Why do Jews Reject Jesus - Part 2

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the standard of truth isn't the Hebrew bible, but rather whoever has the biggest miracle, regardless of how ridiculous the message, then Hinduism or some other religion may be the true religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since of course we Christians do believe in the hebrew bible, even though believing it to have been largely superseded, you effectively get a tautological free ride with us. This is not the case with those who don't believe in judeo-christianity at all, and you need to address them as well without resorting to an axiomatic assumption of the hebrew bible's truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I have addressed this extensively other threads, and it is you Christians who aren't addressing my points.

First, in the Hebrew bible God says His Torah is be observed forever, even after the real messiah comes. He tells us not to add to it, nor diminish from it (Dt. 4:2). In other words, it will never be superseded. The Torah is perfect, and God's laws are absolute and eternal. It doesn't make sense that God would keep redefining what is right or wrong, completely contradicting Himself in the process.

Second, He commands us to go to our own sages for questions of interpretation (Dt 17:8-13). In the time of Jesus, this would be Rabbis, levitic priests and the Sanhedrin. None of them accepted Jesus as the messiah, so we should follow their ruling, and reject jesus. In any case, he didn't fulfill any of the messianic prophecies. Why should we believe that God was also lying about what the messiah will do?

Third, God specifically commands us not to follow those like the gt authors who tell us to follow other gods (like Jesus) and who say that the Torah no longer has to be followed. Even if they produce a miracle (Deut 13:1-5), we must not follow them. As I said in the other thread:

"The problem is that many religions claim miracles. It would be impossible to investigate them all to see which, if any are, real miracles. God tells us simply to obey what He told us, to follow His Torah. That is the standard of what is true, not who produces the biggest miracle. Riding to heaven on a white horse is a pretty big miracle too, yet Christians don't become Muslims because of that. I doubt they've investigated any of the miracles of Hindus or Buddhists either. They just believe what they want to. In the bible, Elijah raised someone from the dead, but we don't worship him or assume he's the messiah. The real messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies."

It is you Christians who haven't addressed the issue: If God lies and changes His mind; if He is superseding something He had claimed was eternal, if He wanted us Jews to follow someone that He had commanded us not to follow, to commit what He had previously said was idolatry; and if we were supposed to know this because of an alleged miracle recorded decades after it alleged happened, then He may have done so again. Christianity may no longer be the correct religion, and Christians should be investigating the miraculous claims made for other religions. Your "new covenant" may longer be in effect.

Why should we find the gt any more believable than the Koran or Book of Mormon? They are all books which contradict the Hebrew bible and claim that God changed His mind. We are supposed to follow each because Jesus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith were all allegedly sent by God, and each "holy" book claims miracles to prove it. Why should we accept the gt, yet reject the other two? None of you have given a good answer to this question, or even addressed the issue at all.

[ QUOTE ]
As a suggestion, since these posts now bear no resemblence to the OP's post, why don't you two start a second "Why Jews Reject Jesus" thread. The original one is so long now it should be locked by the moderator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good idea.

[bossJJ]

Here is link to the first thread:

Why do Jews Reject Jesus? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2798051&page=1&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

[Zygote]

enjoyable read and case well made.

[Peter666]

Thanks for telling us why we should not believe in the Bible.

Now can you give us one single reason why we should believe the Torah which is in the same Bible?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Now can you give us one single reason why we should believe the Torah which is in the same Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very confused. The old and new testament are clearly different things. Some people choose to regard them as the same and BossJJ is simply trying to lay out why that would be a ridiculous thing to do.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
enjoyable read and case well made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for telling us why we should not believe in the Bible.

Now can you give us one single reason why we should believe the Torah which is in the same Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was explaining why the gt is false, not the Hebrew bible. Since the gt contradicts the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point, it is silly for you Christians to include it in your bible, since you don't actually believe hardly anything it says. Two contradictory things can't both be true. So if the Hebrew bible is true, then the gt is false.

Since you Christians supposedly believe that the Hebrew bible is true, there is no need for me to prove its veracity (when debating a Christian). If someone doesn't believe it's true, I don't believe that we can absolutely prove that God exists and He gave us His Torah, at least not in the scientific sense that would satisfy an athiest.

Nevertheless, I have addressed the issue in the other thread. I believe God does exist and He did give us His Torah, and that it's not unreasonable to believe that. I will copy some of the relevant posts into this thread.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, He commands us to go to our own sages for questions of interpretation (Dt 17:8-13). In the time of Jesus, this would be Rabbis, levitic priests and the Sanhedrin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since for almost 2000 years 2/3 of those interpreters mentioned above have not existed, how can you be sure that the 1/3 left, the rabbis, can provide valid interpretations on their own? And since there are 3 main strains of Judaism now, not to mention smaller ones, whose interpretation can you be sure are correct?

[bossJJ]

Repeat post:

Jews reject the gt for the same reasons that we reject the Koran and the book of Mormon. All three were written by delusional men who were following a false prophet. Each group claims to have God’s true revelation to mankind. However, all three are clearly not from God because they all contradict His word as given to us in the Hebrew bible.

How can we be so sure that the Torah is from God? And that the gt, Koran, and book of Mormon are not? Because God appeared to the ENTIRE JEWISH NATION (about 2-3 million people) when He gave the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai (Dt 5:19). Judaism is the ONLY religion in the entire world that was started by a national revelation from God. Only God, speaking to an entire nation could reveal a true religion. And once God speaks, He doesn’t “change His mind,” or revise the truths He proclaimed as absolute and eternal.

All other religions, including Christianity, are man-made. They started when some person claimed to have received a personal revelation from G-d. (In the case of Christianity, this person was Paul, not Jesus.) This person starts spreading his new version of the truth, whether through charisma or “miracles”, and he gradually develops a group of followers, who tell even more people, etc. Followers of these other religions often try to convince Jews that their new way is actually God’s true final revelation to mankind. They are certain that they are right, and that the Jews are wrong. They get quite upset with the stubborn Jews who fail to see the “truth”. For this reason both the gt and koran are very antisemitic books which portray the Jews as spiritually blind.

With the single exception of Judaism, the whole foundation of the other major world religions rests on a single individual. This person claims to be telling the truth, but how can we be sure when there are so many conflicting religions out there? Well, God hasn't again appeared in front of an entire nation in order to validate ANY of those other religions. God explicitly commands us NOT to follow any other religion (Dt 6:12-15, 13:1-12, Ps 81:8-9), even if the “prophet” of this new faith produces a miracle (Dt 13:2-4). Instead, we are commanded to follow God’s Torah forever (Ecc. 13:14, Dt 2:4, 29:28, Is 40:18, Ps 111:7-8, Ex 31:16, Num 15:23), even into and including the messianic age (Ezek 11:19-20, 37:24, 44:9, Zach 14:16). The bible never says that the Torah is only temporary.

The fervent faithful of many other religions often talk about miraculous events and wonderful personal experiences that prove the validity of their faith. However, believers of all religions make such claims, and they can’t all be right. The fact is that these experiences don’t prove anything:

www.outreachjudaism.org/experience (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/experience)

And if the events at Sinai were just an elaborate hoax by Moses, how come no one else has ever been able to repeat it? That would be a great way to convince people that your religion was true. These ideas are discussed in more detail here:
Did God Speak at Sinai? (http://www.aish.com/holidays/Shavuot/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai.asp)

Historical Verification of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/158/Q1/)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
With the single exception of Judaism, the whole foundation of the other major world religions rests on a single individual. This person claims to be telling the truth, but how can we be sure when there are so many conflicting religions out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so? Surely an impartial reader of the hebrew bible would think that Judaism depends to a large degree on Moses and the law given to him by God. Or was there some eyewitness coroboration of Moses' receiving that law that I am not aware of? Otherwise how can we be sure Moses didn't just make up the story of the burning bush, make up the 10 commandments and inscribe them himself? Please don't think "the bible says so" is an appropriate response to this question, since you need to address yourself to non-christians/non-jews as well.

[coolhandluke]

quick question.....
what does gt mean?

[Peter666]

You're right. I got confused too. I guess that is because they both contain equally stupid and implausible stories.

[BluffTHIS!]

"gt" is his snide reference to the New Testament which he calls the Greek Testament and abbreviates as "gt".

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you be sure that the 1/3 left, the rabbis, can provide valid interpretations on their own?

[/ QUOTE ]

because the torah said they would!


[ QUOTE ]
And since there are 3 main strains of Judaism now, not to mention smaller ones, whose interpretation can you be sure are correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe Rashi said all interpretations are correct as long as they were interpreted according to the guidelines set out in the torah.

[coolhandluke]

[ QUOTE ]
All other religions, including Christianity, are man-made. They started when some person claimed to have received a personal revelation from G-d. (In the case of Christianity, this person was Paul, not Jesus.)

[/ QUOTE ]

uhmm, there was quite a bit of spreading before Paul ever got involved.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe Rashi said all interpretations are correct as long as they were interpreted according to the guidelines set out in the torah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is logically silly since differing interpretations cannot all be correct, and if there were in fact no differing interpretations there would not be different strains/sects of Judaism.

[bossJJ]

Repeat post:

God has promised us that we will never cease to exist as a nation, because we have an eternal covenant with Him:
"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who stirs up the sea that its waves roar. The Lord of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever." (Jer. 31:34-35)

"I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your descendants after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." (Gen 17:7, see also Lev 26:44-45, Is 54:10, Jer 46:28, Mal 3:6, Dt 7:9.)

Other verses say that this eternal covenant is only with those Jews who keep His Torah (Dt 7:9). However, God also told us that the Torah isn't to hard to keep (Dt 30:10-19), and He promised us that the Torah, "shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of your seed" (Dt 31:21, Is 59:21)

God has kept His word. We (Jews) are the only people from the ancient Near East (and one of the few in the world) who has survived for over 3000 years with their identity and religion intact. Meanwhile, most of the other civilizations from that time have ceased to exist (e.g. - Hittites, Moabites, Edomites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc.) This is especially unique because we are small in number, and we were without our homeland for nearly 2000 years. And during this time we were subject to widespread persecution, massacres and forced conversions. While a few cultures may be as old the Jewish one (e.g. - Hindu, Chinese), they are far more numerous than the Jews, and they have stayed in their land.

The Jews gave the world God, ethical monotheism, the concept of universal moral responsibility, the notion of human sanctity (man created in "the image of God"), the idea of progress (linear as opposed to cyclical history), and the Bible. If it weren’t for the Jews, there would be no Christianity, no Islam, and no communism. Our impact on the world has been way out of proportion to our numbers (about 1/4 of 1% of the world's population).

Modern rabbinic Judaism is from the Pharisees. They observed both the written and oral torahs. There have been groups of Jews, like the Sadducees, who did not accept the oral law. But God gave us both, and His eternal covenant with us is only with those Jews who keep his torah, both oral and written (Dt 7:6-12). When a Jew rejects part of the law, or converts to another religion, he is lost to the Jewish people, and within 3 or 4 or 5 generations his children no longer identify as Jews. If the saduccees were right (in rejecting the oral law) why has God preserved his covenant only with the descendants of the Pharisees? Nor has the covenant been preserved with those early Jewish followers of Jesus. They are no longer with us as Jews. God preserved His covenant only with those Jews who rejected Jesus.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the single exception of Judaism, the whole foundation of the other major world religions rests on a single individual. This person claims to be telling the truth, but how can we be sure when there are so many conflicting religions out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so? Surely an impartial reader of the hebrew bible would think that Judaism depends to a large degree on Moses and the law given to him by God. Or was there some eyewitness coroboration of Moses' receiving that law that I am not aware of? Otherwise how can we be sure Moses didn't just make up the story of the burning bush, make up the 10 commandments and inscribe them himself? Please don't think "the bible says so" is an appropriate response to this question, since you need to address yourself to non-christians/non-jews as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the logic goes like this:

1) the torah says millions (maybe thousands i don't know?) witnessed god present the first two commandments i believe.
The actual torah was written not much later by moses.

2) the torah was accepted by the people in the time of the moses, therefore, they must've concured with the torah's claims.

This obviously only makes sense if you assume moses was real and the people of his time were actually the one's who originally accepted it.

[bossJJ]

Repeat post:

Some Christians believe in "replacement theology"; they think that Christians are the "New Israel" or the "true Jews". We know that this is false because ALL of God's prophecies and promises to the Jews have been fulfilled ONLY in the Jews, and not with the Christians. Here are some of them:

1.) Many verses (e.g. - Dt 30:1-6, Is 11:11-12, 43:5-6, Jer 23:7-8, 31:6-10, 33:25-26, Ezek 37:21, 39:25-28) predicted that the Jews would someday return to Israel, after their long exile. While not yet complete, many Jews are back in Israel. If jesus-believing gentiles are the true recipients of this promise, why is Israel a Jewish state, and not a Christian one? Why did God restore it to those who reject jesus?

2.) The bible says that the Torah "shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of your seed" (Dt 31:21, Is 59:21). Only the Jews have continuously possessed and observed the Torah.

3.) Lev 26:33 "…and I will scatter you amongst the nations." (Dt 28:64) It was the Jews who were exiled from the land of Israel and dispersed among the nations.

4.) The bible says that the Jews will remain small in number (Dt 4:26, 28:62). Since Christianity is a very popular religion, this obviously hasn't been fulfilled in them.

5.) The land of Israel would lay desolate without the Jews (Lev 26:32, Ezek 13:28, Dt 29:21-22) but would flourish again only when the Jews returned (Ezek 36:33, Amos 9:13). The land was indeed neglected and desolate for nearly 2000 years, as described by many travelers over the centuries (e.g. - by Mark Twain, and the 18th cent Frenchman Valneau), and it flourished once again only after the Jews returned.

6.) Exodus 31:16-17 says, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an eternal covenant. It is a sign forever between Me and the children of Israel." Here God is commanding us (Jews) to obey the Sabbath, telling us that it is "a sign forever" between Him and us. And God HAS kept it as a sign between Him and us. Only Jews observe the Sabbath. Christians have changed the day to Sunday, and Muslims have changed it to Friday.

[bossJJ]

Repeat post:

If we Jews are wrong (in rejecting Jesus and continuing to follow Torah), why does the bible say that everyone will be coming to the Jews for the truth in the messianic age?

"Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from all the languages of the nations shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garment and saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." (Zech 8:23)

"Many peoples shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:3)

“…the gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth and shall say, ‘Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no benefit. Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?’" (Jer 16:19-20).

"Then the nations shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them forevermore." (Ezek 37:28)

[bossJJ]

Repeat post (summary):

We believe that God spoke to the entire Jewish nation of 2-3 million people when He gave the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai. He gave us His Torah, and told us to follow it always and not to change it, and not to follow anyone who changes it or claims that it no longer needs to be followed.

No other religion claims a national revelation from God; it's impossible to fake.

Either, we just “made up” God and Torah, or He really did introduce Himself to our ancestors. Neither Christianity nor Islam deny this revelation, they just claim that God later sent Jesus and Mohammed to tell us something different. We don’t believe either was from God, and both religions contradict what God told us in the Hebrew bible. Thousands of individuals have claimed to have received a personal revelation from God, but God has never again appeared before an entire nation to validate any new religion. The Torah is perfect and complete in itself, and it’s to be observed forever.

If you believe in God, it’s logical to believe that He would communicate with mankind to let us know what He wants, and that He wouldn’t keep changing His mind. As God’s laws are absolute and eternal, He doesn’t send any “prophets” to establish new religions with different sets of rules. The true prophets just urged Jews to return to Torah law, or they gave messages about the future, but they didn’t deny or contradict the Torah.

Other things that show that God exists and the Torah is true - the history of the Jews - our survival without a homeland for 2000 years, and the impact we have had on the world, and the Torah prophecies about Jews that have come true. Also, we see how Torah observance creates compassionate people and gives us a higher quality of life. I discussed all this stuff in previous posts.

A good book about this topic is "Permission to Receive: Four Rational Approaches to the Torah's Divine Origin," by Lawrence Kelemen. The book is a follow-up to his first book, "Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God's Existence."

Something else that may show the truth of the Torah is internal clues or codes within it - the “Torah codes”.
Primer (http://www.aish.com/seminars/discovery/Codes/Primer/primer1.htm)

Torah Codes (http://www.torahcodes.co.il/)

Codes (http://www.aish.com/seminars/discovery/Codes/codes.htm)

A good book about this is "Cracking the Bible Code," by Jeffrey Satinover. He mentions a few formerly secular Jewish mathematicians who became religious as a result of working on the research or analyzing the results.

[bossJJ]

Please answer this question that I asked in the other thread:

Would you accept as evidence [that Mother Theresa and Pope John II were evil pedophiles] a book full of lies written decades after their deaths by those who just want to discredit Catholicism? The same book claims that your "new covenant" is no longer in effect, and that God wants you to worship the authors' god Bobo, who is really God. The book proves it by saying that he rose from the dead. The book also says Catholics are spiritually blind and enemies of God, otherwise you would know that Bobo is God and follow him. However, no one noticed Bobo when he allegedly lived. Would you consider that book as evidence?

[Peter666]

Bottom line is, this guy thinks every religion is wrong, but his is true, and anybody who disagrees is stupid. And His God talks through a burning bush. Yes, a bush that both talks and...burns..../images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the single exception of Judaism, the whole foundation of the other major world religions rests on a single individual. This person claims to be telling the truth, but how can we be sure when there are so many conflicting religions out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so? Surely an impartial reader of the hebrew bible would think that Judaism depends to a large degree on Moses and the law given to him by God. Or was there some eyewitness coroboration of Moses' receiving that law that I am not aware of? Otherwise how can we be sure Moses didn't just make up the story of the burning bush, make up the 10 commandments and inscribe them himself? Please don't think "the bible says so" is an appropriate response to this question, since you need to address yourself to non-christians/non-jews as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I'm addressing myself to Christians, and you are all avoiding the question. Why should I accept the gt while rejecting all other "holy" books?

[bossJJ]

Repeat post:

You are such a hypocrite; you believe the miraculous claims of the gt without any evidence, while just rejecting similar claims made for other religions. And no, the gt is not evidence. Quoting a book to prove its own truth is circular reasoning. It's like quoting the Koran to prove that Islam is true. You don't believe the gt because of any real evidence, as there is none, but rather you already believed in Christianity, so you just accept that the gt is true, despite all the lies and contradictions in it.

[bossJJ]

If the Hebrew bible is true, then the gt is proven false because it contradicts the bible. If the Hebrew bible is not true, then the gt is also proven false because all its claims for jesus are based on the Hebrew bible. So either way, the gt is false.

It's silly to "prove" the gt by discrediting the Hebrew bible, as that disproves the gt and Christianity as well. Can't you guys come up with any reasons why I should believe the gt?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i believe Rashi said all interpretations are correct as long as they were interpreted according to the guidelines set out in the torah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is logically silly since differing interpretations cannot all be correct, and if there were in fact no differing interpretations there would not be different strains/sects of Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some things all Jewish groups agree on, such as Jesus was not the messiah.

By your logic, Christianity must be false, because there are thousands of Christian denominations.

[bossJJ]

None of you have answered these questions:

1.) Why should I believe that the gt is from true or from God?

2.) Assuming it was true, how do you know that it hasn't since then been superceded by another religion, such as Islam or Mormonism?

Claiming that you now don't believe in the Hebrew bible does not answer the questions. It doesn't make sense, and it's just a way to avoid answering the questions.

[coolhandluke]

maybe you answered this in the first thrread, but why should one believe the ht? or is it jt?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some things all Jewish groups agree on, such as Jesus was not the messiah.

By your logic, Christianity must be false, because there are thousands of Christian denominations.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the contrary. I believe exactly one of them is totally true. But you didn't answer my question regarding Judaism.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I'm addressing myself to Christians, and you are all avoiding the question. Why should I accept the gt while rejecting all other "holy" books?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are addressing yourself in this forum to all who read it, a vast majority of whom you can safely assume are neither Christian nor Jewish. How about just answering the question regarding Moses. And if you are going to say Judaism didn't have its beginning with him, surely you agree that all that follows in Judaism is based upon him and the reveleation he supposedly receieved.

[bossJJ]

The Orthodox Rabbis have an unbroken link going back to Moses. There is wide agreement among what they believe. The disagreement is only over minor details.

Non-Orthodox groups are relatively recent forms of Judaism. They pick and choose what commandments to follow, which is completely contrary to the Torah. Non-Orthodox "rabbis" don't stay within the guidelines that have been followed for centuries.

This is discussed somewhat here:
Hillel and Shamai (http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_32_-_Hillel_and_Shammai.asp)

Of Wounded Souls (http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/Of_Wounded_Souls.asp)

To Know (http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/To_Know_You_Is_To_Love_You.asp)

God's prophecies and promises to the Jews have been fulfilled only in the spiritual and physical descedants of the Pharisees, not in the Saduccees or Christians or anybody else.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All other religions, including Christianity, are man-made. They started when some person claimed to have received a personal revelation from G-d. (In the case of Christianity, this person was Paul, not Jesus.)

[/ QUOTE ]

uhmm, there was quite a bit of spreading before Paul ever got involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no historical evidence to support that. No one from Jesus' alleged lifetime even noticed him. Paul was the first to write about him, and that's how others heard about him.

[coolhandluke]

Paul himself talks about going to see peter and the others that came before him.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
You are addressing yourself in this forum to all who read it, a vast majority of whom you can safely assume are neither Christian nor Jewish. How about just answering the question regarding Moses. And if you are going to say Judaism didn't have its beginning with him, surely you agree that all that follows in Judaism is based upon him and the reveleation he supposedly receieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that Judaism started when Moses received the Torah from God. Someone had to write it. I've discussed why I believe it's true. I've also said I don't think the existence of God, or that He gave us His Torah, can be scientifically proven to the extent that would satisfy an atheist. What exactly is the question that I'm not answering?

You guys are still being morons for thinking that you prove the truth of Christianity by discrediting the Hebrew bible, because doing so disproves Christianity at the same time.

