A Continuing Discussion: Judaism and Christianity.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Here is the second page of a discussion dealing with Judaism and Christianity. Counter-posed discussion with John B. and rod.
.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005

Answers

The original discussion started in This thread.
Related link: http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html
...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

Elpidio
Are you following this discussion? I'm picking up Ebionism overtones in regards to St. Paul and the "suffering servant" issues.
...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

I am trying to see what is Joseph's philosophy or personal beliefs.
He sounds Ebionite, he sounds Messianic,...he sounds Jewish. Especially the word cohen-used for descendants of Aaron.
Christian Yahwists like me tend to be more Gentile in outlook: no circumcision, not strict Sabbath observers,...but we use
Yahweh's name in prayers, invocations,....
believe in the equality of men and women,...
believe Paul was commissioned by Jesus in a dream to make the Gentiles part Yahwheh's plan of salvation,...(though I don't see him as an apostle in the same terms of the Jewish party: The Nazarenes (or Ebionites) like James, Jesus brother.
The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

For me , my philosophy is Christian Yahwism (a combination of James, Peter, and Paul's way of interpreting Jesus, Jesus teaching, and Yahweh's love for humanity.)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CEz3
Christian Yahwism
Excerpt: Christian Yahwism is more than a defined set of beliefs. It is a movement of ideas encompassing all forms of Christian living in Yahweh our God.
Christian Yahwism cares for -love of worship of Yahweh -Yahweh’s continous work with his creation -The salvation of all humans even when they have sinned -for the individual -the disenfranchised -the environment -people’s cultures -education -justice -the unborn -all of God Yahweh’s creatures The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh -- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004 Answers love of worship of Yahweh Unlike Catholics who worship Mary, the Saints, and Jesus when they need him, or Protestants who also worship Jesus, The Christian Yahwist worships the true God of the universe: Yahweh. Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God [is] the only Yahweh The Christian Yahwist worships God Yahweh because he/she realizes Yahweh loved him/her too enough to give him a free-will mind, and the body to sense everything Yahweh has created. We were created good in God Yahweh's image. Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
The Ebionites tend to be more legalistic, more Jewish.
From their website:http://ebionite.org/
Ebionites
YHWH is Our God, YHWH Alone. Welcome to the Ebionite Jewish (Yahwistic) Community. Yom Shishi 10 Shevat 7665 January 28, 3905 In those days ten men from every language of the nations will grab hold, clutching to the fringe of each Jew and say, 'Let us go with you for we have heard that YHWH is with you!' .... Jesus is not Lord! Jesus was not the Messiah!** Jesus did not die as a blood atonement! He is not a savior! He was not divine! He was not a Christian; he was a man---no more, and no less---who lived and died a righteous Jew. Honestly ask yourself: Where are the Christians who follow Jesus? Do they even exist? Have you ever met one? Would Jesus have you disobey God? When did God say His commandments would be worthless? Who must account for your sins? Would he have you worship a man? Where does God command us to worship a man or any representation of a god? Is he more interested in you proclaiming "Lord, Lord!" or that you obey God's commandments? Truthfully, there is no evidence that the Christian system has ever had anything to do with either God or Jesus. Instead it is a support mechanism for sin, ignorance, oppression, and exploitation of the ignorant that it creates and maintains as chattels. It rewards sinners and exploiters and calls them godly! Yahshua ("Jesus") spoke words of the prophets---the words of the prophets did not speak of him. But they and Yahshua, as well, pointed to the God of Israel. The Ebionites are a community of mostly ex- Christians who have discovered that worshipping God is the answer gentiles need; and that truly loving Yahshua means truly loving God and His Torah (His Instruction or commandments) as Yahshua did. Christianity (and other religions) falls far short of delivering Yahweh's will and love for the world. We are not rabbinic, or Qaraite, nor messianic, but respect all forms of Yahwism (that is, the monotheistic faith in God whose Name is Yahweh). In fact, we encourage Jews to remain Jews, but we instruct seeking gentiles to attach themselves to the Faith of Israel whether it be rabbinic, Qaraite, or Ebionite. (And many have done just that!) We are not Essene-like, Gnostic, or even dualistic. There is only One who rules the Universe. Ebionites are not gnostic; don't be misled by the ignorant. You need not be an Ebionite to "reach" or "please" God; you won't be damned for failing to join some initiation, or believing a "Secret." There is no "mediator" (medium, or "channel") to which you must submit to in order to "discover" God.
Christian Yahwism is the most inclusive Christian movement.
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

My Church is also an inclusive Church.
I believe most religions and churches tend to make life difficult for their members. It may work for some. But as the movement expands, then it collapses. Jesus movement as it expanded into the Roman Empire gave rise to many sects (now called Churches).
My purpose was to go back to an original blueprint and work from there.
There are so many things that did not exist in Jesus days. For example. We now know that many diseases are not caused by demons but by germs:viruses, bacteria,fungi,...
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CDeh
The Way-The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus
Excerpt: The Way-The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus was a name restored for the original Church by Elpidio Gonzalez in 1989 while still a Roman Catholic. It was first introduced in the internet in february 2002. Back then I was known as the Catholic Yahwist. My mission was to write to the Pope about things that might happen. On January 1, 2004, the final break with the Catholic Church came as a member. Since then, the word, the Christian Yahwist came to be associated with me. The Man of Yahweh was the word used for me in a dream I had about Prince Roger Nelson better known as Prince, a singer,in November 2001.. I wrote to him in 2002. .......Why is it called The Way-The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus? From Acts: Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: See also Acts 9:2, 19:9, and 22:4. From Mark: Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Who started the Way-The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus? One was Paul- 1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, Also Barnabas, Timothy(Titus?), Silas , Luke,... Is the Way-The Church of God open to everyone ? Yes. God Yahweh wants everyone to be saved, even those who don't look for him. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. The Christian Yahwist -- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 15, 2004.
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

I found this to be very interesting:
"If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah."
(Excerpt from:http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html)
I have had the pleasure of visiting with Solomon Girshom. He tells that he is within the ability to rebuild the "Temple". He visited a church here near my home. Basically, this theology is Zionism.
........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

BTW, I have stated repeatedly about my choice of The Jerusalem Bible. It seems that the Old Testament(see also: Tanakh.) in the JB is considered to be of better accuracy in translation, being of the Mesoretic version rather than the Greek. Hmmmm.....
...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

john,what kind of messiah the jews actually are expecting?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.
............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

