious, per your own statements, that you have not trudged through the Talmud. But, you at the same time, hold an "adamate" belief regarding the Talmud, i.e., Balaam and Jesus being two entirely separate and self-contradicting people, in the Talmud, during the fornication with an ass event. In order for many people, to trust others to give them information that is credible, a person must build up "their" credibility so that their words are "weighted" accordingly. You discount your own credibility, by making statements that the Talmud is mere opinion, with junk, but then turn around to "defend" it as gospel.
Lets explore;
Sanhedrin 106b:
"Rab said: They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation.2 A certain min3 said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,4 [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old.5 He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.'6
Footnotes:
2] This is suggested by the use of the plural 'among them that were slain by them,' intimating that the various deaths inflicted upon others were all suffered by Balaam. Thus he was hung (strangulation), a fire was lit under him (burning), his head was struck off (decapitation), and then he was allowed to fall to earth (stoning); v. supra 45a.
6] [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for JESUS, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.]
Okay, so far, Jesus given the alias Balaam was pretty much boiled in excrement and pissed on, beaten, torched, stoned, strangled, and decapitated.
Now, Carmen, its not that I actually agree with the violence religion seems to bring out for some people. However, the fact remains, you either have not studied your own religious backgrounds' foundational document to include the Talmud, or you are practicing what is premitted in the Talmud, and that is subterfuge to the swine. I prefer to call it, lying, however, I give you credit for not lying, I just believe you are real young, and ignorant of your own scriptural foundations.
Carmen: "What you have done, “Any-mouse” is taken info from the websites and “authorities” that supported YOUR viewpoint. That is all. For every guy with a Doctorate, I could find one who supports MY viewpoint, as well. The thing is, there is only ONE Truth, and you either accept it, or you don’t. Man’s ideas don’t matter much when push comes to shove. The only thing that matters is what God thinks."
If you were tolerant and educated, you would be looking at your own statement and realizing that there is indeed "many" ways to interpret the same writings. If you were to write down this second your thoughts about the last "movie" you watched, and someone picked up your writing a thousand years later, they have to figure out "literally" what you were trying to say, meaning, you have better said "exactly" what you, thought, felt, and wanted to convey in extremely precise language, or they have to "interpret" your thoughts based on the "movie" type, and how they use your "life" and experiences to form your "view". There is very little "exegesis" wiggle room. Most scholars, are well capable of deriving literal connotation of syntax. Where the "I have my PhD and you have yours", comes in, is in the eisegesis of the words. Eisegesis being, the placing of ones own world view and experiences on the words written in front of them. When people search for truth using Eisegesis, its nothing more than placing their own desires onto the words, rendering an unlimited number of belief combinations.
However, you are admittedly using Eisegesis to derive the foundation for your unique belief system, according to the experiences you have had in your life, and placed your Values onto the words. As a personal opinion you hold, that's tolerable, each of us can go our merry ways as long as we don't create a barrier for others to live a free and prosperous life. However, you say there is "ONE" Truth, and that is Absolute. This makes you "better", more "right", and more "Intolerant" of Other peoples' views. It this attitude, that the Jews who follow Talmud had against the goyim/gentiles and how the NT authors saw the Rabbinical/Orthodox Jews when saying not to throw pearls in front of swine.
You have come here to show everyone that You in fact have "The Truth", and inherently that means "everyone else is wrong", by having their beliefs. Your belief is so strong, because you feel we are all going to perish in some afterlife, but you have no "written" evidence to support this claim.
I didn't seek out other websites, in the hopes of disproving your Absolute Truth, I already "knew" with great confidence that there will always be a different "point of view", because we all have unique experiences in life based on nature and nurture that allows us to form out belief systems. The point being made, is, that you are "Intolerant" of other peoples' beliefs, while many here don't really go out of their way to hunt people down with differing beliefs, in order to tell them they are going to hell, etc.
Those who promote hate sites, etc., stating they have the "only" absolute Truth, are typically the ones promoting intolerance. Personally, I really don't care what someone else thinks, there is only one person I have to convince regarding credibility of information, and that's Me. I have never said your Personal belief is incorrect for You, however, I do believe your Personal belief is not a Universal Absolute Truth to be forced onto other people, especially if their years of study has shown them different perspectives regarding religion in general.
Carmen: "If you all think we are nothing but worm fodder when we die, knock yourselves out. It’s your prerogative."