You seem to imply that if I accept the Hebrew bible as true, even without absolute proof, then I should be willing to accept the gt as well. But if the Hebrew bible is true, then anything which contradicts it, like the gt, is obviously false.

If I should just accept books that contradict the Hebrew bible, why not accept the Koran, the book of Mormon, and Hindu writings as well? You still haven't addressed why I should accept the gt, while rejecting all other alleged holy books.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, He commands us to go to our own sages for questions of interpretation (Dt 17:8-13). In the time of Jesus, this would be Rabbis, levitic priests and the Sanhedrin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since for almost 2000 years 2/3 of those interpreters mentioned above have not existed, how can you be sure that the 1/3 left, the rabbis, can provide valid interpretations on their own? And since there are 3 main strains of Judaism now, not to mention smaller ones, whose interpretation can you be sure are correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the priests still exist. This is passed down from father to son. A genetic study found that Jewish priests (cohenim) from all over the world have a common male ancestor, who we believe is Aaron.

The Sanhedrin can only meet when certain conditions are met, including a majority of Jews living in Israel. The Sanhedrin will be reestablished in the messianic age.

[bossJJ]

We believe it is impossible to fake a national revelation from God.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul himself talks about going to see peter and the others that came before him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he is trying to claim that his is a legitimate religion based on Judaism. However, there is no evidence that Peter or any of Jesus' alleged disciples existed.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the priests still exist. This is passed down from father to son. A genetic study found that Jewish priests (cohenim) from all over the world have a common male ancestor, who we believe is Aaron.

The Sanhedrin can only meet when certain conditions are met, including a majority of Jews living in Israel. The Sanhedrin will be reestablished in the messianic age.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the condition for being a levitic priest is met, doesn't mean that they are functioning as same which they're not, thus leaving just 1/3 of the original class of interpreters. And regarding the sanhedrin, another convenient interpretation that can only be fulfilled in a messianic age. But wait! The sanhedrin existed before 2000 years ago. So why not now?

[BluffTHIS!]

Regarding Moses I am not making a point regarding Christianity so I won't address your off topic comments on those points. My point was that Moses rebuts your claim that all other major religions depend upon one man while Judaism does not. Now, your claim about the one man stuff is not necessary for Judaism to be true, just an erroneous assertion that is an arguement for it to be true.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"gt" is his snide reference to the New Testament which he calls the Greek Testament and abbreviates as "gt".

[/ QUOTE ]

"New Testament" is offensive to us, because it implies that our bible is no longer in effect. "Greek Testament" is actually a neutral term.

If I wanted to be snide or critical, I would call it something like the mcb ("moronic christian bible"). But I'm a nice guy, so I just call it the gt.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding Moses I am not making a point regarding Christianity so I won't address your off topic comments on those points. My point was that Moses rebuts your claim that all other major religions depend upon one man while Judaism does not. Now, your claim about the one man stuff is not necessary for Judaism to be true, just an erroneous assertion that is an arguement for it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that 2-3 milliion people heard God when He gave Moses the Torah. No other religion makes that claim, as it is impossible to fake if it didn't really happen. Just how could someone fake that? If it can be faked, how come no other religion has made the same claim?

Again, why do you deny what the Hebrew bible says? If the Torah isn't true, then neither is Christianity.

I guess you guys are just unable to answer the questions about why anyone should accept the gt.

[coolhandluke]

so, I guess you think that all the stuff in the New Testament about Jesus fullfilling prophecies was just made up after the fact and written down?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because the condition for being a levitic priest is met, doesn't mean that they are functioning as same which they're not, thus leaving just 1/3 of the original class of interpreters. And regarding the sanhedrin, another convenient interpretation that can only be fulfilled in a messianic age. But wait! The sanhedrin existed before 2000 years ago. So why not now?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! It's you Christians who had to invent a "scond coming" because Jesus failed to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies. The Sanhedrin isn't here now because the messiah has not yet come.

The Temple isn't here either because the messiah has not yet come. Apparently you're back to that ridiculous argument, which I have already disproven in other threads, that the destruction of the Temple somehow proves that Christianity is true. On the contrary, Jesus' failure to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies proves that he wasn't the messiah. Multiple verses prove that a blood sacrifice was never required in order to atone for sin.

If Christianity is true, why have all of God's preophecies and promises to the Jews been fulfilled only in the Jews, the descendants of the Pharisees?

If Christianity is true, why has God commanded us not to follow people like Jesus?

If Christianity is true, why does the bible say that everyone will be coming to the Jews for the truth in the messianic age.

[vulturesrow]

The historicity of the New Testament has been well established over the years and is well documented. It more than satisfies various historigraphical tests. In step with this is the fact that very few scholars believe that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. Your opinions on these particular issues are completely out of step with with established and widely accepted historical scholarship.

And incidentally, you need to reread if you think BluffTHIS (or any other Christian) is trying to say the OT isnt true.

[bossJJ]

Jesus failed as messiah. In fact, he failed so completely that you could call him the "antichrist."

The real messiah will rebuild the Temple, yet shortly after Jesus' time, the Temple was destroyed.

The real messiah will gather all the Jews back to Israel, yet shortly after Jesus' time, the Jews were exiled from the land and scattered all over the world.

The real messiah will bring world peace, and all the Jews will dwell securely in Israel, yet Christianity has brought 2000 years of antisemitism and war.

The real messiah will lead all Jews back to Torah observance, but Jesus encouraged Jews to sin.

The real messiah will bring a universal knowledge of God, while Christianity has led millions into their idolatry.

Anyone who thinks that such a complete failure (and sinner) could be the messiah has to be spiritually blind, or just plain ignorant.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that Moses rebuts your claim that all other major religions depend upon one man while Judaism does not. Now, your claim about the one man stuff is not necessary for Judaism to be true, just an erroneous assertion that is an arguement for it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that 2-3 milliion people heard God when He gave Moses the Torah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. You mean 2-3 million saw the burning bush and God giving Moses the tablets? Or only heard Moses' claims about same, which would just reduce Judaism to one of many religions that depend upon the word of one man?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sanhedrin isn't here now because the messiah has not yet come. The Temple isn't here either because the messiah has not yet come.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can this be true when they existed before without the messiah having come?

[bossJJ]

All Christian “proofs” about Jesus are based on mistranslations and/or taking verses out of context. Most of the verses they cite (from the Hebrew bible) aren’t messianic prophecies at all, and this is apparent when the verses are read in context. The gt authors had a poor knowledge of what the real messiah will do, so they try to offer “proof” about jesus with unrelated verses. As I’ve mentioned before, jesus did not fulfill ANY messianic prophecies, and this is what will happen when the real messiah comes:
www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html)

The gt was written by biased, deceitful men with an agenda. Its authors were claiming that jesus was the messiah. They were familiar with some of the biblical prophecies, so they made up stories to make it appear as if jesus was the messiah. To do this, they take verses out of context, change the meaning of words, and lie. This is why there are so many contradictions within the gt. It is clearly not from God.

Christian translators also tamper with the Hebrew bible. They change words (e.g. - Is 7:14, Psalms 2, 22 and 110, Dan 9:25-26) and verb tenses (e.g. – Is 9:6, 53:5). Very often, when a Hebrew prophet was speaking about someone in the past tense, the Christian translators change the words to the future tense (so that they can claim that it’s about Jesus). They also change some words from the plural to the singular (Is 53:8-9) for the same reason. The KJV and NIV are the least accurate Christian translations, with the most bible tampering. Some of the more modern translations have corrected the errors that led to these “proofs.” For example, the NRSV correctly translates the word “alma” (Is 7:14) as “young woman.”

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
The Orthodox Rabbis have an unbroken link going back to Moses. There is wide agreement among what they believe. The disagreement is only over minor details.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Just to add some stuff...

Most of the minor disagreements are with regards to levels of prudency and such. Whichever side of the dispute one's family's traditional bankround has held will be one's required practice and must be followed as obidiently as torah law. The rabbi's of different regions ruled differently on the specific hallachahs (sp?) and this is where most of the interpretational differences started. All of the interpretations are kosher because they all still respect and follow the guidelines of the torah.

[Peter666]

Under NO circumstances should you believe in the New Covenant or the New Testament as your arguments are air tight. You have clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity is a make believe sham.

So now that a whole generation of heathens have been formed thanks to you (and rightly so) can you please tell us why we should believe in Judaism? A religion that worships a talking AND burning bush? I mean, the fact that it can talk I reluctantly accepted, but burning at the same time? My faith is weak man, help me my bagel loving brother.

[bossJJ]

When you actually look up many of the “prophecies” in the Hebrew bible, they say absolutely nothing about the messiah or anything that even sounds like Jesus (as he is described in the gt). For example, Christians claim that Genesis 3:15 is a messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. In that verse, God says to the serpent, “…and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he will strike at your head, and you will strike at his heel.” Christians claim that “her seed” refers to Jesus. However, it actually refers to EVERYBODY, because the whole human race is descended from Eve.

Christians also claim that the serpent is really the devil, although there is nothing in the text that even implies this. Christians go on to say that this verse means that the messiah Jesus will defeat evil, and therefore anyone “born of God” won’t sin (1 John 3:8-9). If this silly interpretation is true, then this is just another messianic prophecy that Jesus failed to fulfill.

According to the gt, sin abounds among Christians (1 Jn 1:8, 1 Tim 1:15,). And Paul gives as an excuse, “Satan hindered us” (1 Thess 2:18). So Jesus actually failed to defeat Satan; according to the gt, he (Satan) is still quite active in the world. Also, according to the Hebrew bible, Satan is just a another loyal servant of God, just like all the other angels. It is God himself who creates both good and evil (Is 45:7), and man has free will to choose one over the other.

www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html)

www.outreachjudaism.org/original.html (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.html)


An example of taking a verse out of context is Hosea 11:1, which says, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea clearly states that he is talking about ISRAEL, not the messiah. However, Matthew (2:14-15) didn’t understand this, so he made up this whole story about jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt, and Herod killing all the babies. (This never happened historically, btw. If something of this magnitude really had happened, someone would have written about it. Josephus wrote extensively about Herod’s atrocities, and he never mentions it.) .

Other so-called prophecies are so general that they could describe several people. For example, all Jews are the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and most are from the tribe of Judah. Yet some Christians claim that these verses (e.g. – Gen 12:13) are messianic prophecies. And all the other “prophecies” are similar. When the verses (from the Hebrew bible) are read in context, they say nothing at all about Jesus. They provide absolutely no proof of anything (other than the gt writers’ poor knowledge of Hebrew and Judaism). These prophecies are fulfilled only in the Christians’ delusional imagination. This site disproves many of the Christians’ “proofs” about Jesus:

www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html )
(Topics covered include Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, Psalms 22 and 110, and many others.)

[bossJJ]

It makes no sense for Christians to have the Hebrew bible as part of their bible, because they don’t really believe it. The facts, theology, and worldview of the Hebrew bible are totally contradictory to that of gt Christianity. It makes no sense to claim that you believe in both. That would be like someone saying that he is both a conservative and a liberal, or that he believes in abortion, yet opposes it. If a (true) conservative claims to believe in liberalism, we can be quite sure that he has no idea what liberalism really is. Christians follow and believe in the gt, not the Hebrew bible.

However, once a person becomes a Christian, it is very difficult for him to just read the bible in context, in a rational manner to try to understand what it says; he already has all these false beliefs (from the gt) that distort his understanding, so he tends to just sees Jesus everywhere, and to ignore what the verses really say. In short, he is brainwashed, and his false Christian beliefs blind him and make it impossible to interpret the bible correctly.

Christians generally become Christians for emotional reasons. It's an easy religion. You don't have to do anything, because it's "faith" that is so important, and you don't have to think for yourself. It offers eternal happiness with no effort. Thus the religion attracts a lot of losers, drug addicts, etc. When they become Christians, they just trade one addiction for another, and blindly accept all the garbage in the gt. It is an emotional crutch for them. They “check their brains at the door” and willingly believe all sorts of nonsense. They simply can’t accept (emotionally) that they might be wrong (and the Jews right), so they simply refuse to see (or even examine) all the evidence that disproves Christianity.

No matter how many of their “proofs” we discredit, they refuse to accept that they are wrong. They are never able to disprove any of our evidence (that Judaism is right), yet they cling even more tightly to their false religion. They have no ability to think rationally or logically: Jesus failed to fulfill all the messianic prophecies, yet they conclude that he was the messiah. The bible says that sincere repentance alone provides atonement for sins, and they conclude that a blood sacrifice is necessary. The bible says that everyone will come to the Jews for the truth in the messianic age, so they conclude that Judaism must be wrong and Christianity is the true religion. Etc, etc, etc. No matter what the evidence shows, or the Hebrew bible says, Christians will believe the opposite. Talk about spiritual blindness!

Christians NEED to believe in their false godman/messiah, so they just aren’t going to let facts interfere with their beliefs. This is called “cognitive dissonance.” The guy who came up with this theory studied a Christians sect that wrongly predicted that the world would end in a certain year. One would expect that when their predictions were proven wrong, they would lose their faith. However, just the opposite happened. Their faith was STRENGTHENED. They simply couldn’t bear to lose their religion, so they found ways to rationalize the wrong predictions and fit it into their faith. And this is exactly what the early Christians did when Jesus failed to fulfill any messianic prophecies.

[bossJJ]

All the proper conditions won't exist again until the messiah comes back.

[bossJJ]

Mohammed and Joseph Smith existed. Does that prove that Islam or Mormonism is true?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Mohammed and Joseph Smith existed. Does that prove that Islam or Mormonism is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely addressing your recurring contention that the NT is not historically accurate and the fact that Jesus didnt actually exist. Read for content.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
All the proper conditions won't exist again until the messiah comes back.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not answering my question. Since by your beliefs the messiah has not yet come, and thus had not come 2000+ years ago, how could the temple and sanhedrin existed then if they could only do so post-messiah? And if the answer is that God commanded their establishment back then, then how can you say they can only exist again post-messiah when there have been no additions to the hebrew bible since the last destruction of the temple to tell you so?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Under NO circumstances should you believe in the New Covenant or the New Testament as your arguments are air tight. You have clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity is a make believe sham.

So now that a whole generation of heathens have been formed thanks to you (and rightly so) can you please tell us why we should believe in Judaism? A religion that worships a talking AND burning bush? I mean, the fact that it can talk I reluctantly accepted, but burning at the same time? My faith is weak man, help me my bagel loving brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think we worship a talking bush, then you are just demonstrating what a moron you are. Jews worship God alone. God spoke to Moses from a burning bush, but we don't worship a bush or think that it was God.

If you are so sure Christianity is true, just answer my questions and explain rationally why I should believe it.

You seem to imply that Christianity must be true because so many people believe in it. However, being popular doesn't mean something is true. That is discussed somewhat here:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/experience.html

[Peter666]

I already told you clearly that I believe Christianity is a sham thanks to your argumentation.

Now I want to know why I should believe in Judaism (or Hinduism or whatever you believe in). You have not provided an answer and avoid this topic constantly by going back to smearing Christianity. So answer the God damn question:

What basis is there in believing that Judaism is the true religion?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that Moses rebuts your claim that all other major religions depend upon one man while Judaism does not. Now, your claim about the one man stuff is not necessary for Judaism to be true, just an erroneous assertion that is an arguement for it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that 2-3 milliion people heard God when He gave Moses the Torah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. You mean 2-3 million saw the burning bush and God giving Moses the tablets? Or only heard Moses' claims about same, which would just reduce Judaism to one of many religions that depend upon the word of one man?

[/ QUOTE ]

2-3 million people supposedly heard god speak out the first two commandments. this is what he is refering to.

Here is a little piece taken from an interpretation of Parashat (weekly portion) Mishpatim (rules):

"Although Moshe ascended Mount Sinai by himself to receive the Ten Commandments written with the "Finger of Hashem," we must never forget that the Jewish People themselves heard Hashem speak the first two Commandments. Never again in human history would Hashem speak to an entire nation at once. Never again, as predicted by the Torah in Deuteronomy, would an entire nation even have the chutzpah to claim that Hashem spoke to their entire nation at once. Only Hashem Himself could convince several million men, women and children that they were hearing Him speak. Only Hashem could promise the Jewish People that no other nation would even claim that the experience was repeated for them. Hashem not only authenticated the first two Commandments, but He told the Jewish people that they would be able to trust Moshe when he went up the mountain to receive the rest of the Torah on their request."

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the proper conditions won't exist again until the messiah comes back.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not answering my question. Since by your beliefs the messiah has not yet come, and thus had not come 2000+ years ago, how could the temple and sanhedrin existed then if they could only do so post-messiah? And if the answer is that God commanded their establishment back then, then how can you say they can only exist again post-messiah when there have been no additions to the hebrew bible since the last destruction of the temple to tell you so?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that they can exist only post-messiah. The bible predicted that the Temple would be destroyed, and that we would be without it for a long time, until the messiah comes. Just why is that so hard for you to understand? The Temple existed, it was destroyed, and the bible says that it won't be rebuilt until the messiah comes.

There have been no additions to the bible because we already have everything we need in it. It says what the real messiah will do. Why should we believe an alleged "new covenant" that contradicts our bible?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
What basis is there in believing that Judaism is the true religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already answered that question many times, including in this thread. You apparently have a problem retaining information. Go back and re-read this thread.

[bossJJ]

Why don't you provide some evidence to back up your claims?

If Jesus really existed, how come no one from his alleged lifetime even noticed him?

My point was that even if he did exist, or even if it contains some correct historical facts, that doesn't prove that the gt is true or from God. Other "holy" books, as well as books of historical fiction, have some characters who really existed, and take place in real places.

[Peter666]

I have done as you told me wise master.

You claim that Moses was talking to a burning bush, and then God revealed himself to 2-3 million people. What did He look like when revealing Himself? And please don't say a burning bush.

[bossJJ]

In Deuteronomy 5:19-21, the bible says that all the people heard God speak. This was when Moses went up to receive the ten commandments. They heard his voice, but did not see him. This was after the Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt.

The burning bush was a separate incident, which only Moses saw. That was before Moses went back to Egypt to free the people.

[Peter666]

What language did he speak? And was it a manly voice or womanly voice?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
And incidentally, you need to reread if you think BluffTHIS (or any other Christian) is trying to say the OT isnt true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their comments and questions certainly imply that it's not true. If that's not what they mean, then they should just get to the point and say what they really mean.

[bossJJ]

For anybody who is interested in learning about Judaism, here are a couple of good books:

"The Nine Questions People ask about Judaism," by Dennis Prager and Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.

"To Be a Jew," by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin.


Jewish Apologetics:
"The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries," by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.

"The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity," by Gerald Sigal.

"The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity," by Hyam Maccoby.

"Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," by David Klinghoffer.


On the web:
Judaism 101 (http://www.jewfaq.org/)

www.aish.com/ (http://www.aish.com/)


Jewish Apologetics:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/)

http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
In Deuteronomy 5:19-21, the bible says that all the people heard God speak. This was when Moses went up to receive the ten commandments. They heard his voice, but did not see him. This was after the Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt.

The burning bush was a separate incident, which only Moses saw. That was before Moses went back to Egypt to free the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this story was written down how long after it supposedly happenned?

PairTheBoard

[bossJJ]

Non-Jews aren't required to observe Torah law, so there is no need for them to convert to Judaism, or even "believe in it". We believe that one doesn't need to be a Jew in order to have a relationship with God in this world or be with Him in the next.

Gentiles only need to follow the seven noahide laws. One of these laws prohibits idolatry. In worshipping a man (jesus) as if he were a god (or God), Christians are committing idolatry. OTOH, Muslims at least worship God, even though they have false beliefs about what He requires.

[Peter666]

You know, I went to the Jewish Website and this is what they said about the afterlife:

"Afterlife
Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does believe in an afterlife, but it is not the primary focus of our religion and there is a lot of room for personal opinion about the nature of the afterlife"

That sucks man. Islam at least guarantees me 72 virgins, so I think I will join them. Although I do agree with this law of the Mitzoh:
# 572: That a menstruating woman is unclean and defiles others (Lev. 15:19-24) (affirmative).
Damn straight.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In Deuteronomy 5:19-21, the bible says that all the people heard God speak. This was when Moses went up to receive the ten commandments. They heard his voice, but did not see him. This was after the Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt.

The burning bush was a separate incident, which only Moses saw. That was before Moses went back to Egypt to free the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this story was written down how long after it supposedly happenned?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was written down soon afterwards.

How can a national revelation be faked?

Why don't christians believe what the bible says?

[bossJJ]

Muslims worship God, so it's an acceptable religion for gentiles.

Gentiles don't have to observe Jewish law, so you needn't concern yourself with any of that.

Because of the Oral Law, we understand many verses (from the written Torah) differently than Christians do.

kosher sex (http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible predicted that the Temple would be destroyed, and that we would be without it for a long time, until the messiah comes. Just why is that so hard for you to understand? The Temple existed, it was destroyed, and the bible says that it won't be rebuilt until the messiah comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give a citation that includes both a prophecy of the temple's destruction and that it won't be rebuilt until the messiah comes, which dates only previous to the last destruction by the Romans, and not prior to the first by the Babylonians.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"gt" is his snide reference to the New Testament which he calls the Greek Testament and abbreviates as "gt".

[/ QUOTE ]

"New Testament" is offensive to us, because it implies that our bible is no longer in effect. "Greek Testament" is actually a neutral term.

If I wanted to be snide or critical, I would call it something like the mcb ("moronic christian bible"). But I'm a nice guy, so I just call it the gt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you make so much of the greek thing, why was it the rabbis who translated the hebrew bible into greek, a version known as the septuagint, some 200 years before the birth of Christ? Maybe because so many jews then only spoke greek?