Unfortunately, the Jews missed in their own Scriptures that Messiah would come first as a suffering servant. See Isaiah 53. In the end, He will return as the night in shining armour that they expected first. That is why they rejected Jesus. He didn't measure up with what they expected..
Unfortunately, the Scriptures predict antichrist who will come next. He will be very deceiving and appear to be that night in shining armour that they have been waiting for. I am afraid that they might mistake him for their Messiah.....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

oops, make that *knight*... thanks : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

Oops!
Will you repost your other reply to John B. from the other thread? I was hoping that our discussions about Judaism could have its own thread, away from "gregs" problems.
......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

Faith
Did you visit the websites offered by John B. in regards to the "messiah"?
Also, all that bad stuff you accuse the Catholic Church of--paganism-- is the same thing that is being said of Christianity. The New Testament is basically "mythology". Anyway, those websites are very interesting.
...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

WOW! We've created a monster. I didn't expect a whole thread from this, but alas I guess sometimes that's how things develop. I kind of feel like a shirked my responsibility by taking a day off but it was my shabbos and no electricity, besides it's to spiritual a day by ruining it with to many things in the physical world.
I'll try to address as many of these as I can. I am glad you went to the messiahtruth website and even more excited that you found it interesting and informative. It is very well thought out and like I said I don't think you're gonna change your whole life because of it but it gives a very clear, simply laid out, logical explanation of a lot of the passages that Christians bring to the forefront.
To the person who keeps using gods name yhvh please be careful. Jewish people don't say that name even when we are praying. That name was reserved for the high priest on special occasions. It is considered very very bad to ever say it. We don't even say the substitute name unless praying. We use a substitute for the substitute when refering to him. Hashem, literally "the name". Just a thought.
"When did God say His commandments would be worthless? Who must account for your sins? Would he have you worship a man? Where does God command us to worship a man or any representation of a god? Is he more interested in you proclaiming "Lord, Lord!" or that you obey God's commandments? Truthfully, there is no evidence that the Christian system has ever had anything to do with either God or Jesus. Instead it is a support mechanism for sin, ignorance, oppression, and exploitation of the ignorant that it creates and maintains as chattels. It rewards sinners and exploiters and calls them godly! " - Elipidio
I agree with this. Just think about it. I do have to say though that being Jewish is more than believing in one god. It's being circumsized(gods covenant), and your mother being jewish. If a person converts then they have to accept all the commmandments, study with a rabbi, go in a mikvah(ritual bath), and be recircumsized (if a male). So if you aren't Jewish you're still welcomed and obligated to serve hashem, however the only laws you need to follow are the seven laws of noah. Here is a site that lists them if you're interested but I can't vouch for the reliability of the rest of the content http://www.hasidicgentile.org/C808593284/E1272237299/
""If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah." (Excerpt from:http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html) I have had the pleasure of visiting with Solomon Girshom. He tells that he is within the ability to rebuild the "Temple". He visited a church here near my home. Basically, this theology is Zionism." - Rod
I am confused. I don't know who Solomon Girshom is. What does it mean he has the ability to rebuild the temple. He has an army strong enough to beat the Israeli army and then hold off a billion arabs? And Rod, Zionism has nothing to do with rebuilding the beis hamekdash(temple). Modern Zionism is simply the philosophy that Jews should return to Israel and settle it as a Jewish country (completely independant of Torah law I might add). So I'm a bit confused by everything you stated here, maybe you can expound on it.
"BTW, I have stated repeatedly about my choice of The Jerusalem Bible. It seems that the Old Testament(see also: Tanakh.) in the JB is considered to be of better accuracy in translation, being of the Mesoretic version rather than the Greek. Hmmmm....." - Rod
Rod just pick up an english hebrew version of the tanach by Artscroll. It's great and has all kinds of information. You'll have a pretty good translation there. Probably the best is Aryeh Kaplans "The Living Torah" But again you'll still be lacking in cases such as the word yebum from our other dialogue, which is not a traditional marriage but one that specifically deals with marrying your dead brothers wife. But at least with these versions you'll be a lot closer and have some commentaries to explain confusing passages.
"Unfortunately, the Jews missed in their own Scriptures that Messiah would come first as a suffering servant. See Isaiah 53. In the end, He will return as the night in shining armour that they expected first. That is why they rejected Jesus. He didn't measure up with what they expected.. Unfortunately, the Scriptures predict antichrist who will come next. He will be very deceiving and appear to be that night in shining armour that they have been waiting for. I am afraid that they might mistake him for their Messiah....." - (faith01@myway.com)
Blah Blah Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah...I already answered what Isaiah 53 and you obviously did not read it, and I said I won't address it until you do. Here it is again. http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html
"john,what kind of messiah the jews actually are expecting?" -- sdqa
Good Question! First of all I do want to make clear that it is a central theme in Judaism that the Messiah is coming and we believe that he will. There is no question about this to a religious Jew. With that being said it does not occupy our entire lives. We pray for him to come, we are supposed to be ready for his arrival, but we are supposed to live our lives for the here and now as well. We are supposed to be good people and by good that means to follow gods commandments.
So now about the messiah. It depends on who you go by. There is rambam(maimonedes) and ramban(Nachmanades) and they have slightly different accounts of what will happen. But clearly he will be a tamid chacham(wise student(of torah)), a Torah Jew that follows the mitzvahs, he will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, he will lead the jewish people back to Israel, he will be a great warrior and lead the jewish people to victory in battle, he will reign as king over the jews, the dead will be ressurected, and...he will live forever- he can not die. Those are the requirements for a person to be the moshiach(messiah). Just so you know the word moshiach(messiah in english), simply means annointed. King David is refered to as moshicho or his annointed meaning gods annointed, so don't get caught up on the word "Messiah" and turn it into something it's not.
IF you want a more in depth talk about moshiach ben yosef and all the mistranslations made by the early christians when they were developing chirstianity, check out this page http://www.messiahtruth.com/yosef.html I think you'll find it informative if not anything else.
Hope all of this is helpful.
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

[Duplicate post deleted.]