Once again, this shows the limited capacity of knowledge you wield. You obviously believe there are only two views in this life, one, where there is dualism, a metaphysical objective reality with perfect objects, i.e., gods, angels, etc, and an entirely separate physical objective reality, i.e., this natural universe.
Some of the earliest religions growing parallel to Judaism were monist.
"Monism: Defined as the view that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to, or described by, a single concept or system. It is the doctrine that mind and matter are reducible to the same ultimate substance or principle of being."
Problem for the early Christians, is this gets rid of hell, and heaven. It doesn't reduce humanity to worm fodder, death releases humanity back to the part of nature from whence it came. The gnostics, believed we are living in hell on earth, as matter is the entrapment of our pneuma/life force that is pure. Upon death, we escape the material entrapment. Did I tell you "my" religious views, in this thread?
No. Therefore, I obviously don't have an agenda, other than to show that you see things from a narrow perspective. Worm fodder, is a cliche meant to reduce another persons' belief value. Its akin to an ad hominem attack. But, of course you close with, "it's your prerogative." as if that somehow reduces the Personal attack. Again, I don't disagree that "You" don't have a right to a Personal belief, however, when you tell everyone that you have "evidence" for "The Truth", and the expense of everyone elses' belief - I like to see evidence.
Carmen: "Someone mentioned that Yeshua didn’t meet the qualifications of Messiah. Well, He did and I challenge you to PROVE with REAL EVIDENCE that He didn’t: http://www.therefinersfire.org/qual_mess.htm"
Why would someone take "their" time to prove something that "You" say is Universally True. If what you say, is Universall True, then the evidence should be Self-Evident. Why not provide your evidence.
Carmen: "As for whoever said they weren’t impressed with my website, I didn’t expect you to understand what you were reading, and couldn’t care less whether or not you were “impressed”. Furthermore, I don’t recall getting an email from you challenging with EVIDENCE the things I said. All you’re doing is telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about – and yet you failed to show me HOW."
Well, other than the fact your web site is "down", I wouldn't spend much time there. The last time I refuted Jesus as the Messiah looking at Isaiah's prophesy, you never overcame the 600+ year gap between a child born in his time to Mary, and a Jesus born 600 years later.
Carmen: "If you believe my stuff is “weak” SHOW me via REAL EVIDENCE! Matthew 7:13 tells us that most humans won’t be taking the gate that leads to eternal life. You just happen to be among them. You’ll have a lot of company because at least 2/3 of the human race will not end up in heaven…."
Really, interesting, and where did you get this number from? I'm sure you have some biblical foundation, or do you.
Carmen: "As for your beliefs that Yeshua never even having fulfilled one prophecy, I challenge YOU to prove He DIDN’T do these things. If He didn’t, then this “myth” sure managed to touch the entire world and change people’s lives,..."
Some people believe that Santa Cluase is an inspiring myth that has touched the lives of almost every child in some form in first world countries. I "CHALLENGE" You to prove Santa Clause didn't deliver the presents every year. If he didn't then this "myth" sure managed to touch the entire world and change people’s lives.
Carmen: "...and spur on both true believers and kooks who twisted His Word with their skewed version of what they THOUGHT He taught...."
...and remember that Santa, did in fact spur on both true believers and kooks who twisted His Word with their skewed version of what they THOUGHT He taught. Its impossible to determine who really knows the truth, will all of those different views, some people, without knowing it, spread stories they were told believing they were real. But when asked for evidence, they hold out their hands with nothing, except a book, written by people who could have been kooks with a twisted view of what the real person was trying to promote.
Carmen: "(And “not believing he existed” doesn’t count. What you believe or don’t believe doesn’t make something so."
Ah, it appears we are gettting somewhere. No one has direct Evidence "for" or "against" a metaphysical God who resides in a transcendent metaphysical objective reality. It's by definition impossible to use "Physical" evidence to prove something meta(beyond)-physical exists. But, alas, we have all of these people running around saying they have "evidence" for a metaphysical being, while they pull out books, written by men-kind thousands of years ago, who some people claim may have been wise in some things and not others.
Now, just because someone believes in something without evidence, and it makes it so for them, doesn't mean it makes is so for someone else. However, I am not personally here to convince you against your own belief Carmen, because you are more than willing to believe something with no evidence or contradicting evidence. You will continue to "make" words mean things they don't, to disregard words that don't follow your line of belief, etc. You have chosen a belief, and are looking for evidence to support it.