Mr. Bossjj, I've read your posts with great interest. You've convinced me that in order to logically argue a theistic point against anyone who believes in the old testament, you need to argue using the precepts of Judaism. My Question regarding the Torah is this: Mark Twain in his essay where he refered to the bible ( I believe mostly the Old Testament) as a pack of lies, argued that among other stories, the Noah story is absurd. If God, handed Moses the Torah, so supposedly the Torah is devinely written, as opposed to a vague recollection of history by a writer such as maybe Moses himself, then how do Jews explain the absurdity of the Noah story.
Thank you for your reply.

[Peter666]

Actually, this I find fascinating:

"The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason."

The Catholic view is opposite. The primary purpose of sex is procreation, while the secondary characteristic is pleasure. As the final end of sex is reproduction, the Catholic view is the more rational and logical of the two.

And again on Abortion:

"Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion."

This is odd, as even non believers come to the logical conclusion that abortion is wrong. Again, Judaism is opposed to Catholic teaching.

And finally on homosexuality:

"Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah."

Ok, but then this:

"Interestingly, female homosexual relations are not forbidden by the Torah."

This is obviously contradictory in principle.

So from what you have shown me, Judaism is not a logical religion. It basically picks and chooses its morality from a subjective viewpoint instead of following a rational and consistent ethical system.

[David Sklansky]

"Gentiles only need to follow the seven noahide laws. One of these laws prohibits idolatry. In worshipping a man (jesus) as if he were a god (or God), Christians are committing idolatry"

I'm not exactly the best person to be making this point, but I would think that this shouldn't qualify for idolatry since, to them, it is still the same God, I think.

[David Sklansky]

And finally on homosexuality:

"Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah."

Ok, but then this:

"Interestingly, female homosexual relations are not forbidden by the Torah."

This is obviously contradictory in principle."

You expect those 72 virgins to just sit there and twiddle their thumbs while they wait for you?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bible predicted that the Temple would be destroyed, and that we would be without it for a long time, until the messiah comes. Just why is that so hard for you to understand? The Temple existed, it was destroyed, and the bible says that it won't be rebuilt until the messiah comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give a citation that includes both a prophecy of the temple's destruction and that it won't be rebuilt until the messiah comes, which dates only previous to the last destruction by the Romans, and not prior to the first by the Babylonians.

[/ QUOTE ]

The prophecies don't have to date from after the Babylonian exile in order to be about the destruction of the second Temple. Many verses that describe the messianic era discuss the Temple being rebuilt in the messianic age. It is clear from the context that all of these verses are describing the messianic age, not the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian exile. As I said in another thread:

Read all of Ezekial from chapters 40-48. The prophet goes into minute detail discussing the rebuilding of the Temple and the sacrifices that will occur there.

"For thus saith the Lord: David shall never be without man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. Neither shall the priest, the levites, be without man before Me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." (Jer 33:17-18)

"...and I will set My Sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. My temple also shall be with them. Yes, I will be their God and they shall be My people. And the gentiles shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them forevermore." (Ezekiel 37:26-28)

[bossJJ]

From the other thread:

The verses are saying that once the Temple is rebuilt, it will remain forever. It won't be destroyed again. Therefore these verses were not fulfilled when the second Temple was built. They are talking about the messianic age, when the third Temple will be built, and the messiah from the Davidic line is King of Israel:

"David shall never be without man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. Neither shall the priest, the levites, be without man before Me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." (Jer 33:17-18)

The verses before Ezekiel 37:26 also show that this is in the messianic age. They describe the ingathering of the Jews back in Israel, the resurrection of the dead, the reunification of the House of Israel (i.e. - the "ten lost tribes") with the house of Judah, all Jews following Torah and no more sin among them, the Davidic king on the thrown, and of course the rebuilt Temple. These verses haven't been fulfilled yet because the messiah has not yet come.

Read the entire Chapter 37 of Ezekial - all the verses are talking about the messianic age. And they are all prophecies which your fake messiah Jesus failed to fulfill. Here's a link to Ezekiel 37 (in a Christian bible, the NRSV):
Ezekiel 37 (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Ezekiel+37)

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you make so much of the greek thing, why was it the rabbis who translated the hebrew bible into greek, a version known as the septuagint, some 200 years before the birth of Christ? Maybe because so many jews then only spoke greek?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Jews outside of Israel spoke Greek as a first language. They also tended to be less religious than the Jews in Israel. The original Septuagint was a translation only of the first five books of the bible. More about this:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/matthew.html

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, this I find fascinating:

"The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason."

The Catholic view is opposite. The primary purpose of sex is procreation, while the secondary characteristic is pleasure. As the final end of sex is reproduction, the Catholic view is the more rational and logical of the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

As sex is very pleasurable, and will result in childbirth on only a few occasions, the Jewish position is more logical and rational. There is nothing in the Hebrew bible to support the Christian position.


[ QUOTE ]
And again on Abortion:

"Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion."

This is odd, as even non believers come to the logical conclusion that abortion is wrong. Again, Judaism is opposed to Catholic teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the Jewish position is consistent with the Torah, while the Catholic position is not. The bible does not forbid all killing (it's murder that's forbidden), and the life of the mother is more important than that of the fetus. In Exodus 21:22, when someone injures a pregnant woman, killing the fetus, he has to pay a fine, but it's not considered murder.

Abortion - yes or no? (http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=abortion&f=tqak&offset=1)

Abortion in Jewish Law (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp)

[ QUOTE ]
And finally on homosexuality:

"Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah."

Ok, but then this:

"Interestingly, female homosexual relations are not forbidden by the Torah."

This is obviously contradictory in principle.

So from what you have shown me, Judaism is not a logical religion. It basically picks and chooses its morality from a subjective viewpoint instead of following a rational and consistent ethical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the Jewish position is just consistent with the Torah. It does not forbid lesbian relations.

[bossJJ]

All About the Messiah (http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/All_About_the_Messiah.asp)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The prophecies don't have to date from after the Babylonian exile in order to be about the destruction of the second Temple.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The verses are saying that once the Temple is rebuilt, it will remain forever. It won't be destroyed again. Therefore these verses were not fulfilled when the second Temple was built.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"David shall never be without man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. Neither shall the priest, the levites, be without man before Me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." (Jer 33:17-18)

[/ QUOTE ]

And unless all this is conveniently interpreted to be in a future messianic age then of course your illogical house of cards would fall.

[bossJJ]

Of course it's all a future messianic age. There is no other logical interpretation. The bible says a messiah will come, and all the messianic prophecies describe events which have not yet ocurred (world peace, universal knowledge of God, all Jews back in Israel, etc.). So, obviously the messiah has not yet come. It's still in the future.

sin and atonement (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html)

[bossJJ]

Since Jesus failed to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies, he obviously wasn't the messiah.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no other logical interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more correct to say that there is no other interpretation to take to make the case that Judaism is a valid religion today. Logic has nothing to do with your interpretations.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the Jewish position is just consistent with the Torah. It does not forbid lesbian relations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would mean it is OK for your wife or your mother to have sexual relations with another woman right?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
sin and atonement (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

If that link is supposed to be regarding my question in the other thread I still would like you to answer it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Briefly, when the Temple was standing, it was one way, but not the only way, to atone for unintentional sins. According to the Hebrew bible, prayer, repentence and charity also atone for sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
I note that you use the adjective "unintentional". Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no other logical interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more correct to say that there is no other interpretation to take to make the case that Judaism is a valid religion today. Logic has nothing to do with your interpretations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have that Judaism isn't valid? If the bible is true, then it's still valid, because God told us to follow His Torah forever, and that's what we are doing. God has promised us that His covenant with us is forever, and that we are an eternal nation that will always have the Torah. The fact that all of God's prophecies and promises to the Jews have been fulfilled in the Jews in further proof that His covenant is still in effect and that we are still His people.

How is my position illogical? I am just accepting what the bible says. It describes a messianic age, here on earth, of a rebuilt Temple, all Jews back in Israel, world peace, universal knowledge of God, etc. Is it logical to believe that God is lying? Is it logical to believe that someone who failed to fulfill a single prophecy was the messiah?

I know you base your claims on the gt, but you've never given a valid reason why I should believe it. God has commanded us to reject it.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sin and atonement (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

If that link is supposed to be regarding my question in the other thread I still would like you to answer it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just discussing the messianic prophecies, including the fact that the Temple will be rebuilt. What specifically do you want me to answer? Why don't you start answering some of my questions. For example, why should I believe the gt?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Briefly, when the Temple was standing, it was one way, but not the only way, to atone for unintentional sins. According to the Hebrew bible, prayer, repentence and charity also atone for sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
I note that you use the adjective "unintentional". Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's what the bible says (Numbers 15:27-31). The blood sacrifices could only atone for unintentional sins. Someone who sinned intentionally had to repent.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

[bossJJ]

No, read the article again. Sex should only take place within (heterosexual) marriage.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
"Although Moshe ascended Mount Sinai by himself to receive the Ten Commandments written with the "Finger of Hashem," we must never forget that the Jewish People themselves heard Hashem speak the first two Commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biblical citation for same that doesn't just have the people hearing thunder?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the Oral Law, we understand many verses (from the written Torah) differently than Christians do.

kosher sex (http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice double entendre. But on visiting that link I find the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, female homosexual relations are not forbidden by the Torah. There is very little discussion of female homosexuality in the Talmud. The few sources that mention lesbian relations say that they do not disqualify a woman from certain privileges of the priesthood, because it is "merely licentiousness." There is a surprising lack of discussion of such issues as whether lesbianism would be grounds for divorcing a woman without her consent or without ketubah. Rambam asserted that lesbian practices are forbidden because it was a "practice of Egypt" and because it constituted rebelliousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it seems there is some Jewish opinion that lesbian practices are sinful. Plus there is an apparent contradiction in describing something as "not forbidden" but also "licentious". Also this brings up the question, is every instance of the word "man" in the hebrew bible to be understood as gender specific and thus never referring to "mankind"/all the Jewish people?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you start answering some of my questions. For example, why should I believe the gt?

[/ QUOTE ]

And have you actually read the "gt" in its entireity? If not, then there is no basis for such discussion.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Sex should only take place within (heterosexual) marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are defining lesbian acts as not sex then right? Clinton liked those sorts of definitions.

[bossJJ]

Near the beginning of the article, it stated that sex was only permissible within marriage.

As was discussed before, we are to accept the interpretation of our sages, and virtually all have agreed that sex is only permissible within marriage, that other verses, such as those the Ramban sited, mean that lesbian sex is forbidden.

The Torah verses that prohibit male sexuality are clearly referring only to men, as it isn't sinful or unnatural for women to sleep with men.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Because that's what the bible says (Numbers 15:27-31). The blood sacrifices could only atone for unintentional sins. Someone who sinned intentionally had to repent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The relevant verses dealing with intentional sin in your citation are (RSV-CE):

"[30] But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
[31] Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him."

Where does it say here that such a person could even repent to atone for his intentional sin and rejoin the people?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you start answering some of my questions. For example, why should I believe the gt?

[/ QUOTE ]

And have you actually read the "gt" in its entireity? If not, then there is no basis for such discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have, but why does it matter? Those with a background in Judaism don't find it nearly as convincing as ignorant pagans do. Why can't you just give a valid reason why I should accept it?

Have you read the Koran and book of Mormon in their entirety? How can you be so sure that neither has superseded the gt?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because that's what the bible says (Numbers 15:27-31). The blood sacrifices could only atone for unintentional sins. Someone who sinned intentionally had to repent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The relevant verses dealing with intentional sin in your citation are (RSV-CE):

"[30] But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
[31] Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him."

Where does it say here that such a person could even repent to atone for his intentional sin and rejoin the people?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given tons of verses in the other threads, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I must have repeated them in a dozen posts. Just go back and look at the other threads.

[bossJJ]

You keep repeating questions I've answered many times, while not answering my questions:

Why should I accept the gt?

Assuming the gt was true, how do you that it's still in effect? How do you know that it hasn't been superseded by another religion? Or, as the Muslims claim, you were interpreting it wrong all along, as Jesus was only a prophet.

Plus, you have never addressed the fact that jesus' alleged death was not a proper sacrifice. So, if a blood sacrifice is required, then you Christians have no means of atonement:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

Why have all of God's prophecies and promises to the Jews been fulfilled only in the Jews, the descendants of the Pharisees? Since we were without our homeland for nearly 2000 years, and faced widespread persecution, it's remarkable that we're here at all. No other nation has achieved that.

Why does the bible say that everyone will be coming to the Jews for the truth in the messianic age?

[Peter666]

There you go. Jesus claimed to be the physical Incarnation of the Hebrew God made of three persons in the Trinity. So logically, Christians/Catholics are worshipping the same Hebrew God, with some characteristics that are merely add ons that do not change the essential Jewish belief.

Woohoo! I can be a Catholic again. Just my luck that when I thought I was getting 72 virgins in heaven they all turn out to be butch lesbians who want to eviscerate me.

[Peter666]

Yeah, but do you define lesbian acts as sex or not?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Although Moshe ascended Mount Sinai by himself to receive the Ten Commandments written with the "Finger of Hashem," we must never forget that the Jewish People themselves heard Hashem speak the first two Commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biblical citation for same that doesn't just have the people hearing thunder?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that crap happened either. I'm sure there are ulterior, more plausible explanations for whatever was claimed. What confuses me is how you can reject Judaism with this skepticism and then accept christianity?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Gentiles only need to follow the seven noahide laws. One of these laws prohibits idolatry. In worshipping a man (jesus) as if he were a god (or God), Christians are committing idolatry"

I'm not exactly the best person to be making this point, but I would think that this shouldn't qualify for idolatry since, to them, it is still the same God, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is their position, but it's wrong. They are worshipping a man as if He were God. It's like if someone claimed that Krishna or Zeus is the only God; if it's so completely different from God as we understand Him, it's not the same God, even if they have only one God.

I think there was a Rabbi that ruled that using an intermediary isn't idolatry for gentiles. So if that's all Christians do, it would be okay (according to that ruling). But they don't just use Jesus as a way to God - they worship him as if he were God.

[bossJJ]

Yes.

Why don't you start answering my questions?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
There you go. Jesus claimed to be the physical Incarnation of the Hebrew God made of three persons in the Trinity. So logically, Christians/Catholics are worshipping the same Hebrew God, with some characteristics that are merely add ons that do not change the essential Jewish belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, logically you are worshipping a different god. You don't know the God of Israel. By that logic, mythra was also God.

We were commanded not to worship other gods, that our ancestors did not know. They didn't know Jesus; he is a different god. Worshipping any man (or anything other than God) is idolatry.

[bossJJ]

Actually, I think it's a good idea to discuss this in the other thread as you originally suggested (where you originally posted this). I just saw it here first.

But we can make that thread ("questions for bossjj") the "atonement thread," as you suggested.

[Peter666]

This is most fascinating, as there are Jews who disagree with you.


"Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi's new book, Judaism with Feeling. This is from the chapter on Shabbat, the Sabbath, under a section that deals with the mitzvah (usually commandment) to make love with one's spouse on Shabbat in a way that came to be understood as deeply spiritual and meaningful and symbolic. He says:

"I once got into a conversation about masturbation with a bar-mitzvah boy I was teaching. Try waiting until Shabbos comes around, I suggested, and don't be a stranger from God; make sure to let God into it."

I have posted this in part because it is peculiarly jarring, I think, to read from an 80 year old rabbi with a traditional ordination, to have him tell a twelve or thirteen year old that he should connect masturbation with a holy day and make sure God is a part of it. But I agree with him that God should be a part of it. And it actually seems quite wise to tell the child to wait until Shabbat. This will make masturbation a sacred and holy activity."


So is it a sin, or a ...most sacred and holy activity???? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

But what is also interesting among the Orthodox Jews is that masturbation is condemned because of the man spilling his seed which should be used for procreation within marriage. Yet a woman doing the same has no seed to spill. So why is Lesbianism wrong to those sect of Jews?

Also, I did not know you addressed certain questions to me. Link me to where they are or ask them again and I will answer.

[bossJJ]

From the other thread, a point you haven't addressed:

"The point is that all false religions have "holy" books which tell stories about the miracles of their prophet or god(s). The fairy tales of your "new testament" are just as silly and unbelievable as those in Hindu writings. You said you believe in Christianity because you believed the story about Jesus' alleged resurrection. If you really think that story proves anything -- because you believe that God will lie, change His mind and demand the complete opposite of everything He had told us before, and that He will notify us of this choice by sending someone to perform a miracle -- then you need to investigate the miraculous claims of other religions, because Christianity may longer be the correct religion to follow."

[Peter666]

No, you have completely missed the point. What Sklansky brought up is that Christians worship the same God as the Jews do, but Jesus Christ was added to this (along with the Holy Spirit). So technically we worship your God plus two more "gods" in your view. You can claim that we idolize additional Gods, like Jesus Christ, but this does not change the fact that we worship the Hebrew God as well. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bossJJ]

It is from the Affects of 2+2 on me (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2904488&page=2&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1) thread. So is this:

"The point was that you just believe writing about an alleged miracle decades after it supposedly happened somehow makes it true. The gt claims that God lied, changed His mind, and ordered the complete opposite of everything He had previously said. We are now supposed to follow someone He had commanded us not to, and commit what He had previously defined as idolatry. We are supposed to believe that this is from God because of an alleged miracle in the book.

You just believe all that crap because it claims that Jesus rose from the dead. Since you do, you really should investigate miraculous claims in the "holy" books of other religions. If the standard of truth isn't the Hebrew bible, but rather whoever has the biggest miracle, regardless of how ridiculous the message, then Hinduism or some other religion may be the true religion."

[bossJJ]

No, you missed my point, which is that you are wrong about worshipping the same God. The Christian postition is the trinity, not three separate gods. Our God is one, and He is not a man. God is not a three-part mangod/failed messiah. Christians worship a different god.

[bossJJ]

In Judaism, we allow different opinions, but the vast majority of Orthodox Rabbis disagree with him. Male completion should take place in only one place, when a man is in union with his wife.

Why don't you just answer the questions from my first post in this thread? You keep bringing up completely unrelated topics, apparently because you are unable to answer the questions.

If you are so sure Christianity is true, why can't you explain why I should accept the gt?

[Peter666]

This was answered in another post, but I will answer it again.

I believe in the Resurrection of Christ, because I have been given an arbitrary grace of Faith from God Himself. This is required for any person who believes in the Catholic Faith. Without it, we could not believe in Divine Mysteries that surpass our natural logical capabilities.

So basically I have it, and you don't. And unless God decides to strike you down from an Ass like St. Paul, you probably never will.

As far as Hindu "miracles" and what not, I have studied those and they are false. Just like the 39 scud missles...

[Peter666]

Your mockery of Christian beliefs merely shows your own stupidity. You claim the Resurrection of Christ to be "crap" but believe that the writer of your Holy Book spoke to God in a Burning Bush. And yet what evidence do you have to show that your belief is true, and how could that possibly supersede Christian evidence for their belief????

You are a hypocrite. Do you see why?

[Peter666]

No, you also worship a Triune God, but don't know it, because you have not been given the grace of Faith. As far as you know, God is one, but that does not mean that He cannot reveal further mysteries about Himself to those he wishes too.

[Peter666]

So you have no definite teaching, only a bunch of opinions, some with majority view. Why should anyone conclude anything about your religion except that it changes with one's whims or opinions? No wonder so few people believe in it. They can do that on their own.

All your other questions are answered above.

[David Sklansky]

"I don't believe that crap happened either. I'm sure there are ulterior, more plausible explanations for whatever was claimed. What confuses me is how you can reject Judaism with this skepticism and then accept christianity?"

Because he has the same disease as those stroke victims who say they are not paralyzed.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute. You mean 2-3 million saw the burning bush and God giving Moses the tablets? Or only heard Moses' claims about same, which would just reduce Judaism to one of many religions that depend upon the word of one man?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that god showed himself to everyone, but they were so terrified that they chose one man, Moses, to represent them and to go talk to god so that they wouldn't have to see him again. So then Moses went up the mountain, burning bush, so on.

[dknightx]

bossJJ, question: What is the definition of "sin"? I was reading your posts in Part 1, and you had a post about the "sins" Jesus committed (#2835495). I would like to hear your definition of "sin".

[dknightx]

Another question. If one of the "prophesies" that the messiah will fulfill is:

1. Israel re-established as a nation.

And this occured in 1949, that would mean that the messiah must have been born previous to that date, otherwise it would be impossible for said messiah to re-establish something that has been established. Unless you are suggesting that Israel will once again become scattered and then re-established? Please explain.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
bossJJ, question: What is the definition of "sin"? I was reading your posts in Part 1, and you had a post about the "sins" Jesus committed (#2835495). I would like to hear your definition of "sin".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sin = breaking the law of god. Since Jesus did change some of the laws, then by definition if you don't believe he had the authority to do so, then he sinned.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the Resurrection of Christ, because I have been given an arbitrary grace of Faith from God Himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your false beliefs aren't from God. You are basically saying that you believe in Christainity because you believe it's true. That is circular reasoning. People of all religions believe their beliefs are from God:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/experience.html

You are unable to answer my questions, and you have no evidence for all the proof that it's false (e.g. - it's paganism that contradicts the Hebrew bible, God told us not to follow it, etc.). "Cognitive dissonance" is a better explanation of why you believe as you do. You are simply unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs (and yes, the Hebrew bible should be evidence for Christians).

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you also worship a Triune God, but don't know it, because you have not been given the grace of Faith. As far as you know, God is one, but that does not mean that He cannot reveal further mysteries about Himself to those he wishes too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Now you are telling us what we actually believe? We believe in one God, not that trinity nonsense. Again, your false beliefs aren't from God - they're from the pagan gt. God tells us the complete opposite in the Hebrew bible.