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

Hi John B.
Solomon Girshom was an officer in the Iraeli Army. He was runned over by a tank and claims that the Angels protected him from being killed by approaching enemy soldiers. Girshom related to the congregation that the corner stones are sitting on a flatbed ready for the rebuilding of the temple. Yes, I agree that Zionism seems more of a phylosophy steeped in nationalism--the rebuilding of the Israeli government is my take on this. Anyway, Girshom (sp?) is on a campaign to collect funds for this rebuilding. I took that to mean that he is building his army in order to do his prophetic mission of rebuilding the temple, The new Holy City.
Girshom was a pleasant man to listen to, until I realized one very critical error in his thinking. He told his Christian audience that we have the same God and that we are awaiting the Messiah together, be it the first or second comming of Christ. That remark pretty much destroyed my confidence in his mission. How can a Christian accept the idea that God is ironic? Either Christ is returning or He has to only yet to come. Girshom tried to bring his Jewish and Christian faiths under one embrace by calling us "Zion-Christians". After listening to Girshom, I began to feel as if his idea of God was merely the reconstruction of a Jewish Nation being the simile of God's Nation.
I helped him into the van as he left quickly to his next engagement. We didn't have time to discuss things any further.
...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

Hmmm...I've never heard of this guy. I'll look into it. I know of a group called the temple mount faithful who march every so often if they're allowed on top of the temple mount(har habayit).
I also know an interesting guy who isn't even religious and had two huge stones cut. He goes on the holidays and tries to drop them off as the cornerstone for the new temple. I thought that was pretty cool.
But none of these things will get the temple rebuilt anytime soon. Either prayer or some kind of political take over in Israel by a political party could help, maybe...Although most religious jews believe that the messiah will rebuild it when he comes. I on the other hand along with a minority and a very small minority at that believe that we need to get the dome of the rock off of there and rebuild the temple on our own...but unless I can come up with a couple hundred million dollars I don't think I'll be able to help facilitate it, but you never know.
Alright more tomorrow.
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

so the jewish messiah won't have to die for our sins to save us,won't be god himself in a human form?
and why is it so important to rebuild the temple?
why is there need for a messiah for this,can't people just rebuild it by themselves if it's so important?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 30, 2005.

Boy!! I messed up his name. If this is the right person I'm talking about, his name is Girshon Salomon.
The Temple Mount Faithful is correct. He even gave the church a flag with that name.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

I hope we are talking about the same man. He uses crutches to get around, as his stride is still suffering from that horrible battle incident with the tank.
................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

Yes! here is a picture of him:
Gershon Salomon:
http://www.templemountfaithful.org/img/pesach-a.jpg
.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

Have a look at pictures of
The Temple Mount Faithful.
More pictures:http://www.templemountfaithful.org/pix.htm
Gershon holding his Book (notice the man to his left wearing the t-shirt with the 'flag').
.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

It is important to note that for those Christians who are deeply concerned with "Rapture" theory/theology, Gershon Salomon's movement has some significance to those events that are part of the "Rapture" prophecies.
(Did that make any sense?)
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

John B,
What you said about God's name is true among Jews today. I also know you directed this portion towards me: To the person who keeps using gods name yhvh please be careful. Jewish people don't say that name even when we are praying. That name was reserved for the high priest on special occasions. It is considered very very bad to ever say it. We don't even say the substitute name unless praying. We use a substitute for the substitute when refering to him. Hashem, literally "the name". Just a thought.
Yet, in ancient times during Jeremiah's time the name was still used in normal conversation. Proof of that is the various pots,...and other relics, even by enemies like Mesha who use YHWH (no vowels then) to refer to EL (God).
I did not start using the name next to mine until I had a dream revelation of God speaking to me on July 23, 2000. The revelation was in 4 parts. Presidents Clinton(2000),Bush Jr.(2001), The Pope(2001), The Patriarch of Antioch(2001), President Hugo Chavez(2004),and Prince (2001) know about it.
In the dream revelation , Yahweh (which I pronounced Yahvéh) told me to preach to Protestants and Catholics.He even told me how many catholic I was going to find: 3 or 4. In October 2002 I joined this forum after being told not to post at the catholic.David Ortiz, Kevin Walker who also had been kicked out were here.They are protestants. Rod, James el greco,and another Catholic were here. Gail was a former Protestant turned catholic. That was the meaning of 3 or 4.
He used English and Spanish in our conversation.He was full of light, like a soft light bulb. He appeared to me again in October 2000. He appeared to my wife On December 1, 2003.
In November 2001 I had a dream where I visited Prince, the singer and composer. I was called the man of Yahweh. The catholics wanted to know what type of Christian I was. So I took on the title: Christian Yahwist.
In the same dream from July 23, 2000, I also spoke to Jesus. He gave me a prophecy about rain. He said that for 3 years it wasn't going to rain hard so peole would not lose their belongings(merchandise).This was in Spanish.
My ancestors were French Jews who converted to Catholicsm.
So you see,John, our God has not stopped sending messages. he did not stop in the days of Zechariah.Because he appeared to me, that entitles me to use his name: Yahweh.
I don't believe Jesus to be our God Yahweh.
From isaiah I reject 7:14 and others verses for Jesus because they apply to King Hezekiah. Only Isaiah 53 and 60 I do believe apply to Jesus.
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.

'I don't believe Jesus to be our God Yahweh.'
how do you then believe in jesus elpidio?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 01, 2005.

Probably by the same way people accepted John the Baptist.
...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

sdq, others have asked the same question.
David Ortiz, the moderator here asked that of me.
Here are some of my answers.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bpp5 Can you be a Christian and deny the the Divinity of Jesus Christ
The Christian Yahwist
The man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

well i red the most of the answers...not all of them...but on which things are your beliefs based then elpidio? because you say you believe in god and the bible is your source but when it comes to jesus you deny the bible? what is then your interpretation on jesus,his function and the numerous verses in the bible that say that he is god or the son of god...etc

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 01, 2005.