Even if someone wanted to take the time, and strip everything you said down to a non-provable statement, you would still "Believe", without "any" evidence, because you have already made that decision subconsciously. You can say that you are open minded, but it doesn't appear that you have made the effort to refute your own belief system. Until you have enough knowledge to "refute" your own beliefs, you can't say you have "chosen" wisely. One can't "choose", when they only see "one" belief on the shelf. You have yet, to place credibility in any other belief, which shows a lack of tolerance and education, to place on the shelf for self inspection. Many on this site, have studied many religions in depth, and allowed those options to be available. However, at the end of long research, many have chosen to not buy Christianity. The difference, is that these people actually gave Christianity the benefit of the doubt, and did the research, and many have "reasons" for not following Christianity.
When you go shopping, do you look at the whole product or just some of the benefits? Many choose to look at the whole product, if they see as many negative reasons "not" to buy the product as they see "to buy" the product, and they choose to "not buy", based on the fact they were looking for something without the "negative" aspects, then its based on an educated choice. However, to "buy" something off of the shelf because someone recommended it to you, without you doing research first, makes you an impulse buyer. Your evidence is nothing more, than the recommendations handed to you from other people, or your desire to be like those who are wearing the same clothes.
Carmen: "PROVE to me that He DIDN’T exist; debunk the entire Bible with real, tangible EVIDENCE! You keep telling me to prove God exists – well, prove he DIDN’T.)"
Carmen, the Talmud passages were provided to show that the writings were nothing but man-written reflections which hindered on the culture and time they were written. You then discounted the passages as having any "real" relevance, you pick and choose which passages you "want" to believe.
This activity, represents YOUR Values, and Character. If there were "no" evidence "at all" of a God, no writings, no evidence, "Nothing", you would still choose to believe what someone "told" you about a god.
Because you either fear the consequences of what they told you, or you trust their views. Your fear is obviously too great at this time in your life to explore the truth of religious doctrine, specifically the "hell" concept and fear. Obviously, you don't believe in Gehena, many Jews don't believe "anyone" is going to sit in Gehena for more than 12 months, and that's it. Someone sold you, Christian "fear" of eternal damnation and gnashing of teeth, from a meta-Jewish perspective, hence MJ.
Enjoy your beliefs, however, you have no evidence to support an Intolerant Universal Absolute Truth. So, if you have "evidence" to compel a person to believe what you say is real, put it out there. I mean, tangibles, not some prophesy, that is "not" tangible.
If not, the references Any-mouse posted have served me well as I made good use of them, and they probably will do justice to providing further differing perspectives, whether you believe we "all" are searching out hate sites or not, personally just about any religious web site can be seen as Intolerant, such is the nature of religions...
If a religion didn't believe they had the "Truth", and everyone else was "wrong", they wouldn't have anything to provide their followers, now would they... I have yet to see the "Almost-Truth" church...
Anyway, seems you have a lot to read. Now, that I have the Talmud online web site, perhaps I'll read more while I take a refrain also. Ciao...
Not only is the internet a wonderful place of discovery, if one can sift through the dirt, but cable was and still can be a source of information.
I watched a program about near death experiences on the Discovery Channel quite some years ago. And as usual, they show people who went through "the tunnel of light", were extremely at peace and saw loved ones. Then they brought in the experts. A neurologist talked in depth about these so-called near death experiences and actually did a "show and tell". As he performed brain surgery, he stimulated part of the brain just above the ear. He said that would produce the "light in the tunnel" effect so many describe as a near death experience. Sure enough, when the patient awoke she spoke of a near death experience.
When we die, typically the brain is the last organ to stop functioning. As oxygen levels fall, hallucinations rise. Lack of oxygen also causes a sense of well being, just before actual death. Also, the brain starts to release neurological chemicals, which increase the electrical impulses in the brain. These two can cause all the near death experiences that people describe.
You can't get information about God and the Bible in an atheist chatroom.
Please email me at carmen@therefinersfire.org
I personally had a couple of "out of body" type experiences, in which I saw Jesus (no "light" or "tunnel", but a real vision whose message eventually came true). Twenty-five years later, God instantly cured me of a physical problem during another "vision" that caught me by surprise and totally freaked me out. Until then, I had pretty much doubted the existence of God and thought the Bible to be a bunch of fairy tales - as a matter of fact, I didn't give either of them much thought throughout my entire life...until then.