Trinity in the Bible? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html)

Trinity in the Name of God? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/nameofgod.html)

The Trinity in the Shema? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html)

Did Jesus claim to be God? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/claimgod.html)

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Another question. If one of the "prophesies" that the messiah will fulfill is:

1. Israel re-established as a nation.

And this occured in 1949, that would mean that the messiah must have been born previous to that date, otherwise it would be impossible for said messiah to re-establish something that has been established. Unless you are suggesting that Israel will once again become scattered and then re-established? Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, one of the prophecies is that all Jews will return to Israel. This hasn't been completed yet, but I believe the process has been started. Other prophecies say that the messiah will be the annointed king of Israel, and the Sanhedrin will also reconvene, so that Jewish law will be law of the land. The bible doesn't say that the messiah will personally reestablish the secular state. The general belief has been that Jews will return to Israel first, then the other prophecies will be fulfilled. When the messiah comes all Jews will return to Israel.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bossJJ, question: What is the definition of "sin"? I was reading your posts in Part 1, and you had a post about the "sins" Jesus committed (#2835495). I would like to hear your definition of "sin".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sin = breaking the law of god. Since Jesus did change some of the laws, then by definition if you don't believe he had the authority to do so, then he sinned.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. God told us that His Torah is to be observed forever, that we are never to change it. The bible also says that God is not a man. Assuming he existed, Jesus was a man and he had no authority to change what God has said is eternal. God told us not to follow those like Jesus who change God's laws or tell Jews not to follow Torah. He qualifies as a false prophet, not from God. Just like Mohammed and Joseph Smith, each contradicts what God told us in the Hebrew bible, so we know none of them were from God.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your mockery of Christian beliefs merely shows your own stupidity. You claim the Resurrection of Christ to be "crap" but believe that the writer of your Holy Book spoke to God in a Burning Bush. And yet what evidence do you have to show that your belief is true, and how could that possibly supersede Christian evidence for their belief????

You are a hypocrite. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence? All you have is the gt, and you claim that your beliefs are from God. None of that is evidence.

Since Christians supposedly believe that the Hebrew bible is the word of God, that should be evidence for a Christian. If the Hebrew bible is true, than anything that contradicts it is false. Therefore the gt is false.

If the Hebrew bible is false, then the gt is still false, because all its claims for Jesus are based on it - He is supposedly the God and messiah of the Hebrew bible.

Why do you keep bringing up this ridiculous argument? If the Hebrew bible is false, then your beliefs are just delusions, and your god is just another pagan mythra-like god. Actually, it is in any case, because it contradicts the Hebrew bible.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
So you have no definite teaching, only a bunch of opinions, some with majority view. Why should anyone conclude anything about your religion except that it changes with one's whims or opinions? No wonder so few people believe in it. They can do that on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you fail to understand. You do seem to have a reading problem. We believe that God's Torah is to be followed forever, and not changed. Virtually all Orthodox Rabbis agree on just about everything (concerning Torah law) except some minor details. There is a little more leeway regarding rabbinic laws and customs.

The point is that if someone no longer believes in something, or if their opinion is a small minority, they are still allowed to express their opinions and there are no official sanctions for doing so. Just because Catholics don't allow free speech, that doesn't make their beliefs more true, as you seem to be ridiculously concluding. Lots of Catholic priests don't agree with everything that's official doctrine; they just aren't free to express their opinion.

Very few people are Jews because it is God's will that we remain small in number. We don't proselytize because we believe that gentiles one can have a relationship with God in this life, and be with Him in the next, without becoming a Jew. They aren't required to follow Torah law.

Many people are Christians because Chtristians very actively recruit, and Christians have a long history of forcibly converting others and persecuting other religions. Also, Christianity is a great emotional crutch. Being popular doesn't mean something is true. Christians just have no understanding of what the real messiah is supposed to be and do.

[bossJJ]

You haven't answered these questions either:

If Christianity is true, why has God commanded us not to follow people like Jesus?

If Christianity is true, why will everybody be coming to the Jews for the truth in the messianic age?

If Judaism is no longer a valid religion, that we were supposed to convert to Christianity when Jesus came, why is it that all of God's prophecies and promises to the Jews have been fulfilled only in the Jews, and not with the Christians?

If Jesus is the messiah, how come he failed to fulfill any messianic prophecies?

We Jews just continue to follow and believe what God told us in the Hebrew bible.

Is "God" telling you not to believe His word in the Hebrew bible? Could such a message really be from the same God? Or do you think He was lying in the Hebrew bible? Or is it that you just don't believe in the Hebrew bible at all? In that case, your god can't be the same God. He's just a false pagan god like Mythra.

[Peter666]

No, you sound ridiculous because you have completely missed the point. God did not reveal the mystery of the Trinity until after the Messiah came. It does not affect the belief of one God. It just adds to its understanding. God can arbitrarily reveal what He wants, when He wants, whenever He wants to Whomever He wants. You can't stop Him.

[Peter666]

"Your false beliefs aren't from God." You cannot prove that.

"You are simply unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs (and yes, the Hebrew bible should be evidence for Christians)."

Your subjective interpretation of evidence is no evidence at all. You already saw below how different Jewish sects disagree on what they believe to begin with. You funny guys cannot come to definite conclusions about anything within your religion, let alone outside of it.

[Peter666]

"What evidence? All you have is the gt, and you claim that your beliefs are from God. None of that is evidence."

You dumb hypocrite, all you have is the Torah, and that is no evidence at all. Again by attacking Christianity, you have undermined your own pathetic faith.

[Peter666]

"Lots of Catholic priests don't agree with everything that's official doctrine; they just aren't free to express their opinion."

Anybody who disagrees with one detail of De Fide doctrine is a heretic. It does not matter whether they are priests or what not.

You make the claim that Christians are known to have historically persecuted people. Give me one single example from history.

[Peter666]

1. Jesus is God, He cannot command people not to follow Himself. That would be contradictory.

2. I don't know from where or how you have interpreted this. I need an exact quote.

3. Because many of the Jews at the time mistakenly interpreted the Torah, and perverted its meaning. That's why Jesus was so harsh to the Pharisees and their minions. Of course, many Jews also had the correct interpretation, and became Christians after Jesus' Resurrection.

4. Jesus perfectly fulfilled all the Messianic Prophecies. See #3

5. I don't think God lied in the Hebrew Bible. I think there were wrong interpretations of the Hebrew Bible by various Jews that resulted in different sects which we still see present today. As shown before, the whole fact that you allow opinions to hold sway on doctrinal matters mean that you have allowed the Hebrew Bible to be open to interpretation. Thus, the Jews in the world today have screwed up the interpretations and missed the Messiah when He came. Suckers.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In Deuteronomy 5:19-21, the bible says that all the people heard God speak. This was when Moses went up to receive the ten commandments. They heard his voice, but did not see him. This was after the Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt.

The burning bush was a separate incident, which only Moses saw. That was before Moses went back to Egypt to free the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this story was written down how long after it supposedly happenned?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was written down soon afterwards.

How can a national revelation be faked?

Why don't christians believe what the bible says?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a great deal of historical scholarship that disagrees with your assertion about when it was written down.

You are out of step with historical scholarship on two counts. One with your anti-christian claims denying the historical Jesus, and Two with your Pro-Jewish claims as to when Jewish Oral traditions were written down. I think you know you are out of step with historical scholarship on both these points but insist on them anyway. You are not being honest about what objective historical analysis has found. This tells me you are not genuine with your statements and amount to little more than a Propagandist.

There's no point in berating me for being inconsistent in which part of the Bible I believe in because I believe in none of it the way you or notready does. I see it as a record of the experience people have had through the ages with what they called god. It's all open to objective historical analysis and literary criticism. It's up to the reader to decide how and if he wants to incorporate the Biblically recorded experiences in his own spiritual life.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
You make the claim that Christians are known to have historically persecuted people. Give me one single example from history.


[/ QUOTE ]

Spanish Inquisition.

[Peter666]

I am glad you brought this up. I contend the Spanish Inquisition was a completely legitimate and beneficial stage of Spanish history, that allowed the country to become a super power and an ideal Catholic State.

The only one's pissed off at the Inquisition are heretics and Jews who try to undermine anything that is Catholic. Debate.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The only one's pissed off at the Inquisition are heretics and Jews who try to undermine anything that is Catholic. Debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did turn the other cheek get turned into torture and killing? We might be able to use it on the so called war on terror.

[Peter666]

Because heresy was seen as a crime that was much worse than any sort of evil on earth. Those who were heretics, or of more concern to the State, those who tried to propagate their heresy, were considered the ulitmate terrorists, because they could lead one to eternal damnation and perpetual torture.

Also, the Spanish Kingdom at the time was on unstable ground. It had recently finished its victory over the Muslims, and any sort of internal disunity could easily cause the new State to collapse.

Besides, torture was seen as a punishment for many sort of crimes at the time, not just heresy. Although I must say the claims of torture were greatly exagerrated, and very few people ever died as a result of the Inquisition.

As far as terrorists go, torture away! Americans are currently doing this through their Arab allies instead of directly so they do not start a ruckus in the media.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In Deuteronomy 5:19-21, the bible says that all the people heard God speak. This was when Moses went up to receive the ten commandments. They heard his voice, but did not see him. This was after the Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt.

The burning bush was a separate incident, which only Moses saw. That was before Moses went back to Egypt to free the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this story was written down how long after it supposedly happenned?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was written down soon afterwards.

How can a national revelation be faked?

Why don't christians believe what the bible says?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a great deal of historical scholarship that disagrees with your assertion about when it was written down.

You are out of step with historical scholarship on two counts. One with your anti-christian claims denying the historical Jesus, and Two with your Pro-Jewish claims as to when Jewish Oral traditions were written down. I think you know you are out of step with historical scholarship on both these points but insist on them anyway. You are not being honest about what objective historical analysis has found. This tells me you are not genuine with your statements and amount to little more than a Propagandist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The history of Moses, and the Jews receiving the Torah, are both recorded in the written Torah. I wasn't discussing the Oral Torah.

As to my not believing in a historical Jesus, it is you guys who are out of touch with all the "historical scholarship" that agrees with me. The fact that it's a minority position doesn't mean it's wrong, as you seem to imply. No one has been able to prove he existed, and there is if fact no credible evidence of his existence.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no point in berating me for being inconsistent in which part of the Bible I believe in because I believe in none of it the way you or notready does. I see it as a record of the experience people have had through the ages with what they called god. It's all open to objective historical analysis and literary criticism. It's up to the reader to decide how and if he wants to incorporate the Biblically recorded experiences in his own spiritual life.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

People can believe whatever they want. It's just foolish to claim to believe in the Hebrew bible while actually denying everything that it says. Sure, things can be interpreted in various ways, but when you "interpret" everything to mean the exact opposite of what it says, it gets a little ridiculous.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you sound ridiculous because you have completely missed the point. God did not reveal the mystery of the Trinity until after the Messiah came. It does not affect the belief of one God. It just adds to its understanding. God can arbitrarily reveal what He wants, when He wants, whenever He wants to Whomever He wants. You can't stop Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you missed the point, which was that none of your beliefs are from God. God told us that He is one and He doesn't change. That wasn't God revealing anything to you; it was a bunch of crap from pagan religions. If it contradicts the Hebrew bible, it's wrong. Illiterate pagans believed it because they had no idea what the Hebrew bible really said about God. Stupid Christians continue to believe this crap because they have deluded themselves into believing that this crap is from God. Like your pagan ancestors, you have no real understanding of God or the Hebrew bible.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Your false beliefs aren't from God." You cannot prove that.

"You are simply unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs (and yes, the Hebrew bible should be evidence for Christians)."

Your subjective interpretation of evidence is no evidence at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our interpretations are quite reasonable, being based on what the bible actually says. For example, the bible explicitly states that God is one, that He is not a man, and that He will not change. It clearly states in several places that the Torah is to be observed forever, and not changed. God clearly told us to go to our own sages for questions of interpretation, and He also explicitly stated not to follow people like Jesus. Also, several verses say that prayer, repentance and charity atone for sin, and there are many examples of those whose sins were atoned for without bringing a blood sacrifice. I have listed all the relevant verses several times in other threads.

The Christian "interpretations," otoh, somehow interpret all these verses to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say. They are no better than Muslim or Mormom interpretations. They are all false religions that just mistakenly believe that they have some new "truth" from God. You still haven't given any reason why I should believe your delusions over those of the Muslims or Mormons.

[ QUOTE ]
You already saw below how different Jewish sects disagree on what they believe to begin with. You funny guys cannot come to definite conclusions about anything within your religion, let alone outside of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

With statements such as this, you just demonstrate what a moron you are. There is actually much more agreement within Judaism than within Christianity, with its thousands of different sects and denominations. Yes, I know you believe that only your denomination is correct, but that's what they all say, and that's not evidence.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"What evidence? All you have is the gt, and you claim that your beliefs are from God. None of that is evidence."

You dumb hypocrite, all you have is the Torah, and that is no evidence at all. Again by attacking Christianity, you have undermined your own pathetic faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dumb moron, you still just don't get it. Let me try to explain it one more time: Jews don't believe in the gt. Therefore, if it contradicts the Hebrew bible, it show that only Christianity is false. So if the Hebrew bible is true, then the gt is false. If the Hebrew bible is false, then Christianity is still false.

I have already acknowledged that one can't prove that the Hebrew bible is true. So I'm not being a hypocrite at all. You're just a moron and a brainwashed Christian who doesn't understand plain English.I'm just pointing out why it doesn't make any sense to claim that you believe in both the Hebrew bible and the gt, because they contradict each other on just about every theological point. If one believes in the Hebrew bible, it's logical to reject Christianity for the same reasons that we reject all other religons: None of them are really from God.

You still haven't been able to refute any of my points. All you have is your delusions that your beliefs are from God. Muslims and Mormons also believe that their believs are from God, but we have no good reason to believe any of you. If God does lie and change His mind, then maybe Islam or Mormonism is now actually the correct religion to follow.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Jesus is God, He cannot command people not to follow Himself. That would be contradictory.

2. I don't know from where or how you have interpreted this. I need an exact quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course God didn't say not to follow Him, you moron. However, he did say not to follow people like Jesus and the gt authors. I've discussed this in the other thread, but you obviously have a problem retaining information. You are also obviously unfamiliar with the Hebrew bible, or you wouldn't have been dumb enough to believe the gt in the first place.

Here's a copy of my post from the other thread:

In several places in the Hebrew bible God tells us NOT to follow Jesus or Christianity:

First, God tells us (Jews) explicitly not to follow any other religion (Dt 6:12-15, 13:1-12, Ps 81:8-9).

Second, the bible says that when there is a dispute about the law, we are to go to our own sages (rabbis, levitic priests and judges -Dt 17:8-13). In the first century they were the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin (kind of like a high court. None of them accepted Jesus as the messiah. Therefore, since we must follow their decisions, we are commanded to reject Jesus. In any case, Jesus failed at EVERYTHING that the real messiah will accomplish. This is what will happen when the real messiah comes:
www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html )

Third, the bible says that if someone claims to be a prophet, and he makes a prediction which doesn’t come true, then he is a false prophet and we must not follow him (Dt 18:22). Jesus made at least three predictions, which didn’t come true:

1.) He falsely predicted that he would be in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights (Matthew 12:40). All four gospels agree that he was in the tomb for only 2 nights (one of the few details that they actually agree on). They all say that he was crucified on Friday (Mt 27:62, Mk 15:43, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:42) and resurrected on Sunday (Mt 28:1, Mk 16:2, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1). More about this:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/resurrection.html

2.) He falsely predicted that some of his listeners would still be alive when he came back, when many messianic prophecies would come true, establishing the “kingdom of God” (Mark 9:1, 13:30).

3.) He said that not a single stone of the Temple would be left standing (Mt 24:1-2), but in fact the western wall of the Temple is still standing today

Therefore, Jesus was a false prophet, and we must not follow him. To do so would be to disobey God.

Fourth, the bible says that even if a prophet predicts something that comes true, or produces a miracle, but then he tells us not to follow the Torah, or to follow other gods, we are not to follow him (Dt 13:2-6). In fact, he should be put to death (Dt 13:6). False religions can apparently have real miracles, but that doesn’t mean that the religion is true. We are to always follow God’s Torah, and not change it, even after the real messiah comes. Therefore, we must reject the entire gt (Dt 4:2). In the gospels, Jesus told his followers to disobey the laws of honoring parents, Sabbath observance and the kosher food laws. He also encouraged castration (Mt 19:12) and self-mutilation (Mt 9:43, 45, Mt 18:8), told a man not to bury his father, and allowed his disciples to steal grain. Then, otoh, he added to the law by prohibiting divorce and claiming that it is adultery even if a man just looks at a woman lustfully. Other gt verses also tell the Jews not to follow Torah Law (Acts 10:9-14, Gal 5:2-3, 6, Rom 10:4). Therefore, we must not follow Jesus or Christianity, because God has commanded us not to.

God commanded us NOT to follow gods that our "fathers did not know" (Dt 13:6) because in Torah Judaism, we have the perfect, complete religion for all time. Our fathers did NOT know Jesus. Therefore, we must NOT follow him.

God commanded us NOT to follow foreign gods, the gods of other peoples, of the peoples around us (Dt. 6:14). Well, the people around us are Christians who worship Jesus. Therefore, we must NOT follow Jesus.

God commanded us NOT to follow anyone who tells us not to follow His Torah or to follow other gods (Dt 13:2). Jesus told us not to follow Torah. Therefore, we must NOT follow Jesus.

God commanded us NOT to follow any "prophet" whose prediction doesn't come true (Dt 18:22). Jesus made predictions that didn't come true. Therefore, we must NOT follow him.

There is absolutely no doubt that WE MUST NOT FOLLOW JESUS.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]

3. Because many of the Jews at the time mistakenly interpreted the Torah, and perverted its meaning. That's why Jesus was so harsh to the Pharisees and their minions. Of course, many Jews also had the correct interpretation, and became Christians after Jesus' Resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The Pharisees then, and Jews now, just continued to follow Torah as we always have. There's no evidence that any Pharisees ever heard of or met Jesus. However, they rightly rejected the gt and Pauls's message, because it's just pagan garbage that contradicts everything God told us in the gt. Nor is there any evidence of Jews converting to Christianity after Jesus' alleged resurrection. The story wasn't made up until several years after it allegedly happened, when Paul started spreading it around. Lots of pagans converted because it was similar to other pagan gods and religions.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Jesus perfectly fulfilled all the Messianic Prophecies. See #3

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! Did Jesus rebuilt the Temple? Did he rule as king of Israel? Did he bring peace to Israel and the world? Is there a world-wide knowledge of God, with all Jews following Torah? Were all the dead resurrected? Did all the Jews return to Israel? Anyone who thinks Jesus fulfilled any of the messianic prophecies obviously has no understanding of what the real messiah will be and do. And the bible does not that the messiah will be resurrected from the dead. It does not say that believing in some virgin-born mangod will atone for sins. It does not say that the real messiah will replace the Torah or the Temple. All the Christian beliefs are from paganism, not the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
5. I don't think God lied in the Hebrew Bible. I think there were wrong interpretations of the Hebrew Bible by various Jews that resulted in different sects which we still see present today. As shown before, the whole fact that you allow opinions to hold sway on doctrinal matters mean that you have allowed the Hebrew Bible to be open to interpretation. Thus, the Jews in the world today have screwed up the interpretations and missed the Messiah when He came. Suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! It is you who is the sucker and a brainwashed moron. All you keep doing is citing your pagan beliefs, but you can't give any reason why anyone should believe in them. You believe in a "messiah" who didn't fulfill a single messianic prophecy! What a loser! Assuming he even existed, Jesus was a complete loser in the real world that no one from his alleged lifetime even noticed. He did the exact opposite of what the real messiah will do. He is a god and messiah only in the minds of delusional, pathetic Christians.

[vulturesrow]

I dont have much time right now to respond to your cut and paste screeds, but I will note that your sinking to the level of calling someone a "dumb moron" is not exactly a top shelf debating tactic. In fact it is generally used by people are being put on the defensive..maybe there is more truth to Peter's post than you are letting on.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Lots of Catholic priests don't agree with everything that's official doctrine; they just aren't free to express their opinion."

Anybody who disagrees with one detail of De Fide doctrine is a heretic. It does not matter whether they are priests or what not.

You make the claim that Christians are known to have historically persecuted people. Give me one single example from history.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are also quite ignorant about your own history. I'm not surprised.

Victims of the Christian Faith (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/vic_chris.htm)

A River of Blood (http://www.borndigital.com/tinq.htm)

Torture: A Heretic's Final Journey (http://www.borndigital.com/racking.htm)

Prominant Christians (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/shame.html)

Christian Terror (http://ethnikoi.org/terror.html)

The Historical Record (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/history.html)

The Dark Side of Christian History (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964487349/104-0675039-5395148?v=glance)

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont have much time right now to respond to your cut and paste screeds, but I will note that your sinking to the level of calling someone a "dumb moron" is not exactly a top shelf debating tactic. In fact it is generally used by people are being put on the defensive..maybe there is more truth to Peter's post than you are letting on.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone calls me names first, I'll give it right back to them. I'm also giving valid reasons for all of my positions, while Peter hasn't been able to refute any of my points. He just keeps repeating his crap, claiming that God told him his beliefs are correct. He hasn't even understood most of my points.

[m1illion]

Do you believe Elijah raised someone from the dead?

[xniNja]

I realize this post is too long, but I have a question for the OP that was already touched upon but seemingly ignored... I buy your argument 100% but feel the same way about the Hebrew Bible. Why buy the Hebrew Bible and not the Rig Vedas written thousands of years earlier, or why dare blaspheme mighty Zeus and the Gods of Olympus, and how could you possibly think Ra the Sun God could have changed his mind on how he wanted to be worshipped?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Why buy the Hebrew Bible and not the Rig Vedas written thousands of years earlier, or why dare blaspheme mighty Zeus and the Gods of Olympus, and how could you possibly think Ra the Sun God could have changed his mind on how he wanted to be worshipped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because in his opinion it has the highest EV. Also note that the god of the old testament clearly recognizes that there are other gods.

Also , I mean, have you read greek mythology? Those guys are some capricious and cruel gods. No rain in due season from them.