Well, sdq,
This I posted before . After this passage I will continue the coversation.
This part declares that Jesus was considered a teacher and a prophet oby others and even Peter,one of his main disciples.
Notice how even Jesus declares God(Yahweh) to be good and people should pray to him.
The Way-The Church odfYahweh in Christ Jesus http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CDeh
Is Yahweh as he was known by the Israelites, the same as Jesus? No. Why Not?
Examples: Jesus calls God good when someone called him good teacher.
Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why you called me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.
Jesus tells people to have faith in God
Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering says to them, Have faith in God.
Jesus recites the Shema, where God Yahweh is exalted as the only God above others.
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; Yahweh our God is one Yahweh:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Jesus came from God and is returning to God. So if he is returning, then he is not God Yahweh.
Jhn 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; Even Jesus tells Mary he is returning to his God. Thus, he is not God.
Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
Jesus prayed, thus showing the wasn't God Yahweh. To Whom did Jesus pray?
To God Yahweh.
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
Mar 1:35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
Luk 5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
Luk 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
What about his disciples and followers. Did they Think Jesus was God Yahweh?
No.
Peter said Jesu was a man and a prophet.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
[/i]Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; [/i] Did Jesus raise himself from the dead? No. God Yahweh did.
Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
If Jesus is not God Yahweh, is he important for salvation, or not?
Well, God Yahweh has rewarded his sacrifice as a martyr for preaching the Way of Yahweh. He is said to be at the right hand of God, that is, in a high exalted position.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
In Peter's profession of Faith he states about Jesus that God Yahweh had anointed Jesus.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:36 The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead.
Same similar message in 1 Peter: 1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Pe 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
What about Paul. Did he believe Jesus was God Yahweh? No.
Paul always starts his letters with the phrase:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
He always mentions God and Jesus as separate individuals.
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Paul calls God Yahweh the head of Jesus:
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
Paul says God raised Jesus
1Cr 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
Paul says Jesus will deliver the Kindom to God (of those saved).
1Cr 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all
What about James, his brother?
Jam 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 15, 2004.
Christians tend to believe Isaiah 7:14 applies to Jesus. yet, if you read in the context, it doesn't say in Hebrew the virgin will have a child, but the young woman will have a son , and that was a sign the prophet Isaiah gave to king Ahaz. Now King Ahaz live 740 years before Christ. Thus, the prophecy is about king Hezekiah, his son.
The only prophecies that I believe apply to jesus are Isaiah 53 and 61.
The culprit is the reviser of the book we now call Matthew. The Gospel of matthew is based on Mark.
He makes too many blunders. He even tries to connect the death of the children of Bethlehem to a prophecy about Jeremiah and Rachel.
He even tries to find a connection between Nazareth and the word nazarene(Notzri) to refer to Jesus.
The goal of that writer was to make sure peole believed Jesus fulfilled the Old testament prophecies.
He did Christianity a diservice.
Not only did he mistranslate almah (young married or marriagle woman)as virgin , since Hebrew makes Bethulah equivalent to Greek parthenos equivalent.
But by making all these other claims, he misled Christians. Christians have become so blind that they now see references to Jesus divinity in Paul when there are none.
Mark doesn't make any asertions for Jesus being God. Since Mark is the oldest, then, Jesus is not.
So what is my interpretation of Jesus,sdq?
Jesus is a person Yahweh our God sent to show us the way to him.
God Yahweh did not send his son Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus chose to die. Just like Paul, Peter, and the other disciples chose to die for the truth.Yahweh gave Jesus warnings about dying in jerusalem. Jesus chose to ignore them.
Some people in dying become mythical. Jesus by dying the death of an innocent man while trying to show people the way towards our father and God Yahweh,gained immortality.
Jesus became the cornerstone by which we build our faith. It is a testament to Yahweh that even when his people are killed he doesn't abandon them but makes them participants of his salvation plan.
Jesus chose to die. God Yahweh did not send his son to die. But by dying, Jesus will forever be one of the main reasons for trusting Yahweh.Because Yahweh gave Jesus the crown of righteousness.
Like Paul says: the righteous will live thriugh his faith.
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

It would seem as if Elpidio "denies the Bible", but from a different angle, we can see that Elpidio has a different interpretation from most Christians here. He does provide textual proof for his views.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

elpidio,how do you then interpret all the verses in the bible when jesus declares himself as the son of god? for example when he said that noone reaches the father if not coming through him or when he said that only those who believe in him and accept that he is the son of god will be saved?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 01, 2005.

This thread may bring you up to speed about the Divinity of Jesus in regards to your question, SDQA.
...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

David Ortiz posted this sometime ago:
100 Truths.
I thought it was an excellent post.
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

Son of God or Sons of God means angels, sdq.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Sometimes son is a collection of people:
Jer 31:20 [Is] Ephraim my dear son? [is he] a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith Yahweh.
But Jesus in the oldest Gospel, Mark, prefers the title: Son of Man, for which the prophets Ezekiel and in the book of daniel we find this meaning:
Eze 3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
Jesus calls himself Son of Man and alludes to Ezekiel and Daniel.
Mar 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels ..........
[from Blue Bible =KJV]
So son of God doesn't mean God himself or produced directly by God, sdq.
It just means God yahweh puts his spirit into that person to do good.
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