Anyway, NOBODY can take those experiences away from me (or explain them away), including the people in this chatroom....
If you would like me to share these and other "tidbits" with you, please email me. I don't plan on discussing it here because these people thrive on debunking not only God and the Bible, but also the beliefs and experiences of others.
Carmen @ The Refiner's Fire
Heads have been lobbed off and written about, since recorded history. In context, its been the end times since the beginning of recorded history then.
The Talmud speaks definitively about lobbing off of heads, specifically the lobbing off of Jesus' head. The Talmud builds on Jewish Oral Tradition dating, at least by Jewish account over a thousand years BCE.
"The Talmud (?????) is a record of rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories, which Jewish tradition considers authoritative. It is a fundamental source of legislation, customs, case histories and moral exhortations. The Talmud has two components, the Mishnah which is the first written compilation of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah (though the terms Talmud and Gemara are generally used interchangeably). It expands on the earlier writings in the Torah in general and in the Mishnah in particular, and is the basis for all later codes of Jewish law, and much of Rabbinic literature. The Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (a Hebrew abbreviation of shishah sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah)."
"Mishna and Gemara - The Jewish Oral law was recorded by Rabbi Judah haNasi and redacted as the Mishnah (????) in 200 CE. The oral traditions were committed to writing to preserve them, as it became apparent that the Palestine Jewish community, and its learning, was threatened."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
The early lobbing;
Sanhedrin 106b:
"Rab said: They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation.2 A certain min3 said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,4 [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old.5 He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.'6
Footnotes:
2] This is suggested by the use of the plural 'among them that were slain by them,' intimating that the various deaths inflicted upon others were all suffered by Balaam. Thus he was hung (strangulation), a fire was lit under him (burning), his head was struck off (decapitation), and then he was allowed to fall to earth (stoning); v. supra 45a.
6] [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for JESUS, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.]
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html
Again, its obvious that there is nothing "significant" about lobbing heads in the bible to denote a "unique" and "exclusive" mark in history to give credence to a prophesy. The character Paul was shouting the end times prophesies while he was still alive two thousand years ago.
I will not argue with you about your god. However, please provide proof that jesus actually walked this earth and was not invented by Paul. I want historical references, not quotes from the bible.
Good luck
I find your views enlightening, they do interest me, but, at this moment in my life, just as you, I have had experiences which have caused me to filter information stringently, and if an experience is not replicable so that I may personally validate, then it doesn't provide the level of predictability I require in order to live in comfort. Taking information solely on "faith" is a little more ambiguous, than I can handle based on my experiences. That doesn't make it wrong for anyone else, but I do get a choice, right?
Apparently you haven't read any of my posts, or else you would have seen that I already explained the atheist's Talmud allegations are worthless because they (and you) are getting your info from uninformed people who want to make Jews out to be heathens and crazies.
Your example: 6] [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for JESUS....
Sorry, Charlie. Balaam is NOT used as an alias for Jesus! Get yourself a Talmud and read it. In it, you will see that the sages sometimes used the word "Jeshu" (which is Hebrew for "May his name be blotted out"), NOT "Yeshua" which means "Salvation". They were NOT speaking of Messiah, but Satan....
So - you DON'T know, and you aren't paying attention!
As for the others who had questions of me, please send me an email because I don't intend to argue anymore in this viper pit.
Thanks in advance,
Carmen
carmen@therefinersfire.org
The online link, to the Talmud posted in earlier comments, gives the following information;
SANHEDRIN - TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
WITH NOTES, GLOSSARY - AND INDICES
CHAPTERS I - VI - JACOB SHACHTER
CHAPTERS VII - XI - H. FREEDMAN, B.A., Ph.D.
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF:
RABBI DR I. EPSTEIN
B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/index.html
Sanhedrin 106b:
"Rab said: They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation.2 A certain min3 said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,4 [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old.5 He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.'6
Footnotes:
2] This is suggested by the use of the plural 'among them that were slain by them,' intimating that the various deaths inflicted upon others were all suffered by Balaam. Thus he was hung (strangulation), a fire was lit under him (burning), his head was struck off (decapitation), and then he was allowed to fall to earth (stoning); v. supra 45a.