[xniNja]

I have studied most religions/mythologies (not all) ... yes the Greek gods seem capricious and cruel, but also benevolent and powerful...similar to the God described in the Bible, the Gods described in the Vedas, and similar to my experiences in life. I'll admit I'm not thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament.. but if it admits there are other Gods- then why should it be valued above them or become a new authority?

I understand he may think Judaism is +EV, I was just trying to argue that his perception is based on nothing superior to any credibility of older religions or future religions to come.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I have studied most religions/mythologies (not all) ... yes the Greek gods seem capricious and cruel, but also benevolent and powerful...similar to the God described in the Bible, the Gods described in the Vedas, and similar to my experiences in life. I'll admit I'm not thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament.. but if it admits there are other Gods- then why should it be valued above them or become a new authority?

I understand he may think Judaism is +EV, I was just trying to argue that his perception is based on nothing superior to any credibility of older religions or future religions to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judaism doesn't believe there are other gods. In fact, the religion prides itself on being monotheistic. The old tesament does, however, recognize that people will worship false idols.

BossJJ probably doesn't accept these other gods for the following reasons:

He believes that his ancestors made this choice for him. He believes that the god of hte old testament revealed himself to several million jewish people. These people didn't need to accept other gods because they had direct conformation that this was the one and only true god.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
He believes that his ancestors made this choice for him. He believes that the god of hte old testament revealed himself to several million jewish people. These people didn't need to accept other gods because they had direct conformation that this was the one and only true god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I got all that. I think my observation that it is no more credible than any doctrine detailing interaction with God(s) from a previous religion before it, or after it, still applies.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He believes that his ancestors made this choice for him. He believes that the god of hte old testament revealed himself to several million jewish people. These people didn't need to accept other gods because they had direct conformation that this was the one and only true god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I got all that. I think my observation that it is no more credible than any doctrine detailing interaction with God(s) from a previous religion before it, or after it, still applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe any other religion even makes the claim that millions of people witnessed god. At least thats why bossJJ apparently gives judaism more credence.

[xniNja]

Virtually every religion makes the claim millions of people witnessed and witness God all the time. The KJ Bible validated its own authority, as the other Bibles do, as does the Koran, and Vedas.

Not only is this is a very weak premise for arguing authority or validity of literature, it's circular argumentation that can neither be proved, disproved, nor argued on any logical basis.

Nothing written can validate its own authority as supreme; it would be a logical paradox.

The only possible conclusion is that either all of them are true, all of them are false, or one happens to be true by chance or actuality, but not possibly because of validation from something written within it.

Edit: I also think it's foolish to believe it more because they wrote that 2 million people witnessed god. What if it was 2? or 20? or 2,000? If you are going to blindly believe what is written, what difference does it make?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize this post is too long, but I have a question for the OP that was already touched upon but seemingly ignored... I buy your argument 100% but feel the same way about the Hebrew Bible. Why buy the Hebrew Bible and not the Rig Vedas written thousands of years earlier, or why dare blaspheme mighty Zeus and the Gods of Olympus, and how could you possibly think Ra the Sun God could have changed his mind on how he wanted to be worshipped?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already addressed this in several posts in this thread. I'm not ignoring the issue at all.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually every religion makes the claim millions of people witnessed and witness God all the time. The KJ Bible validated its own authority, as the other Bibles do, as does the Koran, and Vedas.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. Only Judaism claims a national revelation from God. That is, the entire nation (at the same time) heard God when He gave the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai. As I discussed in a previous post, other religions, including Christianity and Islam, are based on a supposed personal revelation from God. That is, they claim that God spoke to their religion's founder.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Not only is this is a very weak premise for arguing authority or validity of literature, it's circular argumentation that can neither be proved, disproved, nor argued on any logical basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not circular at all. The argument, which you apparently don't even understand, is that only Judaism claims a national revelation from God, and it's impossible to fake. For example, if I said, "last night God spoke to all the people of the United States and said..." You would immediately know that I'm lying (assuming you're in the U.S.). On the other hand, if I said, "last night God spoke to me, and appointed me His prophet. This is what He wants us to do and believe..." That can't be disproven, so that is why other religons just claim a personal revelation from God.

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing written can validate its own authority as supreme; it would be a logical paradox.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but that's not the Jewish claim.

[ QUOTE ]

The only possible conclusion is that either all of them are true, all of them are false, or one happens to be true by chance or actuality, but not possibly because of validation from something written within it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just don't understand the difference between claiming a national revelation and claiming a personal one.

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: I also think it's foolish to believe it more because they wrote that 2 million people witnessed god. What if it was 2? or 20? or 2,000? If you are going to blindly believe what is written, what difference does it make?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do convince an entire nation that they heard God speak (if it didn't actually happen)?

[xniNja]

I'm not sure why I'm responding... if you are dead serious in your response to me it is clear you are beyond the grasp of objective logic. I'll try a little.

You are saying: bla bla bla "national revelation" = supremacy.

I am saying: So what? It's written on a piece of paper. It doesn't mean it happened or those people even had to be convinced, all it means is that a piece of paper says it did today.

You are saying: Other religions are based on a personal revelation.

I am saying: You mistakenly narrow your religions to Christianity and Islam, ignoring older, ancient, and established religions- not to mention the logic and analysis of the argument itself.

Furthermore, not only does it not matter if God revealed himself to one person or 250 million, all you have is words on a piece of paper.

That is to say, unless you can affirm the sentient experience of millions of Jews in the past firsthandedly; Or similarly experience the lack of experience of millions of Hindus with their Gods (thousands of years before the Hebrew Bible existed).

If you cannot do either or both of these two things, then you are left with two pieces of paper that can neither validate nor invalidate themselves or each other or have rational or logical weight towards a particular being true.

I truly hope one day you understand this.

Edit: I just wanted to add that your last question is particularly ridiculous "how do you convince an entire nation ... if it didn't happen" considering all religions including your own have convinced people that it is the correct religion; which, again, is a paradox.. unless they are all true- which is another paradox.

In conclusion, the thing I don't think you will ever understand, but I just want to repeat it so I know I did my best: The fact that something exists as writing DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

Your idea of "National revelation" doesn't have to have been faked... it could be fake in itself and it didn't have to occur in the first place,- or it very well could have happened.

The fact that it is written down doesn't have any affect on any of these outcomes, and thus has nothing to do with the actuality of the event. Please tell me you understand this.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, the thing I don't think you will ever understand, but I just want to repeat it so I know I did my best: The fact that something exists as writing
and happened to be written by members of your "culture" or ancestry DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.


[/ QUOTE ]

FMP.

[Peter666]

Your opinion, and it proves nothing.

I can state as fact that our pagan ancestors such as the Greeks and Romans have contributed far more to civilization than your little sect. In fact, God chose to be incarnated at the height of the Roman Empire.

[Peter666]

Again you hypocrite, you try to tell me that I have to prove to you that my beliefs are from God, but you don't? Dumb ass.

Besides, as already stated, the various interpretations of the Old Testament by various Jewish sects with various opinions is wrong.

[Peter666]

If you admit there are various interpretations within the Jewish sects, than you admit as to no position of absolute authority within the religion, hence no reason to believe any of it. And you have admitted it. "There is actually much more agreement within Judaism than within Christianity"

Much more is not total. And I do not have to consider Christianity at all to prove your religion to be false, and you have done that.

[Peter666]

Exactly right. Christians cannot use the Bible to validate their authority as supreme, yet this bossjj guy tries to do it over and over with Judaism attacking other religions and logic itself. Every time he tries to prove another religion wrong, he just proves that his is just as wrong. Hilarious.

[Peter666]

Mostly refutable crap history that is beyond the scope of this thread to debate.

[Peter666]

Ha ha. Are you even trying to claim that I called you a name first? Need I go back to cut and paste the thread where you threw a temper tantrum like a little girl and began using epithets. Do you deny this? As Jesus would say to the pharisees "Hypocrites. You vile serpents." I guess things never change.

If you continue to attack others to cover up your logical errors, you are beyond help or redemption. Not that you could go to Heaven anyway, because your religion doesn't believe in one. Talk about sound and fury signifying NOTHING.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time he tries to prove another religion wrong, he just proves that his is just as wrong. Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, assuming we mean "just as wrong" as not being logically conclusive or self-validating.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why I'm responding... if you are dead serious in your response to me it is clear you are beyond the grasp of objective logic. I'll try a little.

You are saying: bla bla bla "national revelation" = supremacy.

I am saying: So what? It's written on a piece of paper. It doesn't mean it happened or those people even had to be convinced, all it means is that a piece of paper says it did today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand if you don't believe it. You still haven't addressed how a national revelation could be faked. Putting in the past wouldn't work either. As an example (from the article), what if someone claimed that in 1794 the entire continent of North America was under the sea for four months. Would anyone believe it?
Did God Speak at Sinai? (http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/shavuotsinaidefault/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$_.asp)


[ QUOTE ]
You are saying: Other religions are based on a personal revelation.
I am saying: You mistakenly narrow your religions to Christianity and Islam, ignoring older, ancient, and established religions- not to mention the logic and analysis of the argument itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I'm not ignoring other religions at all. I just mentioned Christianity and Islam as examples, neither of which denies the Jews' revelation btw, despite Peter's claim to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, not only does it not matter if God revealed himself to one person or 250 million, all you have is words on a piece of paper.

That is to say, unless you can affirm the sentient experience of millions of Jews in the past firsthandedly; Or similarly experience the lack of experience of millions of Hindus with their Gods (thousands of years before the Hebrew Bible existed).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, Judaism is the only religion to claim a national revelation. The Hindus don't. You are apparently confusing multiple personal experiences with a national revelation.

[ QUOTE ]
If you cannot do either or both of these two things, then you are left with two pieces of paper that can neither validate nor invalidate themselves or each other or have rational or logical weight towards a particular being true.

I truly hope one day you understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said many times that it can't be proven. Still, no one has addressed how one could fake a national revelation. If it's so easy, other religions would have made the same claim.

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: I just wanted to add that your last question is particularly ridiculous "how do you convince an entire nation ... if it didn't happen" considering all religions including your own have convinced people that it is the correct religion; which, again, is a paradox.. unless they are all true- which is another paradox.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about convincing people that their religion is true. I'm talking about convincing them that they themselves (or their ancestors) actually heard God speak if they didn't really hear Him themselves (or hear it from their grandparents, etc). They are two separate issues.

[ QUOTE ]
In conclusion, the thing I don't think you will ever understand, but I just want to repeat it so I know I did my best: The fact that something exists as writing DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

Your idea of "National revelation" doesn't have to have been faked... it could be fake in itself and it didn't have to occur in the first place,- or it very well could have happened.

The fact that it is written down doesn't have any affect on any of these outcomes, and thus has nothing to do with the actuality of the event. Please tell me you understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT IT DOES! The arguments for happening aren't based on that at all, but rather that it's impossible to fake.

[bossJJ]

I've already proven you wrong on every point. You demonstrate that you are an idiot who doesn't even understand what I've been saying. You just keep repeating the same dumb claims again and again, while ignoring my questions and being unable to refute any of my points.

[xniNja]

You are a stupid man. You succesfully ignored all of the points I made and learned nothing.

Again, how can you verify that "nation" of people witnessed God any more than 1000 different people.

The point, and ONLY point, which you keep ignoring... is that your only basis is the writing you read on a piece of paper. You have no other argument. You don't even have one argument.

Just re-read this sentence until you believe it or starve:

Just because something is written down, even if what is written says "This religion was started by a NATIONAL REVELATION!" or virtually anything else, it does not make it true, it does not have anything to do with whether or not it occurred or could be falsified.

How can you not understand this? If I produced a document today that I claimed was written 6,000 years ago and 10 million people witnessed God, it is NO DIFFERENT than the document you possess that says a couple million Jews witnessed God at Mt. Sinai blah blah blah <insert opportunity to repeat religious dogma you've held onto your entire life>

This post makes me sad because I find it somewhat pitiful when the human mind doesn't understand simple binary logic.

Either words on a piece of paper can or cannot prove that something happened in the past. The answer is that they cannot. You lose. The end.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly right. Christians cannot use the Bible to validate their authority as supreme, yet this bossjj guy tries to do it over and over with Judaism attacking other religions and logic itself. Every time he tries to prove another religion wrong, he just proves that his is just as wrong. Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

By making this claim yet again (what is this, like the tenth time?), you just show what a moron you are. Again, I'm not claiming that I can prove that the Hebrew bible is true. How many times do I have to repeat this? How many more times will you repeat the same lie?

However, Christians supposedly agree that the Hebrew bible is true, so I should not have to prove it's veracity (when debating a Christian). For example, if the bible explicitly states that God is one (Deut 6:4), He is not a man, and He does not lie or change His mind (Numbers 23:19), then Christians should accept that as the word of God, instead of ignoring the verses, or "interpreting" them to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say. If the Hebrew bible says that the messiah will bring peace to Israel and the world, cause a world-wide knowledge of God, bring all Jews back to Israel and Torah observance, rebuild the Temple, etc, then it's not logical to claim that someone who didn't do any of these things is the messiah. If the Hebrew bible tells us not to follow people who tell us not to observe the Torah, then it's wrong to follow Jesus or the gt authors.

If the Hebrew bible is true, then Christianity is wrong because it contradicts it. If it's not true, you disprove Christianity as well. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Denying that the Hebrew bible is true, contrary to what you own faith teaches, doesn't prove any of your points and just denies the truth of your faith in the process.

[bossJJ]

I just don't have much patience with arrogant, stupid people like you. You just keep attacking me, while repeating your ridiculous claims again and again. They don't become true just because you keep repeating them.

I've just been showing that Judaism is compatible with what the Hebrew bible teaches, while Chrisianity contradicts it on just about every theological point.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should we find the gt any more believable than the Koran or Book of Mormon? or old testament, or Rig Vedas, or Greek Mythology, or Hieroglyphical accounts of the Egyptian gods


[/ QUOTE ]

If this was truly your innocent question, the answer to your obviously rhetorical question, as inexorable logic stated above deduces: YOU SHOULDN'T. NONE HAVE ANY "MAGICAL" or "EXTRA" LOGICAL VALIDITY ASSOCIATED WITH THEM SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EXIST AS WRITING.

However, if you had understood this.. I don't see why you would have replied the way you have.

Note that I of course am not making any claims positive of Christianity, Hinduism, or Islam. I am merely providing you with the logical certainty that no text from any of these religions can validate themself or debunk another.

Additionally, no text inside any text can logically garnish weight for that particular belief system to be more probable or accurate.

Do you understand?

All you keep saying over and over again is that the old testament says millions of Jews (as a nation) all witnessed God, so the old testament therefore has a greater chance of being true & you somehow think reading written text that says that two million people saw God has any more or less degree of falsification/verification potential than one or two people.

You should have already realize how stupid this sounds, and that it is in fact circular logic as I first stated. You should then realize if the text itself says millions of Jews witnessed God, it does not mean millions of Jews witnessed God, they agreed to witnessing God, or anyone was convinced or polled in gathering evidence for the statement.

It's entirety exists as a statement on a piece of paper, like the Christian Bible, like the Hindu Vedas, and like the Islamic Koran. I don't see how anyone who understands simple logic can argue anything else.

You say "national revelation" and "Mount Sinai"... people read "I want to believe in my religion, and I'm looking for a logical way to do so."

The simple fact is your feelings are not based on logic.

[bossJJ]

You are just repeating the same things, demonstrating that you don't understand what I've been saying. I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Of course, just writing down that 10 million people saw God wouldn't make it true. I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT IT WOULD! If you think I was, then you haven't understood me at all. Somebody could write that down, but if it didn't happen, nobody would believe it. People would believe it only if they really had heard God. That is why no other religion has made the same claim - no one would believe it and everybody would immediately know that it was false. The Jews believed the claim because they did hear God themselves. Otherwise, they would not have believed it.

The question in my original post in this thread is not the same. That only applies to religions that are claiming to have a new message from the same God (of the Hebrew bible). Those religions believe that the Hebrew bible is from God, but claim that He since changed His mind and now wants us Jews to do what He had previously commanded us not to do (and to stop following laws that He had said were eternal). They claim that we should believe them because their founder allegedly received a personal revelation from God, and they all claim that miracles recorded in their "holy" book prove that they are right. If God keeps changing His mind, how can we know what the current "truth" really is? If we can tell by who has the biggest miracles, then Christians should be investigating all the miracles claimed in other religions.

Also, I've been asking Christians, even if the gt was true, how can they be sure that it still is? If God keeps changing His mind, maybe their religion is no longer correct, and the Christian salvation plan is no longer in effect.

[xniNja]

1) You just don't get it... how do you know all those Jews witnessed God? How do you know they believed they did? How do you know they believed their ancestors did? - The piece of paper only.

2) Even if they believed all of this, that STILL doesn't even mean it's true or it happened.

If I grant you a HUGE leap in factual analysis- and contend you have an argument in that 2 million Jews believe they witnessed God, so it must have happened- my response is: A billion hindus believe they are witnessing God currently, so it must be happening. Two billion Christians feel the same way. And a few million Satanists believe quite the contrary at any given moment. Why the hell do I care about Mt. Sinai?

3) Again, you've provided ZERO unique arguments that show any likelihood of Judaic texts being any more or less accurate, significant, or true than any other text.

[Peter666]

Christians believe the Hebrew Bible is true, but not the current Jewish interpretation of it.

They only believe in Christ's interpretation, that's why they are Christian.

So stop saying that "Christians believe the Hebrew Bible is true" when what you are really saying is that "Only current Jews have the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and therefore Christians are stupid" even though Jews differ in their interpretation of the Old Testament which makes your true intention stupid as well.

[Peter666]

Precisely.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Again you hypocrite, you try to tell me that I have to prove to you that my beliefs are from God, but you don't? Dumb ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without taking sides from my front-row & center seat, I must note your unnecessary personal attack and comment that it indicates not just loss of composure but loss of argument, as well.

The other guy quotes the Bible and argues within the realm of common logic (eg if A*B=C, then B*A=C). So far, all we get from his opponents is pathetic thrashing about, name calling and non sequiturs.

I am waiting for a true Christian scholar to come forth and crush that venomous and argumentative Jew bossJJ to the ground with impeccable Christian logic and verse!

Quick, someone call the Vatican.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You've provided ZERO unique arguments that show any likelihood of Judaic texts being any more or less accurate, significant, or true than any other text.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are your texts as well, brother. He has been doing nothing but quoting the Old Testament.

If you are a Christian, that is.

[Peter666]

"I am waiting for a true Christian scholar to come forth and crush that venomous and argumentative Jew bossJJ to the ground with impeccable Christian logic and verse!"

That was already done last week in other threads. Now we must commence with the stomp down. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand he may think Judaism is +EV, I was just trying to argue that his perception is based on nothing superior to any credibility of older religions or future religions to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. The god of the old testament made a contract with people on Sinai and there are articulable benefits associated with worshipping him.

You know, if you believe in that sort of thing.

[bossJJ]

While it was written down, we have more than that; it was passed down orally as well. Again, you just don't understand, and you haven't addressed my points, but I'm done trying to explain it. And you are still confusing multiple personal experiences with a national revelation. A national revelation means that the whole nation heard God speak when He spoke to Moses. If you really think it's the same thing, and those religions have claimed a national revelation from God from God, then you really don't understand the issue at all.

[bossJJ]

Another thing - even if you don't believe that the Torah originated with Moses, it was still only a few hundred years later. That was a time when people had very well-developed oral traditions and good memories. How could someone like Ezra just convince the whole nation that their ancestors had seen God (if it had not happened)? They would know he was lying.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]

They are your texts as well, brother. He has been doing nothing but quoting the Old Testament.

If you are a Christian, that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to reply to the OP anymore because I feel he is an idiot that doesn't understand binary logic or the difference between something being fact, and the lack of significance of whether or not something was a "national revelation."

As for your comment, they are not "my texts as well," I'm not Christian, and we are't brothers except in the sense we probably shared a common ancestor thousands of years ago.

Now, let's assume I were Christian and take your argument at base value. You are still wrong/proved no points. Even if I were Christian, I would have no logical reason to believe my viewpoints or my texts were any less or more accurate than any other text.

The OP keeps making the mistake of deliniating a "national revelation" thinking it couldn't be "faked." I hope you aren't as ignorant and can understand not only why this proves nothing, but isn't a sound or valid argument.

For the record, if you are interested, I am agnostic- but generally beleive in a gap between human understanding and reality; you can call this gap God or Gods, but everything the OP said falls far from logic or reasonable thought.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Christians believe the Hebrew Bible is true, but not the current Jewish interpretation of it.

They only believe in Christ's interpretation, that's why they are Christian.

So stop saying that "Christians believe the Hebrew Bible is true" when what you are really saying is that "Only current Jews have the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and therefore Christians are stupid..."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been saying that Christians claim to believe in the Hebrew bible, while actually denying everything it actually says. As I said, verses are "interpreted" to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say.

For example. "God is one; He is alone; He is not a man; He doesn't lie or change His mind; He alone is to be worshipped - Don't follow gods that your fathers did not know; Don't follow those who tell you not to follow the Torah - it is to be observed forever and never changed." All this is "interpreted" to mean, "God is three persons, one of whom is man who you should worship; God has changed His mind and lied about everything He told you. Follow this mangod that your fathers did not know, who says not to follow Torah; I changed my mind - the Torah was only temporary, etc"

Another example - the Christians interpret the messianic prophecies (world peace, resurrection of the dead, universal knowledge of God, all Jews back in Israel and following the Torah (with no more sin among them), Temple rebuilt with the sacrificial system restored, etc - they are "interpreted" to mean "the messiah will be a virgin born Mythra-like savior who you must worship, and believing in his death and resurrection will atone for your sin." That "intepretation" also contradicts everything God said about what makes a proper sacrifice, and how we are to receive atonement.

As I said, we are just continuing to follow God, including going to our own sages for interpretation, and rejecting people like Jesus and the gt authors.