Use this link to see how Matthew would translate Isaiah 7:14 is we use The Hebrew Bible unstead of Greek Septuagint.
The Scriptures at Eliyah.com From
http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/ Matthew 1 1 The book of the genealogy of Messiah, Son of Dawid, Son of Abraham: 2Abraham brought forth Yitshaq, and Yitshaq brought forth Ya'aqob, and Ya'aqob brought forth Yehudah and his brothers. 3And Yehudah brought forth Perets and Zerah by Tamar, and Perets brought forth Hetsron, and Hetsron brought forth Ram. 4And Ram brought forth Amminadab, and Amminadab brought forth Nahshon, and Nahshon brought forth Salmon. 5And Salmon brought forth Bo'az by Rahab, and Bo'az brought forth Obed by Ruth, and Obed brought forth Yishai. 6And Yishai brought forth Dawid the sovereign, and Dawid the sovereign brought forth Shelomoh by Uriyah’s wife. 7And Shelomoh brought forth Rehab'am, 1 and Rehab'am brought forth Abiyah, and Abiyah brought forth Asa. 8And Asa brought forth Yehoshaphat, and Yehoshaphat brought forth Yoram, and Yoram brought forth Uzziyah. 9And Uzziyah brought forth Yotham, and Yotham brought forth Ahaz, and Ahaz brought forth Hizqiyahu. 10And Hizqiyahu brought forth Menash- sheh, and Menashsheh brought forth Amon, and Amon brought forth Yoshi- yahu. 11And Yoshiyahu brought forth Yekon- yah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babel. 12And after the exile to Babel, Yekonyah brought forth She’alti’el, and She’alti’el brought forth Zerubbabel. 13And Zerubbabel brought forth Abihud, and Abihud brought forth Elyaqim, and Elyaqim brought forth Azor. 14And Azor brought forth Tsadoq, and Tsadoq brought forth Aqim, and Aqim brought forth Elihud. 15And Elihud brought forth El'azar, and El'azar brought forth Mattan, and Mattan brought forth Ya'aqob. 16And Ya'aqob brought forth Yoseph the husband of Miryam, of whom was born who is called Messiah. 17So all the generations from Abraham to Dawid were fourteen generations, and from Dawid until the exile to Babel were fourteen generations, and from the exile to Babel until the Messiah were fourteen generations. 18But the birth of Messiah was as follows: After His mother Miryam was engaged to Yoseph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant from the Set-apart Spirit. 19And Yoseph her husband, being right- eous, and not wishing to make a show of her, had in mind to put her away secretly. 20But while he thought about this, see, a messenger of appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Yoseph, son of Dawid, do not be afraid to take Miryam as your wife, for that which is in her was brought forth from the Set- apart Spirit. 21“And she shall give birth to a Son, and you shall call His Name for He shall savea His people from their sins.” 22And all this came to be in order to fill what was spoken by through the prophet, saying, 23“See, a maiden shall conceive, and she shall give birth to a Son, and they shall call His Name Immanu’el,” which translated, means, “El with us.” 24And Yoseph, awaking from his sleep, did as the messenger of commanded him and took his wife, 25but knew her not until she gave birth to her Son, the first-born. And he called His.....
From same link, Isaiah 7:14 in Hebrew Bible
Notice sdq that the prophecy was for Ahaz around 740 BC. The son his wife would have would be born back then.By the time the child was going to eat solid food, those two king were going to not only go away but disappear altogether.
See what happens when a verse is taken out of context!!!!
remains when it is cut down. The set-apart seed is its stump!” 7 And it came to be in the days of Ahaz son of Yotham, son of Uzziyahu, sov- ereign of Yehudah, that Retsin sovereign of Aram and Peqah son of Remalyahu, sovereign of Yisra’el, went up to Yeru- shalayim to fight against it, but could not prevail against it. 2And it was reported to the house of Dawid, saying, “Aram has set up camp in Ephrayim.” And his heart and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind. 3And said to Yeshayahu, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and She’ar-Yashub your son, at the end of the channel of the upper pool, on the highway of the Launderer’s Field, 4and say to him, ‘Take heed, and be calm; do not fear or be faint- hearted for these two stubs of smoking firebrands, for the fierce displeasure of Retsin and Aram, and the son of Remalyahu. 5‘Because Aram, Ephrayim, and the son of Remalyahu have plotted evil against you, saying, 6“Let us go up against Yehudah and tear it apart, and break it open for ourselves, and set a sovereign over them, the son of Tabe’el.” 7‘Thus said the Master , “It is not going to stand, nor shall it take place. 8“For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Retsin. And within sixty-five years Ephrayim is to be broken as a people. 9“And the head of Ephrayim is Shomer- on, and the head of Shomeron is the son of Remalyahu. If you do not believe, you are not steadfast.” ’ ” 10And spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11“Ask a sign for yourself from your Elohim; make deep the request or make it high.” 12But Ahaz said, “I do not ask nor try !” 13And he said, “Hear now, O house of Dawid! Is it not enough that you weary men, that you weary my Elohim also? 14“Therefore Himself gives you a sign: Look, the maiden conceives and gives birth to a Son, and shall call His Name Immanu’el.h 15“He eats curds and honey when He knows to refuse evil and choose the good. 16“For before the Child knows to refuse evil and choose the good, the land that you dread is to be forsaken by both her sovereigns. 17“ brings on you and your people and your father’s house days that have not come since the day that Ephrayim turned away from Yehudah – the sovereign of Ashshur.” 18And it shall be in that day that whistles for the fly that is in the farthest part of the rivers of Mitsrayim, and for the bee that is in the land of Ashshur. 19And they shall come, and all of them shall rest in the steep ravines and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all weeds and in all pastures. 20In that day shall shave with a razor hired beyond the River – with the sovereign of Ashshur – the head and the hair of the legs, and also remove the beard. 21And it shall be in that day that a man keeps alive a young cow and two sheep. 22And it shall be, that he shall eat curds because of the plenty milk he gets, for everyone left in the land shall eat curds. 23And it shall be in that day, every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand sheqels of silver, let it be for thornbushes and weeds. 24With arrows and bows one shall go there, because all the land shall be thorn- bushes and weeds.
Taken from http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

Okay,
Sorry I've been busy.
Elipido brings some very valid points when he talks about the mistranslation of the tanach to prove that jesus is the messiah. For example his argument about the immanuel versus are valid and you can see it in more depth at http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714o.html
However Elipido I do have a problem with a lot of what you say. First Isaiah 53 and 60 are not talking about jesus. I've already posted the link several times to get a good comprehensive meaning of those passages. http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html
Next as far as your visions go and using gods name. The fact that pottery or other artifacts have gods name on it doesn't mean that it was used in everyday language. In fact if you study kabbalah you'll learn that there are reasons to put gods name on items. In addition when we write official holy books we use his real name. However to just casually throw it out is disrespectful at best. The visions you've had; Prince, President Clinton, George Bush?!? Not raining? (Are you sure you weren't listening to Prince's purple rain before you went to bed that day?) Are you sure you didn't take a couple tabs of acid or suck on some mescaline? Come on you expect any of us to believe that you have been singled out as a prophet or something. God speaks to all of us. We all have a relationship with him. But to try and compare it to one of the prophets is utterly absurd. Those men were on a much higher level than we are and god chose them to prophesize for a specific purpose.
The beautiful thing about the torah is that the miracles and prophecies were public. They were proven to come true. There were witnesses that were named and not just a few but many. Millions were at the parting of the red sea, millions saw the torah given and heard gods voice. Elipido it's just not really worthy of a discussion. If you want to believe that god brought you a vision of Prince and Bill Clinton, have fun with it.
On another note, did you know there isn't one mention of a second coming in the christian bible. It was a concept developed much later to appease the fact that the creators of the christian bible didn't answer the question as to why Jesus had not fulfilled the true prophecies of the messiah as brought about in the tanach. So they conjured this idea of a second coming up to appease those literites who actually read the tanach and questioned the validity of their claim.
Now I have some questions and I'll pose them one at a time over time. Maybe Rod can elighten me on this. How can Jesus be the messiah if he doesn't meet the qualifications based on geneology. We both know that there are two different lines listed for jesus in two different gospels one has him going through joachim
"Jeremiah 22:24 [As] I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; [25] And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand [of them] whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. [26] And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. [27] But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. [28] [Is] this man Coniah a despised broken idol? [is he] a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? [29] O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. [30] Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (KJV)"
It says that no man shall sit upon the throne of david that has gone through his line. One of the geneologies of jesus goes through that line. Please explain.
These are all geneology questions. Okay it also says that it was a virgin birth. If that is the case then Jesus would not be from the tribe of Judah which is a requirement.
"Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV)
Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old "and upward, by their polls. (KJV)"
So we see from Numbers that tribe is based on the father. If a person has no human father that is detectable then he would have no tribe.
Another geneology question. Jesus's other genelogy does not have him going through Soloman. This is a problem.
"1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. (KJV)"
So you see the kingdom will go through soloman for ever. Jesus's other lineage has him going through Nathan instead.
"Luke 3:31 Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David, (KJV)"
No Soloman. This is all very problamatic as geneology and family lines are of upmost importance in judaism and figuring out the messiah. We use these lines to figure out the priests and the levites. To figure out what tribe you are in and where you lived in ancient times. Geneology is very important and one of the most important of the prophecies of messiah. That is why Timothy wrote.
"1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do]. (KJV)"
Clearly the author of timothy would not have written this if it weren't problematic that the geneology and lineages listed for Jesus had problems with them. The problems are so bad that they by themselves are enough to disprove jesus from being the Jewish Messiah. Timothy is trying to get people to ignore these facts.
So my question to Rod or anyone else out there is to explain to me how Jesus can be the messiah with the quetions I've just brought up.
Thanks,
John B