6] [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for JESUS, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.]
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html
It does seem extremely coincidental that the Jews found another 33 year old male, to attribute a blashemous chronicle to, and whom they felt enough hatred toward that they wanted them boiled in excrement, stoned, burned, decapitated and strangulated. Perhaps, you know of another 33 year old male, who was part of the Jewish Oral Tradition, that made it into the Talmud ~200CE.
Now that's intriguing, because for the many prophesies, that are claimed to be unique and exclusive where there are myriads of other similar events, there comes out this exclusive event of a 33 year old male who captured the full wrath of the Rabbinical Jews for blasphemously disobeying their laws and for being proclaimed The Jewish Messiah.
Carmen, the Talmud developed over time. The earliest writings, around 220CE were declared to have code words, where the Jews knew the key by passing it from generation to generation to make sense of the Talmudic writings, the Mishna. However, I am going to side with you on that one, Jesus was not encrypted into the earliest writings, but that seems to bring a different conundrum doesn't it. If Jesus wasn't discussed in the earlier writings of the Talmud, then did Jesus actually exist, I mean, the Jews would not have missed that whopper.
However, as Talmudic writings were added, the Babylonian Talmud script did in fact incorporate code words for Jesus. Jesus was not identified for hundreds of years until ~600CE, perhaps, they felt compelled to entertain the notion of a Jesus, as the Roman Empire declared a state religion, and started persecuting the Jews if they didn't accept Jesus as their god. It does seem the above Babylonian Talmudic writings, i.e., Sanhedrin 106b, are representative of Jesus, written at a time of great persecution for the Jews, using context clues. Perhaps, there were two 33 year old males being discussed as being blasphemous to the Jewish teachings, in great length in the Jewish community around 600CE.
Can you provide an alternative explanation, with historical context, thanks.
Here's a great article for you. I'm totally serious...all jokes aside. It may help you.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-clancy.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html
The Harvard researcher said, "You can't disprove alien abductions. All you can do is show that evidence is insufficient to justify the belief, and try to understand why people have those beliefs."
Cheers
http://www.therefinersfire.org/challenging_atheism.htm
Here is one of her topics:
http://www.therefinersfire.org/atrocities.htm
Evil Bible Allegation: God now commands that all women must have health hazardous labors for Eve ate the fruit. In no way shape or form is it just that I must pay for the sins of my ancestors. Genesis 3:16
The Refiner's Fire Response:
Who said life was fair? If you tell your kid not to play with matches because a resulting fire will burn and scar you for life, and your kid willfully disobeys and ends up setting the house on fire - what happens? He not only incurs your wrath because you now have no house and you're out on the street, not to mention, you have a horribly disfigured kid who will cost you an arm and a leg in medical bills. Is it fair that your kid made you suffer? Is it fair that a pedophile father makes his son or daughter to suffer at his hands? If is fair that man has caused the extinction of many beautiful animals, just because he wanted to have their head hanging on his den wall? Was it fair of Hitler to exterminate six million Jews just because he felt they were a threat?
God is the Creator. He is in charge; man is not! When our parents command us to do something, we are to do it, no questions asked. If they say, "don't do drugs," then DON'T do drugs because it's for your own good!"
How could Adam and Eve ever have sinned if God had actually created them perfect, even if they did have free will? If God created them imperfect, how could a perfect omnipotent being create anything imperfect?
Well, Carmen, you don't allow rebuttals on your site, but... that's okay, it shows your shallowness, but... its to be expected when one wants to make assertions and is "not" in the search for "truth"... right... you already "have" the truth, because you believe what you were told as a child... you know... the child of a father as per your illustration who was fallen and sinful and obviously not capable of passing on information to you in a perfect manner... How do you live day to day, with that type of irrational thinking...
http://www.therefinersfire.org/challenging_atheism.htm
I don't celebrate Christmas, I celebrate the tradition of giving, as displayed by the Non-God character, Santa Clause... Santa Clause represents the tradition of "giving"... I take vacations, because the federal government has deemed that days off are given for the tradition of Santa Clause, as... if Christmas "ever" was established as a "religious holiday", then it would be "unconstitutional"... Go read a book... I sing, Jingle Bells, I sing Deck the Halls (Yule tide carol), and I take vacations because many of my family celebrate the tradition of Santa Clause, and acts of giving... I ignore the ignorance of the birth of a god on the 25th...