Even in the gt, Jesus didn't claim to be God, so many Christians beliefs don't agree with his alleged interpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
...even though Jews differ in their interpretation of the Old Testament which makes your true intention stupid as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. This is another moronic claim that you keep repeating no matter how many times it has been disproven. The fact is that the Orthodox community does agree about Torah law. In the bible, God tells us what to do, not what to believe; Allowing renegade rabbis to express their weird opinions is not against Torah law.

You are still ignoring the fact that if this somehow proves that a religion isn't valid, that it would also prove that Christianity is not a valid religion, because there are Christians (including Catholics), that disagree with church doctrine. And what about all the priests that, while maybe "agreeing" with church doctrine against homosexuality, are actually practicing homosexual pedophiles? Does the fact that they don't disagree openly somehow prove that Catholicism is true? You're a moron if you really believe that not allowing disagreement somehow shows a religion to be true. Please provide some evidence for this claim, or at least give a rational explanation of why anybody should believe it.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing - even if you don't believe that the Torah originated with Moses, it was still only a few hundred years later. That was a time when people had very well-developed oral traditions and good memories. How could someone like Ezra just convince the whole nation that their ancestors had seen God (if it had not happened)? They would know he was lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it was part of the oral tradition doesn't mean that's exactly how it happenned. What likely happenned was that various semitic tribes of the desert, with their own tribal gods, came together at a great gathering of the tribes and agreed to Unite under one god. Probably with the incentive of making a united invasion of Canaan or Egypt, Canaan being the second choice of many. This agreement to unite under one god came to be passed down in oral tradition as the Nation "hearing" god speak the first two commandments to them: 1. No other gods before me. 2. No idols allowed. The tribes became futher unified under the law code of the remaining "commandments" very possibly written by a great leader called Moses.

PairTheBoard

[Peter666]

You claim to interpret the word of God correctly, and yet put restrictions on an all powerful God which metaphysically speaking an all powerful being would not and could not do. Do you think your the Hebrew God could make a square circle? Either your interpretation is wrong, or you are not worshipping God. Sklansky already pointed out how if an actual miracle occured you would not believe it despite the evidence, because it does not jive with your interpretation of the Torah. This is preposterous, as a miracle would prove your interpretation of the Torah to be wrong, not that the Torah itself is by necessity wrong. But due to your immense pride, you could not admit to that.

To address your second point, one does not need to practice what they believe in, in order to believe it. I may say fornication is wrong, and admit it is wrong, but do it out of weakness. This does not mean I accept fornication as being correct. And no priest may question or have opinions about De Fide doctrine of the Catholic Church. If they disagree with an official doctrine, they are heretics, period.

[xniNja]

Don't forget the point which the OP keeps repeating but ignores the responses to:

"bla bla bla God ordered... why would he change his mind"

This still has no validity inherent to begin with, and a simple nullification can be made by arguing the existence of any other religion besides Judaism.

If this claim can be made about the old testament, it can be made about the Vedas or other religious texts written thousands of years earlier. If you can blindly claim the new testament is a lie because God wouldn't have changed his mind: I can blindly claim the old testament is a lie because God wouldn't have changed his mind. No one can logically deny this. Think about it before responding again.

[David Sklansky]

"1) You just don't get it... how do you know all those Jews witnessed God? How do you know they believed they did? How do you know they believed their ancestors did? - The piece of paper only.

2) Even if they believed all of this, that STILL doesn't even mean it's true or it happened.

If I grant you a HUGE leap in factual analysis- and contend you have an argument in that 2 million Jews believe they witnessed God, so it must have happened- my response is: A billion hindus believe they are witnessing God currently, so it must be happening. Two billion Christians feel the same way. And a few million Satanists believe quite the contrary at any given moment. Why the hell do I care about Mt. Sinai?

3) Again, you've provided ZERO unique arguments that show any likelihood of Judaic texts being any more or less accurate, significant, or true than any other text."

You are correct.

To boss jj: If you saw David Copperfield make an airplane disappear in front of hundreds of witnesses and you were not aware that magicians have done similar tricks, would you believe it was real magic?

A historical document that claims two million people witnessed something is probably true UNLESS what they supposedly witnessed is insanely ridiculous. Don't you understand Baye's Theorem?

Also if your arguments were so obvious, why are the majority of brilliant Jewish super scientists not going along? They don't reject obvious arguments.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim to interpret the word of God correctly, and yet put restrictions on an all powerful God which metaphysically speaking an all powerful being would not and could not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Liar! I'm not putting any restrictions on God; I'm simply accepting and following what He told us in the Hebrew bible (e.g. - He is one, He is not a man, observe the Torah forever and don't follow people like Jesus, etc). Would you accept the argument of a Muslim or Mormon who claims that you are "putting restrictions on an all-powerful God" because you don't agree that their message really is from God?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think your the Hebrew God could make a square circle? Either your interpretation is wrong, or you are not worshipping God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? How does this statement prove that our interpretations are wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky already pointed out how if an actual miracle occured you would not believe it despite the evidence, because it does not jive with your interpretation of the Torah. This is preposterous, as a miracle would prove your interpretation of the Torah to be wrong, not that the Torah itself is by necessity wrong. But due to your immense pride, you could not admit to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I pointed out why he was wrong. The fact is that God did tell us not to follow someone who tells us not to follow Torah or who tells us to follow other gods, even if they produce a miracle or make a prediction that comes true. Here is my post in the other thread:

"See Deuteronomy 13:1-5:

"If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which they spoke comes to pass, and they say, "Come let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them" - do not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. The LORD your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken a perversion against the LORD your God--who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery--to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

The problem is that many religions claim miracles. It would be impossible to investigate them all to see which, if any, are real miracles. God tells us simply to obey what He told us, to follow His Torah. That is the standard of what is true, not who produces the biggest miracle. Riding to heaven on a white horse is a pretty big miracle too, yet Christians don't become Muslims because of that. I doubt they've investigated any of the miracles of Hindus or Buddhists either. They just believe what they want to. In the bible, Elijah raised someone from the dead, but we don't worship him or assume he's the messiah. The real messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies.

God told us to follow His Torah forever (e.g. - Dt 29:28, Ecc. 13:14, Is 40:8, Ps 111:7-8, Ex 31:16, Num 15:23), and not to change it (Deut 4:2). He also told us not to follow those like Jesus or the gt authors who say not to follow it, that we are always to follow God (Dt 6:12-15, Ps 81:8-9). The bible specifically says that even after the real messiah comes, we will still follow Torah law (Ezekiel 11:19-20, 37:24, 44:9, Zach 14:16).

God's laws are absolute and eternal. He spoke to the entire Jewish nation when He gave us His Torah. He commanded us to follow His Torah forever and not to change it. The bible also says God doesn't lie or change His mind (num 23:19). It doesn't make sense that he would then change His mind and give a new set of rules or a new religion every few hundred years or so. And that we're supposed to figure out who He really sent judging by the miracles they allegedly produce, that we should follow the type of person He specifically commanded us not to follow, and that we know longer need to follow laws that He said were eternal."

This brings me back to my original point: If God keeps changing His mind, and if the truth is with whoever has the biggest miracle, how do you know that the Christian salvation plan is still in effect (assuming it was even true in the first place)? If you really think that the truth can keep changing, and that the "truth" is with whoever has had the biggest miracle to date, then you should be investigating the miracles claimed in all other religions.

Also, we have no reason to believe the claim that Jesus was resurrected. As I said in the other thread:

"How would you feel about a book that claimed that Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II were evil pedophiles? And this book claims that the Pope and cardinals killed the authors' god Bobo, who was resurrected from the dead. This book says that Christians are spiritually blind and enemies of God, otherwise you would see that Bobo is God. Would that prove to you that their god is God? Would that show that your "new covenant" is no longer in effect, and that you have beeen interpreting the bible incorrectly?"

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
To address your second point, one does not need to practice what they believe in, in order to believe it. I may say fornication is wrong, and admit it is wrong, but do it out of weakness. This does not mean I accept fornication as being correct. And no priest may question or have opinions about De Fide doctrine of the Catholic Church. If they disagree with an official doctrine, they are heretics, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how does being so strict about this prove that the religions is true?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget the point which the OP keeps repeating but ignores the responses to:

"bla bla bla God ordered... why would he change his mind"

This still has no validity inherent to begin with, and a simple nullification can be made by arguing the existence of any other religion besides Judaism.

If this claim can be made about the old testament, it can be made about the Vedas or other religious texts written thousands of years earlier. If you can blindly claim the new testament is a lie because God wouldn't have changed his mind: I can blindly claim the old testament is a lie because God wouldn't have changed his mind. No one can logically deny this. Think about it before responding again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the fact that there are some monotheistic Hindus, they have many gods, and they don't believe in the same God. So your argument is without merit. It was the Torah that introduced the God of Israel to the world.

It's not that God supposedly changed His mind (according to Christianity). It's that He allegedly did so after explicitly saying that He wouldn't. He is supposedly completely contradicting everything that He told us before. If one believes that there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong, it does not make sense that God would keep changing His mind. Nor does it make sense that we're supposed to figure out what the new truth is based on who has the biggest miracle, especially when He explicitly told us not to follow certain people even if they do produce a miracle. Rather, He explicitly told us that we're to observe the Torah forever, and that we should go to our own sages for questions of interpretation.

[Peter666]

"But how does being so strict about this prove that the religions is true?"

It does not, and I never said it did. I was correcting your logical fallacy that people MUST practice what they preach, and secondly your error regarding opinions on official Catholic doctrine.

[xniNja]

I think you are beyond help and refuse to accept simple logic.

You never respond to any logical argument with a logical answer. Nothing you say generally attacks any analysis or reasoning, and you generally stick to repeating nonsense about what specifically happened in the past to Jews, according to a text, that we already established is unprovable. It matters not that Hindus or Greeks believed in one or many Gods, the written claim of their texts that these Gods existed and interacted with their people is just as valid a proof that God/s exist/existed and set down their words as your Old Testament. If you cannot see this, you are incapable of objective thought altogether.

I think I am done with this topic, if anyone besides the OP has a point of discussion feel free to message me.

[Peter666]

"If you can blindly claim the new testament is a lie because God wouldn't have changed his mind: I can blindly claim the old testament is a lie because God wouldn't have changed his mind. No one can logically deny this. Think about it before responding again."

This argument could not be made any clearer. I think we can officially say bossJJ has lost his mind, or is purposely denying the truth.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"But how does being so strict about this prove that the religions is true?"

It does not, and I never said it did. I was correcting your logical fallacy that people MUST practice what they preach, and secondly your error regarding opinions on official Catholic doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that people must practice what the preach. My post was in response to your claim that Judaism is somehow invalid or proven false because we allow people to express minority or even wrong opinions. I was asking you to explain how this is so, pointing out that many people also disagree with Catholic doctrine, so why wasn't that religion also false? You responded that they were heretics, as if that somehow proves that Catholicism is true and Judaism is not. So are you now admitting that this (how much a religon allows disagreement to be expressed) is not a valid way to judge if a religion is true?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are beyond help and refuse to accept simple logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the same of you.

[ QUOTE ]
You never respond to any logical argument with a logical answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't presented any logical arguments. Instead you bring up unrelated stuff, and your posts indicate that you don't even understand what I've been saying. Also, you don't understand the difference between multiple, subjective personal experiences and a national revelation.

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing you say generally attacks any analysis or reasoning, and you generally stick to repeating nonsense about what specifically happened in the past to Jews, according to a text, that we already established is unprovable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone keeps repeating the same question, demonstrating in the process that they have not understood my answers, then I'm forced to repeat myself also (or else I'm falsely accused of ignoring the topic that I've already answered many times). I've already agreed that the Hebrew bible is unprovable, and I wasn't basing my argument on the fact that it's recorded there. That you repeat this just proves that you either didn't understand me, or you just don't retain information very well.

[ QUOTE ]
It matters not that Hindus or Greeks believed in one or many Gods, the written claim of their texts that these Gods existed and interacted with their people is just as valid a proof that God/s exist/existed and set down their words as your Old Testament. If you cannot see this, you are incapable of objective thought altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claimed that if the Hebrew bible was true, that would mean that God had already changed His mind, because Hindu writings were written earlier. Such a statement is logical and valid only if Hindus and Jews believe in the same God. That's why I pointed out that the Hindus worship many different gods. Now you are claiming that is irrelevant. However, it was relevant to your claim that God had already changed His mind. Because the Torah is the first revelation from our God, He could not have been changing His mind.

With Christians and Muslims it's different, because they claim that their messages are from the same God that we believe in, the God of the Hebrew bible, who told us explicitly that He doesn't lie or change His mind.

While I don't believe it can be proven scientifically, I do believe that the claim of a national revelation is a stronger claim that personal revelation. I've also given other reasons why I think it's true, such as prophecies about the Jews that have come true.

Again, I'm not saying that any of this proves that the bible is true. My point all along has been that if it is true, then the gt must be false because it completely contradicts it. The Hebrew bible supports the Jewish positions, not the Christian ones. They interpret the bible to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says.

[Peter666]

"So are you now admitting that this (how much a religon allows disagreement to be expressed) is not a valid way to judge if a religion is true?"

When people express different opinions on official doctrines where opinions are not tolerated, they are creating new religions.

So if a religion allows people to have contradictory opinions on its official doctrines, than it is not a valid religion. It is a subjective mess.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"So are you now admitting that this (how much a religon allows disagreement to be expressed) is not a valid way to judge if a religion is true?"

When people express different opinions on official doctrines where opinions are not tolerated, they are creating new religions.

So if a religion allows people to have contradictory opinions on its official doctrines, than it is not a valid religion. It is a subjective mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, at least in the case of Judaism, as we have remained the same religion. It is true for Protestants, because many of their denominations are defined by their beliefs, so someone who didn't follow at least the most important doctrines would often start separate denominations. If they believe in Jesus, I would still consider them all Christians.

Judaism doesn't have any "official doctrine." Accept for the command to believe in God, He didn't tell us what to believe, but rather what to do. So having a different opinion about something isn't wrong or against Torah law, so it doesn't somehow prove that our religion is invalid. That would be the case only if God had commanded us to believe certain things.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. NOT your clothes, then!

They seem to fit the overwhelming majority of BossJJ's detractors, though.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
To boss jj: If you saw David Copperfield make an airplane disappear in front of hundreds of witnesses and you were not aware that magicians have done similar tricks, would you believe it was real magic?



A historical document that claims two million people witnessed something is probably true UNLESS what they supposedly witnessed is insanely ridiculous. Don't you understand Baye's Theorem?



Also if your arguments were so obvious, why are the majority of brilliant Jewish super scientists not going along? They don't reject obvious arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you are responding to my points in a logical manner.

You are implying that a national revelation could be faked by magic, but I don't think they had the means back then to pull it off so well that everybody would be convinced that they really heard God. For example, they did not have sound recording and amplifying equipment. There was no debate about this (that everybody heard God speak) until a few hundred years ago. It was an incredible experience to them that made a lasting impression. A good book about this is “If You Were God,” by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. It is just one of three short essays in the book. It explains what God’s reasons could have been, and why the Jews reacted as they did.

The idea is “insanely ridiculous” only if you assume that God doesn’t exist. If you believe in a personal God, then the idea that He would introduce Himself to mankind in this way is not ridiculous at all.

I’m not claiming that my argument should be “so obvious” to people in general, only that people here who have read them should at least be able to understand them. Most secular Jews probably don't give it much thought at all, and they probably haven’t examined it (or Judaism in general) in any detail. When they do, some formerly secular Jews become more religious.

[xniNja]

I can't resist. If these points are not logical, or you can provide any logical response to each of them that doesn't include "God told the Jewish people..." you will not have answered anything.

1) How do you know all those Jews witnessed God? How do you know they believed they did? How do you know they believed their ancestors did? - The piece of paper only.

2) This is a key point you don't seem to understand. Every follower of every religion "believes" in the God or Gods of that religion. Just because people "beleive" something doesn't make it true. It holds no weight. Please read it.

Even if they believed all of this, that STILL doesn't even mean it's true or it happened.

If I grant you a HUGE leap in factual analysis- and contend you have an argument in that 2 million Jews believe they witnessed God, so it must have happened- my response is: A billion hindus believe they are witnessing God currently, so it must be happening. Two billion Christians feel the same way. And a few million Satanists believe quite the contrary at any given moment. Why the hell do I care about Mt. Sinai?

3) Again, you've provided ZERO unique arguments that show any likelihood of Judaic texts being any more or less accurate, significant, or true than any other text."

I challenge you to prove me wrong, or logically explain why the fact that the Old Testament, based on oral traditions, says two million people witnessed something proves that it is true. All ancient religions were passed down through oral tradition before writing anyway. Just because you believe that what is written is true, still does not mean it is true.

Belief != Truth.

Edit: And before you try to cop out on a Old vs. New Testament plea, at the point you cannot prove Judaic text to be more or less true than any other text in existence, you most certainly cannot prove it to be more or less true than the new testament, because as I understand the new testament is a text in existence.

[m1illion]

1. Do you believe that Elijah raised the dead?

2. Is "eye for an eye " the correct mode or is "turn the other cheek" the way to go?

3. Which god did Jesus try to turn the Jews to, if not the God of Abraham?

4. Religion is the bane of humankind.

[David Sklansky]

"The idea is “insanely ridiculous” only if you assume that God doesn’t exist. If you believe in a personal God, then the idea that He would introduce Himself to mankind in this way is not ridiculous at all."

You have it backwards. It is only if you assume a personal God exists is the idea not insanely ridiculous. If you assume nothing, it is. You are not talking to one of those "stupid Christians" here you know.

[bossJJ]

You still demonstate that you are a moron and you haven't understood my points at all.

First, you still don't understand the difference between multiple subjective personal experiences (or having beliefs in common) and a national revelation. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you, but I will try to explain it yet again: A national revelation means that the entire nation heard God when He spoke to Moses. A personal revelation means that God supposedly spoke to Jesus, Mohammed or Joseph Smith and gave each a personal message that only he (one person) heard. This person then starts a new religion by spreading the message that he claims is from God. Christians don't claim that a whole nation heard God when He (supposedly) revealed Himself to Jesus or Paul.

All things being equal, something that two million people saw is more likely to be true than something that only one person saw. That is why a claim of a national revelation from God has more weight and is more likely to be true than a personal revelation, supposedly from God, that only one person heard. The fact that two billion people believe that someone received a personal revelation doesn't make it any more likely to be true. It's still only a personal revelation. The truth of the whole religion rests on the claims of a single individual.

While having many beliefs in common, you are erroneously assuming that all Hindus and all Christians saw or heard the exact same thing. Hindus and Christians themselves do not claim a national revelation from God. Each person experiences God in his own way, and these personal, subjective experiences don't prove anything. As you said, the fact that many people believe something doesn't make it true. I have mentioned this many times myself. This was discussed here:

But Look at how Believing in Jesus has Changed my Life! (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/experience.html)

Second, I've said all along that the Torah can't be proven scientifically. Why do you keep repeating this lie? How many times do I have to repeat this? My posts are only to show that if it's true, then the gt and Christianity must be false, because two contradictory statements (or belief systems) can't both be true. GT Christianity contradicts the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point. Therefore, if the Hebrew bible is true, then Christianity must be false.

I discussed why I personally believe the Hebrew bible is true only because so many people asked. For example, I mentioned the claim of a national revelation from God, biblical prophecies about the Jews that have come true, and the Torah codes. I said that I don't think it's unreasonable that a personal God would communicate with mankind (but it is unreasonable that He would keep changing His mind and want people to follow a new religion every few hundred years or so).

I also mentioned that I don't believe a national revelation could be faked, a point that only David has addressed. You keep repeating your false accusation that I'm basing my belief on the fact that it was recorded in the Hebrew bible, while I have not given that as a reason at all. It does show that the Jews believed it, but I've never claimed that it proves anything. I've said from the beginning that all my reasons don't scientifically prove that the Torah is true. In fact, I said that I don't believe it can be proven. How many times do I have to repeat this? Why is this so difficult for you morons to understand?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
GT Christianity contradicts the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to dig through 20 pages of stuff. Can you list specific examples of this? I don't need you to justify why (cause I don't want to read 15 pages of explanation), just tell me where and what.

[flair1239]

If I were a Christian, the OP would cause me to really question those beliefs.

I follow most of what you are saying and have visited some of the sites.

However, though you do a good job of debunking Christianity; the alternative you offer is every bit as ludicrous.

Just as there is little historical evidence of Jesus, there is just as little for Moses other than what is documented in the Torah. The same could be said of Noah and Jacob.

We really have no reason to believe these figures are anything other than characters in a story.

I realise this is a simplistic argument, but you are subjecting Christianity to standards of proof, that you cannot provide for your own religion.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you believe that Elijah raised the dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was God who brought the boy back to life. Elijah was just a tool in His hands. This is recorded in Chapter 17 of I Kings.

Had I said that I don't believe it's true, that would be okay too, according to Judaism, because God tells us what to do, not what to believe. Of course observant Jews believe in the bible, but we don't interpret everything literally, and there are different interpretations of some verses. Particularly concerning the book of Genesis, it is not uncommon for (religious) Jews to believe that a lot of it didn't literally happen. For example, it's okay to believe in evolution (and I do).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not talking to one of those "stupid Christians" here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright. So you're not a Christian.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is "eye for an eye " the correct mode or is "turn the other cheek" the way to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already explained why I believe that the gt is false.

"Turn the other cheek" implies that people should go unpunished for harming others, and that is wrong.

By bringing up these verses, you imply that the God of the gt is kinder that the God of the Hebrew bible. This is not true. Besides having more reasonable laws, in the Hebrew bible God does not require us to be perfect, He is "near to all those who call upon Him" (both Jews and gentiles), and there is no eternal damnation. The gt contradicts all this and claims that God now requires perfection (or belief in Jesus) and everyone else (the vast majority of all people who have ever lived) gets tortured in hell for eternity. God's love is now restricted to the few who can believe the gt's claims about Jesus. Jews believe in a much more loving and universal God.