-- John B. (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005.

Rod
one other thing. You brought a passage from genesis about son of god. That passage is talking about two angels. AZ and Azel. The two of them went before god and asked him why he gave man so many chances when he messed up so bad and said they could do better. So god gave them a chance. They came to earth and could not control themselves with all of the pleasures around them. So they started fornicating with all the women on the earth and did many evil things. Eventually god pulled them out and this taught a lesson to the angels that it's not easy being a man or living in the physical world and that we do a much better job then the angels could do, since they could not deal with all the power they have once they are given free will. Just thought I'd mention it.
John B

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005.

Hi John B.
That seems like a tough question about the geneaology of Jesus. Here's a look:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005.

I sense that the answer is even tougher to grasp.
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005.

John B.
I have been enjoying and learning from your contributions. I am well aware of inconsistencies in the New Testament and admit that I am more familiar, (coming from a Christian orientaion) with NT material than with the Tanach. My exposure comes mainly from a weekly readings of verse at Mass that work in communion with NT readings. Also took a course many years ago that approached the Tanach more from a literary almost secular position.
But wouldn't you agree that if we were to go through the Tanach looking for inconsistencies, we would find them there also. I don't think that inconsistencies and things that just don't "jibe" historically should be used to invalidate sacred material.
For instance, some believe much of the prophetic material was written after the fact to help the people being addressed to understand and come to grips with the tragedies happening to them at the time. This same hypothesis is also applied by many to NT material.
If we use this as the rule to "disprove," aren't we in danger of invalidating everything.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 02, 2005.

The following write-up comes from:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html

Why a Virgin Birth?

by Chuck Missler

Every Christmas season our thoughts turn to the birth of Christ and to his mother, Mary. To some extent, we all take the nativity for granted. But why was Jesus born of a virgin? One answer, of course, is to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14: "Behold the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

But that's more descriptive than causal: why was it necessary in the first place? There are, of course, many profound theological issues inherent in the virgin birth. One way to view this issue is to address one of the problems it solves.

The Problem

God announced very early that His plan for redemption involved the Messiah being brought forth from the tribe of Judah (1), and specifically from the line of David 2. The succession of subsequent kings proved to be, with only a few exceptions, a dismal chain. As the succeeding kings of Judah went from bad to worse, we eventually encounter Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin), upon whom God pronounces a " blood curse" : "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."(Jeremiah 22:30)

This curse created a rather grim and perplexing paradox: the Messiah had to come from the royal line, yet now there was a "blood curse" on that very line of descent! (I always visualize a celebration in the councils of Satan on that day. But then I imagine God turning to His angels, saying, "Watch this one!")

The Solution

The answer emerges in the differing genealogies of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospels. Matthew, as a Levi, focuses his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Thus, Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon (the . royal. line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (3).

On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus (4).

Zelophehad

One should also note the exception to the law which permitted inheritance through the daughter if no sons were available and she married within her tribe (5).

The daughters of Zelophehad had petitioned Moses for a special exception, which was granted when they entered the land under Joshua.

I believe it was C.I. Scofield who first noted that the claims of Christ rely upon this peculiar exception granted to the family of Zelophehad in the Torah. Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, of the house and lineage of David and carrying legal title to the line, but without the blood curse of Jeconiah. [I believe that every detail in the Torah -- and the entire Bible -- has a direct link to Jesus Christ. "The volume of the book is written of me." (Psalm 40:7) [For a more detailed discussion, see our book, Cosmic Codes -- Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity, presently in publication.]

Earlier Glimpse

This was no afterthought or post facto remedy, of course. It was first announced in the Garden of Eden when God declared war on Satan: " I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."(Genesis 3:15)

The "Seed of the Woman" thus becomes one of the prophetic titles of the Messiah. This biological contradiction is the first hint -- in the early chapters of Genesis -- of the virgin birth.

John also presents a genealogy, of sorts, of the Pre-Existent One in the first three verses of his gospel (6). The Prophet Micah also highlights this: " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."(Micah 5:2)
The above write-up comes from:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005.

The genealogies present differing messages, or points of view that the authors were trying to convey to their audience---Matthew stressed the Davidic (Jewish Messiah) origens, for Luke, the origens related to all humanity.
To me,---these "surface" difference in genealogies do not take anything away from the validity of the core of NT teaching.
It presents problems for the "historical Jesus" viewpoint as well for those presenting a purely literal interpretation.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 02, 2005.