I mentioned in the other thread that we believe that "an eye for an eye" refers to monetary (and other) compensation for damages. This is clear when the verses (Exodus 21:23-25) are read in context. Read all of Exodus 21:22-36. Verses 22 and 30-35 specifically mention paying fines. Verses 26 and 27 specifically discuss the case of a slave-owner who strikes and knocks the eye or tooth of a slave. To compensate the slave for the loss of his eye or even just a tooth, the slave-owner had to set him free. But the slave-owner did not get his own eye or tooth knocked out.

Jews never went around knocking others’ eyes or teeth out. Nor did they go around stoning people they believe had committed a capital offense. As I mentioned in the other thread, a person was put to death only after being tried and convicted in court. The accused had many rights, and it was difficult to get a conviction. Someone was put to death less than once every seventy years. Somebody who caught somebody else committing a crime didn’t just stone him on the spot, and there is no evidence that anyone ever did so. GT verses that imply otherwise just demonstrate the authors’ unfamiliarity with Jewish law and society. It’s as ridiculous as claiming that it happens in modern day Sweden or Japan.

Regarding slavery in the bible - It was actually much more like being an indentured servant. It is the same Hebrew word for "slave" and "servant." Slaves had to be treated humanely and provided for. A slave who escaped could not be returned to his owner. Rather, he was allowed to remain free (Deut 23:15-16). Hebrew slaves had to be freed at the beginning of the seventh year.

Non-Hebrew slaves could become slaves in only two ways: Either they were captured in war (in which case it was instead of being killed in battle), or they voluntarily sold themselves as a slave (in which case they were paid for doing so).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, something that two million people saw is more likely to be true than something that only one person saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

But you are trying to pass this off as if we actually had testimony from two million people. In actuality, we never had -- unless you are privy to some two million papyri, all signed by the witnesses and verified for their authenticity!

What we have, instead, is the testimony of a few documents, where the claims about two million witnesses are made!

If a competing holy text, eg a Christian text, claimed that two hundred million people saw the Messiah Jesus Christ, then the Christian version would overwhelm the Judaic one?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Which god did Jesus try to turn the Jews to, if not the God of Abraham?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians claim it is the same God. However, the Christian god is so different from the God of Israel that they're obviously not the same god. It's like claiming that Mythra, Zeus or Krishna is the God of Israel. Even if the follower of Mythra believes in only one god, it's still not the same god. The God of Israel is one, incorporeal God. He is not a man and He does not change. The Christian god, otoh, is a 3-person virgin-born mangod/failed messiah, much like Mythra, whose death and resurrection supposedly atones for sin and "saves" his followers. The Christians' beliefs about god are from paganism, not the bible. Jesus (allegedly) and the gt authors encouraged Jews to sin and to follow a different god. God commanded us not to follow such people.

[bossJJ]

This post is a continuation of my post about "an eye for an eye" and slavery in the bible.

Torah laws are reasonable, and so people are able to follow them. Slavery existed. Rather than ban it completely, the bible ensured that it was practiced humanely, so it was like being an indentured servant. In practice, Jews were one of the first peoples to stop practicing slavery altogether.

Another example of how Torah laws are reasonable are all the laws regarding kindness to animals. The bible didn't ban eating meat for food. Rather, it said that the animals had to be slaughtered in a specific manner, that caused a quick and painless death. Also, living animals have to be treated kindly and taken care of.

Another example (of how Torah laws are reasonable) are the laws regarding sexual behavior. Unlike the gt, which claims that just looking at a woman with lust is adultery, in the Hebrew bible it's only adultery if they actually have sex. The gt says that "it's better to marry than to burn," and celibacy is the ideal. In Judaism, otoh, sex is normal and healthy, and it's marriage that is the ideal. Sex between husband and wife is good and holy.

Man has a soul, and he is created "in the image of God." However, he is also an animal. Like an animal, he craves food and sex. We can eat and have sex in the same manner that animals do, or we can elevate these actions and make them holy by eating or having sex in the way that God commands. Sex itself is not dirty or wrong. When a man is in union with his wife, it is among the most holy things he can do it.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Religion is the bane of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on which religion. Some religions, like Christianity, have a bloody, violent history of starting wars and forcibly converting others (or persecuting, torturing and killing those who refuse to convert). They also oppressed their own people, and suppressed science and knowledge. Education was not encouraged, and scientists who didn't agree with the Church could be burned at the stake. However, followers of athiestic belief systems, such as communism, have been the worst mass murderers in history.

There are some religions (or interpretations) of some religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, that preach non-violence and tolerance of others. Some Christians interpret Christianity this way. In the gt, Jesus says to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) and to give your posessions away to the poor (Matthew 5:42, 19:21). However, he also said (according to the gt) that anyone who doesn't believe in him will go to hell (John 15:6, Matthew 13:41-42), and he said to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) and kill anybody who doesn't follow him (Luke 19:27). So the violent Christians also have verses to support their interpretation.

Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates.

[PairTheBoard]

bossJJ --
"Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates. "

Tell that to the Canaanites. If there's any left.

PairTheBoard

[bossJJ]

Here are just a few examples of contradictions, of some things from the Hebrew bible that the Greek testament denies:

1.) In order to receive atonement for our sins, it is not necessary to believe in the messiah or to bring a blood sacrifice. Sincere repentance is all that is required, and we aren't required to be perfect. (Dt 4:26-31, 1 Kings 8:46-50, Isaiah 55:6-9, Jer 7:3-23, 29:13, 33:19, 36:3, Ezek 18:1-23, 33:11, Hosea 6:6, 14:2-3, Micah 6:6, Ps 23: 5-6, 40:6-8, 51:14-19, Lev 5:11-13, Num 17:11, 31:50, Ex 30:15, Jonah 3:5-10, 2 Sam 12:13.) All these verses are either God saying something like, "repent, and I will forgive you" or they are actual examples of people who received atonement for their sins without bringing a blood sacrifice.
Could Jesus' Death Atone for any kind of Sin? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath )
Outreach Judaism Responds to Jews for Jesus (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/response.html)

2.) Each person must repent of his own sin (Dt 24:16, Ezek 18:20). The punishment or sacrifice of one person won’t achieve atonement for someone else’s sin. The messiah’s role is to rule as King of Israel and to usher in a new era of world peace and moral perfection. He won’t be a human sacrifice to take away people’s sins, and nothing in the Hebrew bible supports this Christian belief. That belief came from paganism. This is what will happen when the real messiah comes:
Sin and Atonement (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html)

3.) The Torah is to be observed forever (Dt 4:2, 29:28, Ecc 3:14, Is 40:8, Ps 111:7-8, Ex 31:16, Num 15:23.), even after the real messiah comes. In the messianic age all Jews will return to Torah observance (Ecc 13:14, Dt 4:2, 29:28, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 37:24, 44:9, Zach 14:16).

4.) We (both Jews and gentiles) all have direct access to God, and no mediator is neccesary. There is no eternal damnation, and “God is near to all those who call upon him,” and He “preserves all those who love Him” (Ps 145). We have no need for Jesus.

5.) We Jews will always be God’s chosen people. His covenant with us is forever (2 Sam 7.24, Is 45:17, 54:10, Gen 17:7, Is 49:14-15, Num 15:14, Ps 105:8-10, Ps 89:31-35, Jer 30:11, Dt 8:5). Some Christians believe in "replacement theology" and falsely believe that they have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people.

6.) There is no original sin. The Torah is not too hard to keep (Dt 30:10-14), and we can master over sin (Gen 4:6-7). We also have different beliefs about Satan.
Original Sin? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm)
Who is Satan? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html)

7.) In the messianic age, the gentiles will admit that they were wrong and come to the Jews for the truth. Everyone will recognize that the God of Israel is the one true God. (Zech 8:23, Is 2:3, Ezek 37:28, Jer 16:20, Zech 13:1-6, Micah 7:15-16, Ezek 44:9, Zach 14:16). Christians falsely believe that everyone will come to Jesus.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
bossJJ --
"Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates. "

Tell that to the Canaanites. If there's any left.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews have historically been among the least violent of all peoples. If you have to go back over 3000 years for an example, then you prove my point.

Regarding the conquest of Canaan. That was a direct order from God. Joshua (and later leaders) had the responsibility for wiping out pagan influences in the land of Israel, but that didn't necessarily mean its worshipers. The laws of battle had been given to him and they required that he give the various tribes there opportunities to surrender and became servants to Israel. But they would have had to give up their idolatry, and they weren't willing to do this. Instead of surrender, they also had the option of leaving. Joshua's mission was never to wipe them out.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, something that two million people saw is more likely to be true than something that only one person saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

But you are trying to pass this off as if we actually had testimony from two million people. In actuality, we never had -- unless you are privy to some two million papyri, all signed by the witnesses and verified for their authenticity!

What we have, instead, is the testimony of a few documents, where the claims about two million witnesses are made!

If a competing holy text, eg a Christian text, claimed that two hundred million people saw the Messiah Jesus Christ, then the Christian version would overwhelm the Judaic one?

[/ QUOTE ]

What we do have, both the written and oral torahs, show that from early on the Jews actually believed it. Unlike medievel Catholics, for example, the Jews were familiar with what their bible said, and most were literate (as it is a command from God to study Torah). They believed it because it had also been passed down from their grandparents. Otherwise they would not have believed it. It's not the same as claiming that just one person had a personal revelation, or there were some miracles in the past that only a few people saw. They were being told that they themselves (or their ancestors) heard God speak. Had they not heard it from their grandparents, they would not have believed it. Even if you don't believe the Torah originated with Moses, it was only a few hundred years later at most, too soon to claim that such a huge event, heard by all, actually happened (had it not). No one would have believed it.

As for Christianity, that is a case where one person (Paul) claimed that 500 people (at once) saw Jesus after his alleged resurrection (I Cor 15:6). If this was true, we would have other sources (from those who actually saw him, had anybody really seen him). However, not even the gospel authors make this claim. Paul was writing several decades after the alleged event, to ignorant pagans several hundred miles away. He knew that he could get away with a lie like this, because there is no way that any of his readers could verify his claims. He was smart enough not to claim (to the Corinthians) that they themselves (or their parents) had seen Jesus. Had any of the gt authors actually made such a claim, trying to tell those who hadn't seen Jesus that a huge group of them really had, it would have immediately been obvious that they were lying frauds. They were too smart for that. So instead they just make claims that no one can prove, and so retain the possibility of being true. They didn't know much about Judaism, but they knew how to attract pagans.

In any case, this (seeing Jesus after his alleged resurrection) is not as dramatic as hearing God speak from atop a mountain, and there are more chances for error. For example, it may have been a case of mistaken identity. Or they may have gotten their dates mixed up, and they actually saw him before his death. Paul didn't tell people that they themselves saw Jesus, so many pagans readily believed it, because many pagan gods did similar things.

Regarding Jesus, there is absolutely nothing written about him from his alleged lifetime. Apparently nobody even saw him when he was alive. Had the events claimed in the gt really happened, somebody would have written about them. As I've discussed in other posts, there wee several Greek, Roman and Jewish writers and historians who wrote about first century Israel in quite a bit of detail. None of them mentioned Jesus at all.

[bossJJ]

As I've discussed in this thread, another major difference is that we have different concepts of God. The Hebrew bible explicitly states that God is one (Deut 6:4), that He is not a man, and He does not lie or change His mind (Numbers 23:19). The Christian belief in a 3-person mangod/messiah is from paganism, not the bible.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bossJJ --
"Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates. "

Tell that to the Canaanites. If there's any left.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews have historically been among the least violent of all peoples. If you have to go back over 3000 years for an example, then you prove my point.

Regarding the conquest of Canaan. That was a direct order from God. Joshua (and later leaders) had the responsibility for wiping out pagan influences in the land of Israel, but that didn't necessarily mean its worshipers. The laws of battle had been given to him and they required that he give the various tribes there opportunities to surrender and became servants to Israel. But they would have had to give up their idolatry, and they weren't willing to do this. Instead of surrender, they also had the option of leaving. Joshua's mission was never to wipe them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's convenient when you want something someone else has, to have a god that orders you to take it from them.

God's command in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 to "destroy them totally" is evidently expanded on - countermanded - contradictd in chapter 20:10-15 according to this link,

Not Genocide (http://www.accessv.com/~rjchin/proof/canaan.htm)

although 20:15 refers to "cities that are a distance from you", while 20:16-17 appears to confirm 7:1-5 when it says that "cities in the nations the Lord has given you as an inheritance do not leave anything alive that breathes. Completely destroy them."

Even according to this link that tries to show God's orders were not to "completely destroy them" they were still to destroy the kindoms east of the Jordan which they did. I guess that much genocide doesn't really count.

The fact that Joshua didn't actually carry out orders to "completely destroy" and "not leave anything alive that breathes" in the "cities in the nations the Lord has given you as an inheritance" is a commendable mark of his character. But in later times when Israel is in difficulties his lack of diligence in carrying out the orders to "completely destroy" is proclaimed by priests of that time as a reason for the nations current difficulties. (I can't find it, but I know someone here has the reference for that. bossJJ knows the one I mean but I doubt he will provide it). However you cut it, the Hebrews were plenty violent entering Canaan and hundreds of years later they were even criticized by priests for not having been violent enough.

I don't think Jews get a pass on violence. While their occupation of the promised land today has not taken on the genocidal magnitude of their original occupation, it certainly has included - rightly or not - plenty of violence of its own kind.

Jews certainly got violent during their rebellion against Rome. I suspect the relative lack of Jewish violence during their oppression in Europe was a tactic rather than a religious inclination. When they see violence as not being in their best interest they refrain from it. But like most people, when they believe it is in their best interest they are not at all shy about employing it. In fact, they can even get "god" to order them to do it.

PairTheBoard

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you believe that Elijah raised the dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was God who brought the boy back to life. Elijah was just a tool in His hands. This is recorded in Chapter 17 of I Kings.

Had I said that I don't believe it's true, that would be okay too, according to Judaism, because God tells us what to do, not what to believe. Of course observant Jews believe in the bible, but we don't interpret everything literally, and there are different interpretations of some verses. Particularly concerning the book of Genesis, it is not uncommon for (religious) Jews to believe that a lot of it didn't literally happen. For example, it's okay to believe in evolution (and I do).

[/ QUOTE ]
Your belief in this event completely eliminates your credibility.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Is "eye for an eye " the correct mode or is "turn the other cheek" the way to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already explained why I believe that the gt is false.

"Turn the other cheek" implies that people should go unpunished for harming others, and that is wrong.

By bringing up these verses, you imply that the God of the gt is kinder that the God of the Hebrew bible. This is not true. Besides having more reasonable laws, in the Hebrew bible God does not require us to be perfect, He is "near to all those who call upon Him" (both Jews and gentiles), and there is no eternal damnation. The gt contradicts all this and claims that God now requires perfection (or belief in Jesus) and everyone else (the vast majority of all people who have ever lived) gets tortured in hell for eternity. God's love is now restricted to the few who can believe the gt's claims about Jesus. Jews believe in a much more loving and universal God.

I mentioned in the other thread that we believe that "an eye for an eye" refers to monetary (and other) compensation for damages. This is clear when the verses (Exodus 21:23-25) are read in context. Read all of Exodus 21:22-36. Verses 22 and 30-35 specifically mention paying fines. Verses 26 and 27 specifically discuss the case of a slave-owner who strikes and knocks the eye or tooth of a slave. To compensate the slave for the loss of his eye or even just a tooth, the slave-owner had to set him free. But the slave-owner did not get his own eye or tooth knocked out.

Jews never went around knocking others’ eyes or teeth out. Nor did they go around stoning people they believe had committed a capital offense. As I mentioned in the other thread, a person was put to death only after being tried and convicted in court. The accused had many rights, and it was difficult to get a conviction. Someone was put to death less than once every seventy years. Somebody who caught somebody else committing a crime didn’t just stone him on the spot, and there is no evidence that anyone ever did so. GT verses that imply otherwise just demonstrate the authors’ unfamiliarity with Jewish law and society. It’s as ridiculous as claiming that it happens in modern day Sweden or Japan.

Regarding slavery in the bible - It was actually much more like being an indentured servant. It is the same Hebrew word for "slave" and "servant." Slaves had to be treated humanely and provided for. A slave who escaped could not be returned to his owner. Rather, he was allowed to remain free (Deut 23:15-16). Hebrew slaves had to be freed at the beginning of the seventh year.

Non-Hebrew slaves could become slaves in only two ways: Either they were captured in war (in which case it was instead of being killed in battle), or they voluntarily sold themselves as a slave (in which case they were paid for doing so).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it makes it easier for you if you get to argue both your side and mine as well but you do look foolish when you do so.
I made no implications of any sort. I asked a straight forward question and got quite a convoluted answer. Likewise Matthew 5,38-42 implies nothing but is quite direct. The phrase "turn the other cheek" is literal, If your enemy slaps your right cheek turn and offer him the other, if he sues for your coat, give him your cloak as well, if you are compelled to go a mile, go two. There is nothing implied here, you are directed to give to your oppressor/attacker/enemy more than they intend to take from you.
As for Exodus you plainly miss or ignore the most important verse. The punishment of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, wound for wound, life for life ,etc. is for hurting a woman with child. The subsequent verses concerning slaves are self contained and have no bearing on eye for an eye. Your analysis is totally off the mark.
I have no idea why you introduced stoning into the conversation, perhaps you just felt you were on a roll.
As for the idea of "humane slavery", I simply shrug and shake my head.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Which god did Jesus try to turn the Jews to, if not the God of Abraham?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians claim it is the same God. However, the Christian god is so different from the God of Israel that they're obviously not the same god. It's like claiming that Mythra, Zeus or Krishna is the God of Israel. Even if the follower of Mythra believes in only one god, it's still not the same god. The God of Israel is one, incorporeal God. He is not a man and He does not change. The Christian god, otoh, is a 3-person virgin-born mangod/failed messiah, much like Mythra, whose death and resurrection supposedly atones for sin and "saves" his followers. The Christians' beliefs about god are from paganism, not the bible. Jesus (allegedly) and the gt authors encouraged Jews to sin and to follow a different god. God commanded us not to follow such people.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is many things but it is not an answer to my question.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. Religion is the bane of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on which religion. Some religions, like Christianity, have a bloody, violent history of starting wars and forcibly converting others (or persecuting, torturing and killing those who refuse to convert). They also oppressed their own people, and suppressed science and knowledge. Education was not encouraged, and scientists who didn't agree with the Church could be burned at the stake. However, followers of athiestic belief systems, such as communism, have been the worst mass murderers in history.

There are some religions (or interpretations) of some religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, that preach non-violence and tolerance of others. Some Christians interpret Christianity this way. In the gt, Jesus says to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) and to give your posessions away to the poor (Matthew 5:42, 19:21). However, he also said (according to the gt) that anyone who doesn't believe in him will go to hell (John 15:6, Matthew 13:41-42), and he said to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) and kill anybody who doesn't follow him (Luke 19:27). So the violent Christians also have verses to support their interpretation.

Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you insist on taking over my side of the argument. I made no mention of violence or death or destruction. Religion is the bane of humankind because it takes what are probably very reasonable, likable, intelligent people and turns them into people like you.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Cyrus:

It's hard to believe but you and I actually agree on something.

Best wishes,
Mason

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not talking to one of those "stupid Christians" here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright. So you're not a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's with the "Unpair the board" thing? That's Sklansky you're quoting. I've got nothing to do with it.

PairTheBoard

[xniNja]

Just reminding everyone the OP failed to meet my challenge in responding to any of my points logically, or even stating any coherent sentence without mentioning "God told..." or "you see, you just don't understand! you don't understand that a personal revelation is different than a national revelation! a national one! yes, it's national!"

[Peter666]

"Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates. "

Bull [censored].

The Jews are notoriously disliked by all cultures and creeds because of their main tenet which instead of being "Do unto others" is "Screw unto others"

How? While Jews would not charge each other usurious interest, they were more than happy to do it to gentiles, who would not do it to anybody as it was seen as a crime or sin. As a result, the Jews had a monopoly on the entire banking system and have held individuals and nations in debt ever since.

Naturally, the ones most intelligent to see the the criminality of unbridled Capitalism were atheist Jews who introduced and spread Communism.

By the way, many Arabs would also not agree with your above statement.

[Bez]

The ZOG machine is a worry, Peter.

[PairTheBoard]

Peter --
"How? While Jews would not charge each other usurious interest, they were more than happy to do it to gentiles, who would not do it to anybody as it was seen as a crime or sin. As a result, the Jews had a monopoly on the entire banking system and have held individuals and nations in debt ever since. "

Just to add a little balance here, the gentiles' role in that play was not exactly heroic either. The scene was played repeatedly in Europe where a Noble would invite Jews into his domain to provide what amounted to banking services. After the Noble borrowed more from the Jews than he could possibly repay he just declared a pogrom against them and either killed or chased them out of his territory. Once gentles were no longer restricted from banking they did just fine in it, exercising there own brand of predatory banking practices right up until the time that Central Banks were created to stop the privately engineered boom bust cycles.

PairTheBoard

[Peter666]

Yes, it is those greedy nobles who managed to take advanantage of the system later. Those were the same type of nobles who sided with Protestantism when it was convenient for them to steal Church property during the Protestant revolt.

But basically what we have is a culture which did not recognize usury as a sinful act spreading this principle to others with no moral scruples.

The common good was smashed for individual self interest.

Also, a huge portion of our taxes are spent paying the interest on a national debt to an international bank which is absolutely absurd.

[Peter666]

Historical facts cannot be ignored because of the rantings of some racially motivated fools.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were a Christian, the OP would cause me to really question those beliefs.

I follow most of what you are saying and have visited some of the sites.

However, though you do a good job of debunking Christianity; the alternative you offer is every bit as ludicrous.

Just as there is little historical evidence of Jesus, there is just as little for Moses other than what is documented in the Torah. The same could be said of Noah and Jacob.

We really have no reason to believe these figures are anything other than characters in a story.

I realise this is a simplistic argument, but you are subjecting Christianity to standards of proof, that you cannot provide for your own religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not holding Christianity to a higher standard of proof. The standard I'm holding both to is the truth expressed in the Hebrew bible. That shouldn't be a problem for Christians because they supposedly believe that it's the word of God. I'm just pointing out that their beliefs contradict what the Hebrew bible says, so it doesn't make sense for them to claim that they believe in it.

Also, ignoring any holy books, Judaism just makes a lot more sense. Christians claim that God expects perfection, and that if you commit even one tiny sin, you deserve to spend an eternity in hell, because "a liar is equal to a serial killer," unless you can believe that the death and resurrection of a virgin-born mangod atones for your sins, in which case you get to go to heaven. In that case, you can be a mass murderer who also tortures animals and molests children, and you still go to heaven if you accept Jesus before you die. Meanwhile, the person who gives all his money to the poor, and spends all his time helping others, and then dies trying to save children burning in a fire - he goes to hell because he followed the wrong religion (or no religion). None of this makes any sense. In Judaism we believe in a much more rational and loving God. In Judaism, a person's actions are more important than his beliefs.

I've mentioned my personal belief, not an official Jewish belief, that it's very unlikely that Jesus existed. If he did exist, it makes no difference theologically, as he failed to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies and God commanded us not to follow people like him. The point is - I'm not saying that Christianity is false because Jesus didn't exist; I'm saying it's false because it contradicts God's word in the Hebrew bible, the same standard by which I judge all religions.

Jesus lived in a time when the average Jew was literate, and there were several historians and writers who wrote a lot about Israel. The same can't be said of Noah or Jacob or even Moses. They lived too long ago, in a time when most people were illiterate.

To an atheist, any claims about God are "ludicrous." However, I believe Judaism is a religion that is both rational and spiritual. It offers a beautiful way of life, and a rich culture and history. Our goal is to make the world a better place. As I said in the other thread, I believe that Judaism is the best system for creating better, more compassionate human beings. We have contributed a lot to the world, and we really have been among the most generous and least violent of all peoples throughout history.

[Darryl_P]

You might be interested in the following article entitled "Light for Nations: A Short History of the Jews in the Modern World"

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/StaffLightforNations.htm

It's highly politically incorrect yet factual and if it were not for the internet such material would surely get quashed into oblivion by the media powers that be, despite pretending to embrace free speech.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The standard [of proof] I'm holding to is the truth expressed in the Hebrew bible.
... We [Jews] really have been among the most generous and least violent of all peoples throughout history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense.

The very Hebrew Bible is full of atrocities, sometimes genocidal, committed by the Chosen People.

The historical fact is that the ancient Jews, just like a lot of other peoples in human history, were a tribe of ferocious warriors, not unlike the Spartans or the Romans. If historical circumstances had been different, the Jews would've had their own small or big Mediterranean empire since that era.

Of course, the Jews, after losing their ancient homeland, and scattering to their diaspora, were no longer in a position to stage another Masada. For approximately two twhousand years they were peaceful.

Until Herzl's time.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
... right up until the time that Central Banks were created to stop the privately engineered boom bust cycles.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the creation of central banks stopped the boom/bust cycles?

Or that it just stopped the privately engineered ones?

[bossJJ]

Unlike Christianity, Judaism is not a religion that has historically gone around starting wars claiming that we have orders from God to conquer other people and convert them. The conquest of Canaan was a one-time event. We do believe that God ordered it, and that the Canaanites were a truly evil people whose idolatry include child sacrifice. They did have the option to leave or stop their idolatry (without converting to Judaism). Nevertheless, I'm not denying that what happened was violent. My point, which still stands, is that if you have to go back over 3000 for an example of Jewish violence, then we are indeed one of the least violent of all peoples.

In response to this, you make a few vague accusations about Jews being violent against Rome and in modern Israel. Our lack of violence at other times, you suggest, was just "a tactic," implying that we are naturally and normally violent unless someone else is preventing it, or we think the risk won't outweigh the benefit. You have no evidence to support this belief, yet you are so eager to believe it. Why? You apparently believe that we really are violent people who hate everybody else. It's like you have just internalized all the negative stereotypes about us.

In Judaism, we sincerely care about other people, and we believe that it's wrong to hurt other people, whether they are Jews or gentiles. It's because of our Jewish values that we are rarely violent. It's because of Judaism that, virtually throughout our history, we have had very low rates of crime and alcoholism, and high rates of education and charitable giving. Jewish observance also maintains stable families, so the divorce rate has usually been very low as well. The book, "The Jewish Mind," by Raphael Patel discusses a lot of this stuff in various historical periods. After the exodus from Egypt, Jews had nearly 1000 years of independence (with some interuptions, such as the first exile). During this time the Jews didn't go around staring wars, and (with one exception, that can't be justified in Judaism), they never forcibly converted others to Judaism. After returning from the first exile, idolatry was virtually unheard of among the Jews, and they were generally Torah observant.

As I mentioned in the other thread, in Israel, if someone is hurt, for example if he is injured in the street or his car breaks down, several people will immediately rush to his aid. I have never seen a case there where the person is ignored and no one helps. In much of the West, otoh, no one will help because people just don't want to get involved. Often they won't even notify the police or call an ambulance.

In the West, the heroes in children's books are often soldiers, warriors, cowboys or conquerors. In Jewish children's books, otoh, the heroes are tzaddikim, those who perform acts of loving-kindness. They are inspiring stories (often true) with a moral, of people who did good deeds and followed God's laws, often under difficult circumstances. Books with collections of such stories (for both adults and children) include two books called "Around the Maggid's Table" and "The Maggid Speaks," both by Rabbi Patsach Krohn. (A maggid was a wandering storyteller.)

There are a few situations when violence is justified, such as for self-defense. In ancient Rome, The Romans were desecrating synagogues, and torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Jews. The Jewish violence was against Roman soldiers who were committing these atrocities. In modern Israel, the Israelis have shown remarkable restraint against continued terrorist attacks. In a typical example, a Palestianian terrorist will murder a dozen Israeli civilians, including women and children, and the bomb will injure and disable many more. In response, the Israelis will bomb an empty building, or at most kill a terrorist leader. Most other countries would have a much stronger response.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
When they see violence as not being in their best interest they refrain from it. But like most people, when they believe it is in their best interest they are not at all shy about employing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

While a lot of people are violent, not all peoples or cultures are the same, and not everybody reacts the same when put in similar situations. In the same situations, whether when they were oppressed or living independently, Jews have been less violent than most other peoples. The culture and values determine how people act, and all groups don't act the same. I already mentioned how in Israel people help a stranger who is hurt or needs help, while in Western countries most people don't. The Kitty Genovese case was a famous example of this in the U.S. Several people heard her screams as she was being stabbed to death, and nobody even called the police.

There was a case in Montreal about five or ten years ago - a woman had been beaten, raped and left for dead. Her semi-nude body was dumped in the parking lot of an office building. People looked out the window and laughed at her weak attempts to cover her nudity. She was conscious (at first) but couldn't get up, then she lost consciousness. A supervisor even ordered his workers NOT to call the police, but then after a few hours someone did anyways. Usually people aren't hurt that bad, so the consequences of not helping others aren't so severe.

Another example (of how not all peoples are violent), Tibetan Buddhists have reacted passively and nonviolently to the Chinese invasion and occupation of their country, while many other peoples in similar circumstances react much more violently.

Yet another example, when the Jews immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers in the early 1900's, they were in similar circumstances to many other immigrants. They lived in horrible slums, yet they didn't have a high crime rate. And they made every effort to give there children an education. As Thomas Sowell said (in "Ethnic America: A History," page 94):

"Even when the Jews lived in slums, they were slums with a difference - lower alcoholism, homicide, accidental death rates than other slums, or even the city as a whole. There children had lower truancy rates, lower juvenile delinquency rates, and (by the 1930's) higher IQ's than other children...There was also more voting for congressmen by low income Jews than even by higher income Protestants or Catholics...Despite a voluminous literature claiming that slums shape people's values, the Jews had their own values, and they took those values into and out of the slums."

The point is that people can choose to do the right thing even in very difficult circumstances; We can choose how we will react, and everyone does NOT act the same way. Some of the differences are due to the different theologies. For example, Christian theology led many Christians to forcibly convert others or torture and kill them if they refused to convert. They sincerely believed that God saves only Christians, and that all Jews are "enemies of God" who are responsible for Jesus' death. In Judaism, otoh, there is no eternal damnation, and we believe that "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come."

Also, Christians put more emphasis on the afterlife, and Jews put more emphasis on this life, and on the fact that we're all responsible for each other. So even when the Jews were confined to ghettoes, they had many charitable organizations and saw to it that everybody was educated and taken care of. In Christian countries, no one cared about the serfs or peasants in the same manner. They were told their reward would come in heaven.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you believe that Elijah raised the dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was God who brought the boy back to life. Elijah was just a tool in His hands. This is recorded in Chapter 17 of I Kings.

Had I said that I don't believe it's true, that would be okay too, according to Judaism, because God tells us what to do, not what to believe. Of course observant Jews believe in the bible, but we don't interpret everything literally, and there are different interpretations of some verses. Particularly concerning the book of Genesis, it is not uncommon for (religious) Jews to believe that a lot of it didn't literally happen. For example, it's okay to believe in evolution (and I do).

[/ QUOTE ]
Your belief in this event completely eliminates your credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you so suprised that I believe in the bible? Judging by the irrational hostility in your posts, I'm sure you never thought I had any credibility in the first place. I guess you're upset that you can't rationally refute any of my points.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Is "eye for an eye " the correct mode or is "turn the other cheek" the way to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already explained why I believe that the gt is false.

"Turn the other cheek" implies that people should go unpunished for harming others, and that is wrong.

By bringing up these verses, you imply that the God of the gt is kinder that the God of the Hebrew bible. This is not true. Besides having more reasonable laws, in the Hebrew bible God does not require us to be perfect, He is "near to all those who call upon Him" (both Jews and gentiles), and there is no eternal damnation. The gt contradicts all this and claims that God now requires perfection (or belief in Jesus) and everyone else (the vast majority of all people who have ever lived) gets tortured in hell for eternity. God's love is now restricted to the few who can believe the gt's claims about Jesus. Jews believe in a much more loving and universal God.

I mentioned in the other thread that we believe that "an eye for an eye" refers to monetary (and other) compensation for damages. This is clear when the verses (Exodus 21:23-25) are read in context. Read all of Exodus 21:22-36. Verses 22 and 30-35 specifically mention paying fines. Verses 26 and 27 specifically discuss the case of a slave-owner who strikes and knocks the eye or tooth of a slave. To compensate the slave for the loss of his eye or even just a tooth, the slave-owner had to set him free. But the slave-owner did not get his own eye or tooth knocked out.

Jews never went around knocking others’ eyes or teeth out. Nor did they go around stoning people they believe had committed a capital offense. As I mentioned in the other thread, a person was put to death only after being tried and convicted in court. The accused had many rights, and it was difficult to get a conviction. Someone was put to death less than once every seventy years. Somebody who caught somebody else committing a crime didn’t just stone him on the spot, and there is no evidence that anyone ever did so. GT verses that imply otherwise just demonstrate the authors’ unfamiliarity with Jewish law and society. It’s as ridiculous as claiming that it happens in modern day Sweden or Japan.

Regarding slavery in the bible - It was actually much more like being an indentured servant. It is the same Hebrew word for "slave" and "servant." Slaves had to be treated humanely and provided for. A slave who escaped could not be returned to his owner. Rather, he was allowed to remain free (Deut 23:15-16). Hebrew slaves had to be freed at the beginning of the seventh year.

Non-Hebrew slaves could become slaves in only two ways: Either they were captured in war (in which case it was instead of being killed in battle), or they voluntarily sold themselves as a slave (in which case they were paid for doing so).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it makes it easier for you if you get to argue both your side and mine as well but you do look foolish when you do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who look foolish, just making persoanl attacks instead of rationally explaining why you think I'm wrong. It's not even clear what your "side" is (other than the "anti-bossJJ side"). I guess you just like insulting people when you can't refute them.

[ QUOTE ]
I made no implications of any sort. I asked a straight forward question and got quite a convoluted answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then just what was the point of the question? Why did you ask about those particular verses? My answer, while long, was not convoluted at all. The explanations were required to explain my points, and the other topics were related.

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise Matthew 5,38-42 implies nothing but is quite direct. The phrase "turn the other cheek" is literal, If your enemy slaps your right cheek turn and offer him the other, if he sues for your coat, give him your cloak as well, if you are compelled to go a mile, go two. There is nothing implied here, you are directed to give to your oppressor/attacker/enemy more than they intend to take from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A literal interpretation is ridiculous, and I know many Christians don't interpret it literally. It just doesn't make any sense. Why be passive only in those specific circumstances? Why should you give someone your cloak when he takes your coat, but not your shirt or shoes? Why is it okay for someone to strike your cheek, but not your arm?

[ QUOTE ]
As for Exodus you plainly miss or ignore the most important verse. The punishment of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, wound for wound, life for life ,etc. is for hurting a woman with child. The subsequent verses concerning slaves are self contained and have no bearing on eye for an eye. Your analysis is totally off the mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your interpretation that is ridiculous and just plain wrong. You are taking the verse completely out of context. The verses are a unit, discussing compensation for damages, and the surrounding verses explain the verse in question. What evidence do you have that your dumb interpretation is correct? Why do you assume that you understand it better than us? I suspect you want to believe a literal interpretation because it makes Jewish law look harsher than it really is, so it gives you a justification for criticizing Jews and Judaism. That would not be valid because Jews have never interpreted the verse literally.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea why you introduced stoning into the conversation, perhaps you just felt you were on a roll.
As for the idea of "humane slavery", I simply shrug and shake my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

The verse mentioned slavery, so I explained what it really was. Stoning was related to what I was discussing.

Now that I know that you're just an [censored] who is not interested in serious discussion, I won't respond in so serious or detailed a manner to any future posts of yours.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates. "

Bull [censored].

The Jews are notoriously disliked by all cultures and creeds because of their main tenet which instead of being "Do unto others" is "Screw unto others"

How? While Jews would not charge each other usurious interest, they were more than happy to do it to gentiles, who would not do it to anybody as it was seen as a crime or sin. As a result, the Jews had a monopoly on the entire banking system and have held individuals and nations in debt ever since.

Naturally, the ones most intelligent to see the the criminality of unbridled Capitalism were atheist Jews who introduced and spread Communism.

By the way, many Arabs would also not agree with your above statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to what PairTheBoard said, the Jews were usually banned from practicing all other professions and trades. Nor were they allowed to own land, so they couldn't be farmers or shepards.

Also, it was my understanding that the Church considered it "usury" for charging any interest at all. Do you have any idea what the real rates actually were? Or is this just an antisemitic rant?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Which god did Jesus try to turn the Jews to, if not the God of Abraham?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians claim it is the same God. However, the Christian god is so different from the God of Israel that they're obviously not the same god. It's like claiming that Mythra, Zeus or Krishna is the God of Israel. Even if the follower of Mythra believes in only one god, it's still not the same god. The God of Israel is one, incorporeal God. He is not a man and He does not change. The Christian god, otoh, is a 3-person virgin-born mangod/failed messiah, much like Mythra, whose death and resurrection supposedly atones for sin and "saves" his followers. The Christians' beliefs about god are from paganism, not the bible. Jesus (allegedly) and the gt authors encouraged Jews to sin and to follow a different god. God commanded us not to follow such people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is many things but it is not an answer to my question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is an answer, moron. It may not be the one you wanted, by it's a direct answer to the question. How is it not an answer? Why even ask me if you don't want my answer? Can you rationally explain why you think it's not an answer? Can you logically refute any of my points? I doubt it, so if you respond I expect it will be additional attacks and dumb comments.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. Religion is the bane of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on which religion. Some religions, like Christianity, have a bloody, violent history of starting wars and forcibly converting others (or persecuting, torturing and killing those who refuse to convert). They also oppressed their own people, and suppressed science and knowledge. Education was not encouraged, and scientists who didn't agree with the Church could be burned at the stake. However, followers of athiestic belief systems, such as communism, have been the worst mass murderers in history.

There are some religions (or interpretations) of some religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, that preach non-violence and tolerance of others. Some Christians interpret Christianity this way. In the gt, Jesus says to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) and to give your posessions away to the poor (Matthew 5:42, 19:21). However, he also said (according to the gt) that anyone who doesn't believe in him will go to hell (John 15:6, Matthew 13:41-42), and he said to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) and kill anybody who doesn't follow him (Luke 19:27). So the violent Christians also have verses to support their interpretation.

Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you insist on taking over my side of the argument. I made no mention of violence or death or destruction. Religion is the bane of humankind because it takes what are probably very reasonable, likable, intelligent people and turns them into people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was already reasonable, likeable and intelligent, and becoming observant brought out my spiritual side and made me more diligent about treating others kindly. I'm a nice, intelligent person who gives a lot to his community. What is wrong with that? You think religion is a bane because it encourages kindess (the main result of practicing Judaism), but it's okay when they kill other people. You aren't being rational at all. Your hostility towards me is irrational also.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. Religion is the bane of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on which religion. Some religions, like Christianity, have a bloody, violent history of starting wars and forcibly converting others (or persecuting, torturing and killing those who refuse to convert). They also oppressed their own people, and suppressed science and knowledge. Education was not encouraged, and scientists who didn't agree with the Church could be burned at the stake. However, followers of athiestic belief systems, such as communism, have been the worst mass murderers in history.

There are some religions (or interpretations) of some religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, that preach non-violence and tolerance of others. Some Christians interpret Christianity this way. In the gt, Jesus says to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) and to give your posessions away to the poor (Matthew 5:42, 19:21). However, he also said (according to the gt) that anyone who doesn't believe in him will go to hell (John 15:6, Matthew 13:41-42), and he said to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) and kill anybody who doesn't follow him (Luke 19:27). So the violent Christians also have verses to support their interpretation.

Judaism is a religion which encourages (actually commands) kindness to others and doesn't forcibly convert other people. Jewish communities have always taken care of the poor and educated everybody. Historically, Jews have been among the least violent of all peoples, with among the lowest crime rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you insist on taking over my side of the argument. I made no mention of violence or death or destruction. Religion is the bane of humankind because it takes what are probably very reasonable, likable, intelligent people and turns them into people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was already reasonable, likeable and intelligent, and becoming observant brought out my spiritual side and made me more diligent about treating others kindly. I'm a nice, intelligent person who gives a lot to his community. What is wrong with that? You think religion is a bane because it encourages kindess (the main result of practicing Judaism), but it's okay when they kill other people. You aren't being rational at all. Your hostility towards me is irrational also.

BTW, it wasn't clear what your "side of the argument" is. It's still not. I naturally assumed killing others in the name of religion was a bad thing, but you don't have a problem with that. I was just giving my answer to the question. You can't lump all religions together, as there are many differences among them.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might be interested in the following article entitled "Light for Nations: A Short History of the Jews in the Modern World"

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/StaffLightforNations.htm

It's highly politically incorrect yet factual and if it were not for the internet such material would surely get quashed into oblivion by the media powers that be, despite pretending to embrace free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not factual at all. It sounds like something from a white-supremecist hate group. They reveal this when they blame Jews for the black civil rights movement.

Among other ridiculous accusations, it blames the Jews for both world wars and the cold war, and claims that they controlled Russia and Eastern Europe after World War II. In other words, it's just a bunch of antisemitic lies.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Just reminding everyone the OP failed to meet my challenge in responding to any of my points logically, or even stating any coherent sentence without mentioning "God told..." or "you see, you just don't understand! you don't understand that a personal revelation is different than a national revelation! a national one! yes, it's national!"

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! You're pathetic, and a liar. Or maybe it's just your poor reading skills and inability to retain information. I did not say "God told" anywhere in the post you were responding to.

As for my claim that you don't understand the difference between a national revelation and a personal one, that's a true statement. You've demonstrated that lack of understanding in practically every post of yours to me. And you still don't understand. I easily refute all your nonsense, so you just keep repeating it, demonstrating yet again your lack of understanding.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing - even if you don't believe that the Torah originated with Moses, it was still only a few hundred years later. That was a time when people had very well-developed oral traditions and good memories. How could someone like Ezra just convince the whole nation that their ancestors had seen God (if it had not happened)? They would know he was lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it was part of the oral tradition doesn't mean that's exactly how it happenned. What likely happenned was that various semitic tribes of the desert, with their own tribal gods, came together at a great gathering of the tribes and agreed to Unite under one god. Probably with the incentive of making a united invasion of Canaan or Egypt, Canaan being the second choice of many. This agreement to unite under one god came to be passed down in oral tradition as the Nation "hearing" god speak the first two commandments to them: 1. No other gods before me. 2. No idols allowed. The tribes became futher unified under the law code of the remaining "commandments" very possibly written by a great leader called Moses.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This just doesn't make any sense to me. You think people would just willingly believe something they knew wasn't true? If it didn't happen, they would know the religion was a fraud. Like a whole continent being submerged under the ocean for four months, having the whole nation (who are at the foot of the mountain) hear God's voice from atop the mountain is a dramatic event that wouldn't have been forgotten in a few hundred years. It makes much more sense to claim somebody had a personal revelation from God, or that there were a few miracles in the past that not many people saw.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not factual at all. It sounds like something from a white-supremecist hate group. They reveal this when they blame Jews for the black civil rights movement.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be sure they have opinions which they want to support with their facts, but they do list about a hundred people's names with specific actions at specific times which are almost certainly factual since the piece has survived scrutiny for 6 months now.

The target audience is people like me who believe mainstream media is agenda-driven and who are interested in lesser-known truths that would never get air time there.

Calling someone a hater, though, is not very productive since I could argue that a mosquito hates me because it tries to suck my blood but then you could argue that I hate it since I will try to swat it. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The only thing that matters is the outcome and if you're one of the interested parties you're best off analysing the other's methods so you can maximize your chances of having a good outcome.