I wish I knew how to bold and italics in this forum, would someone like to share that with me?
"Hi John B. That seems like a tough question about the geneaology of Jesus. Here's a look: http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html -- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005"
Alright I went there and read it. The answer it gives seems a bit far fetched, It basically says that the prophecy that Jeconiahs line would get cut off was fulfilled when 2 generations later his son had no offspring so the daughter remarried the brother and had children which continued the lineage. Before I say anything else you should read the curse. God specifically states that as long as he lives this curse will remain in place. How long does god live for?
First off you can't have it both ways. If you believe that the marriage of yebum(yes isn't it strange how these things come full circle) does continue the brothers line then it would still have the curse associated with the brothers line. If you don't believe that yebum continues the brothers line then you no longer have the davidic line. In addition if two generations later a brother of jeconiahs grandson would still be his other grandson so still it would be of his line with it coming the curse. So I don't really think that any thinking person would try to pursue the argument given on that site about Jeconiah. Christians must have come up with something better than that.
As for the other geneology not going through soloman, it is simply not addressed.
The fact that there are two different lines and that one is attributed to mary and one to joseph seems to also be problematic, this is also mentioned on the site. First of all it is completely irrelevant what the womans lineage is. The womans lineage in no way ever determines the tribe of the children that is solely within the fathers realm as laid out many times in the torah. And historically there is no place in the entire bible where a womans full lineage is ever laid out. Second it specifically says in both matthew and luke that this is the lineage going through joseph it never says anywhere that this is refering to Mary on the contrary it specifically states Joseph.
So I found this website to be unsatisfying and relatively sophmoric in terms of its approach to this most important question.
Any other suggestions?
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Did I ever mention that I am a levite. I am from the tribe of Levi. God willing one day I'll be singing from the steps of the rebuilt temple(Beis Hamikdash in hebrew)
Okay next issue:
"John B. I have been enjoying and learning from your contributions. I am well aware of inconsistencies in the New Testament and admit that I am more familiar, (coming from a Christian orientaion) with NT material than with the Tanach. My exposure comes mainly from a weekly readings of verse at Mass that work in communion with NT readings. Also took a course many years ago that approached the Tanach more from a literary almost secular position. Jim Writes: "But wouldn't you agree that if we were to go through the Tanach looking for inconsistencies, we would find them there also. I don't think that inconsistencies and things that just don't "jibe" historically should be used to invalidate sacred material. For instance, some believe much of the prophetic material was written after the fact to help the people being addressed to understand and come to grips with the tragedies happening to them at the time. This same hypothesis is also applied by many to NT material. If we use this as the rule to "disprove," aren't we in danger of invalidating everything. -- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 02, 2005. "
Good question. The answer to the first question is that I doubt you can find inconsistencies in the torah or tanach that can't be rectified if you study it in hebrew. With that being said and the fact that I've read the entire thing, I can tell you that people can nit pick and find something that they think is a problem but there is an answer and I'd be happy to answer any inconsistencies you think there are. I haven't really found anything lacking yet, but who knows maybe I will...time will only tell.
Another thing I'd like to address about this is that if you disprove the tanach then for sure the nt is no good. The foundation upon which christianity stands is that the tanach is fact. So I don't really need to address whether things are inconsistent in it. If there are it damages the nt as much as anything I believe in. Do you see what I am saying. We both have to agree that the tanach is the word of god to even have any of these discussions. If you don't agree to that then you are denying christianity.
As for the nt inconsistencies. They are very problematic and I am not just picking on it. Look we have these discussions but in reality this is serious stuff. This isn't a hobby for me. This is my life. Either Moses parted the red sea or he didn't. If he did then the world is a very different place than if he didn't. If he did then the torah is an instruction book on how I am supposed to live my life. If he didn't then it's just a nice philosophy book with some good stories in it and I can pick and choose what I like. If it actually happened then I have an obligation not a suggestion on how my life is supposed to be. The same holds true for christianity. If Jesus was the messiah then the world is a very different place then if he wasn't. If he is then I am making a huge mistake. And if he's not then a lot of you are. So how do we figure out if he is or if he isn't.
Well we first have to see what the requirements of a messiah are and what that person would have to do to be it. Without going through rabinic law or going into specific details we have some pretty basic guidlines about who he will be. Now remember this is coming from god not from me. God gives a lineage as one of the ways we'll know, remember not from the rabbis but from the prophets. Pretty basic stuff. If a person no matter what else he does, is not from the davidic line then he can not possibly be the messiah. It is a litmus test of sorts. So before we go on to other things we need to make sure he meets that basic requirement.
So I think it's a pretty fair question to ask. It definately was important enough that matthew and luke decided to make it the first part of their writing. It was important enough that timothy went on to tell you not to focus so much on geneology seeing it as problematic.
Look Jesus and you are telling me I should believe in him as the messiah. I am telling you that I don't. I am asking the very first and easiest of the prophecies to fulfill. Does he come from King Davids line, and solomans, and not through jeconiahs. And the anwer is no.
Do you still think that this question is just nit picking to invalidate?
And as far as treating it as a historical book that simply helps people cope with the times, etc. etc. Absolutely not. Again if that's all it is then this is simply an ancient philosophy book. But if it comes from god then it is a blueprint. Very different concepts indeed.
I don't believe that I am invalidating all of the holy books by asking this geneology question, just the NT.
Oh and I'm glad you appreciate my posts.
JB

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Rod,
I won't copy that long post you have quoting that site. I addressed most of the issues but I'll address the additional ones here.
The concept of adoption is noted. And even if Joseph adopts Jesus, Jesus does not take his tribe. For example if a cohen(priest) adopts a child, that child does not get his tribe and become a priest. He is a general Israeli, same status as a convert. He has full rights and priviledges but no tribal association.
As for quoting the portion of the Torah dealing with the daughters petitioning moses, which happens to be a favorite of mine. They win their petition to their fathers inheritence since there are no sons to inherit the property. In a normal situation the sons would split the inheritence and then have the obligation to take care of their sisters until they are married and can support themselves. So you see the inheritence works its way down to them anyway. As a matter of fact the son has to prioritize his sister over himself. Anyway this case is speaking of inheritence not how lineage is carried on. It even says on the site that,
"One should also note the exception to the law which permitted inheritance through the daughter if no sons were available and she married within her tribe" The and she married within her tribe is very important. I can't believe they would even quote this. This would seem to hurt the argument more then help it. She and her offspring take on the tribe of her husband. Meaning that if she leaves her tribe by marrying outside of it she loses her inheritence. This further shows that lineage goes through the man to the point that a woman loses her tribe once she gets married, so Marry would've taken Josephs tribe anyway once she married him. This so much strengthens the point I am trying to make that I thank the authors of this site for pointing out the problem with Jesus's lineage and will end my commentary on their site now.
John B

-- John B. (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Jim wrote: The genealogies present differing messages, or points of view that the authors were trying to convey to their audience---Matthew stressed the Davidic (Jewish Messiah) origens, for Luke, the origens related to all humanity. To me,---these "surface" difference in genealogies do not take anything away from the validity of the core of NT teaching. It presents problems for the "historical Jesus" viewpoint as well for those presenting a purely literal interpretation. -- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 02, 2005. "
I've already addressed the importance of the geneaology and the inconsistencies.
As far as the historical Jesus and dismissing the need for literal interpretations...
Dammit Jim!(Star Trek reference, had to throw it in) It's all we've got. All we have is history and truth. We are trying to rectify and figure all this stuff out.
As I stated before if you don't believe in this stuff literally then there is no need to look further other than as a nice philosophy book. This is not a hobby or a part time gig. This is the whole shebang. Either this stuff is true, literally, or it's not. The historical jesus is jesus. What other jesus is there?
Let me put it to you another way. If the NT is not true or it's not the truth then why should anybody follow it? If it's not the truth then maybe I'll pick plato or aristotle cause I like them better. Or how about charles manson or Joseph Stalin? What about Nietzhche who said god is dead? The truth is everything. The literal truth comes before everything. Once we establish that then we can delve into the deeper topics, otherwise I'm gonna go have myself a double bacon cheeseburger with Rod, because they wouldn't be gods pigs, milk and meat is okay together, and Rod and I wouldn't be stealing those pigs from god in that case. Hey there wouldn't really be stealing anyway, now would there, hmmm.....
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

wait a sec,do you really think that it makes someone evil to eat pig or to read the playboy? if it was then i think that god would have put this in our minds,in the minds of all people...then we would know that it's wrong just like we know that murder is wrong and we would feel guilty after doing such a thing,because the laws can't be kept by all the people,the world is not and was not only existing of christians and jews...how can god blame me now for reading the playboy when he never told me that i shouldn't?
one more question:would you all(christians & religious jews)be keeping all your commands if you knew that there is no life after this life and that everything ends with the death?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 03, 2005.

Ok, John B.
I will stop eating pig. Actually, I stopped a long time ago. I do have turkey bacon with eggs, though. And, SDQA, it isn't the pig or playboy, it's about obedience to God.
Your points are very strong, John B.. I have found the geneology website to be very captivating. I have begun to question things more. This is gonna cause for more reading and discovery on my part. Can I accept that Jesus is not the Messiah? Well, I can't say that He is not, at this moment. But, the truth does eventually reveal itself.
BTW, (this is probably of trivial importance) the reason I got banned from that Jewish Forum was for, what I thought, was an innocent question. I wanted to know if Rodriguez was of Jewish descent based on its spelling. I was wondering about the possibility of a Spanish-Jewish origin of Rodriguez. MY curiosity got me banned. I thought the question was harmless. There are other spellings:
Rodríquez
Rodrígues
I'm not sure, but I think that González may also have such issues. (Which would shed light on your Jewish background, Elpidio.)
....... ..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

John B.,
To bold your sentence or word you use an <, and a B, and then another >...before the sentence or word, and then after your sentence or word you close it with an <, /, another B, and then this >.,
If you want to Italic something you use an I instead of the B.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

John B.
Are you saying that the scriptures must be read only as historical fact. I have always believed that allegorical understanding is also permitted. Is the story about Jonah and the whale to be taken as an histoical event? Can't the truth be revealed through allegory?
I could see both of the geneologies as a continued revelation for greater understanding. A message taken from a smaller to a larger group. Continued revelation.
Please believe, I in no way search to find inconsistencies in the Tanach. Its not my mission to disprove anything. However if there were inconsistencies, it would not shatter my already shakey faith.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005.

Hi Frank,
If your faith in the historicity of Christ is shaky, may I suggest you read a book by Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Harvard.
Here is an excerpt concerning what this contains.
"Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."
If I am not mistaken, Prof. Greenleaf was a "legal evidence" expert and lawyers from around the country sought him out for his expertise. I believe that he was Jewish as well.
For further about this book, go here. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
Also, Lee Stroebel's "The Case for Christ" is a pretty good read.
****
John B, It is wonderful to have you on this forum. Hope you stick around.
I believe that the Passover Feast's fulfillment in Christ is THE most compelling evidence of Christ's messiahship. Jewish commentary in this regard is astounding, and the ordinary gentile quite often misses the symbolisms/Passover parallels found in the Passion story.
Gotta get to work!
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 03, 2005.

Jim,
You don't believe that Jonah could be literally swallowed by a whale and live to tell about it? The Scriptures don't read as though this is an allegory....
Once we can believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead--it is perplexing to me as to why people find anything else in the Bible that is clearly taught as fact, to be unbelievable!
The catholic Church wants to allegorize everything that shouldn't be allegorized and when something is plainly revealed as symbolic--then the catholic Church insists it is literal.
Go figure?*%#*%?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Faith, do you have to squabble absolutely everywhere you go? I mean, do you argue in your sleep, do you argue when you wake? Do you argue when you're alone, do you argue when you eat?
I bet you can't even get along with yourself!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 03, 2005.

Hi Gail,
Was the above post to Frank meant for me? (I had mentioned shakey faith.) I'll look into the books you've suggested.
Absolute historiosity troubles me.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005.

Faith,
I've returned to the Catholic Church and accept its teachings. You have to do this to be a Catholic. I want to be Catholic. It isn't always easy, life itself is not always easy, but I'm doing it. Maybe not perfectly, but I'm plugging along.
This doesn't mean my brain has stopped working.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005.

Hi Jim (WHOOPS), yep, I meant it for you. That Simon Greenleaf book is rather small, and it won't take you too long to get through it. Highly recommended!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 03, 2005.

Jim?
What does that mean? You've rejoined the Catholic Church but that doesn't mean your brain has stopped working? I am confused???
Do you mean to say that to believe God for His Word, means you stop using your brain?
If you can believe that Jesus rose from the dead, fed the thousands on five loaves of bread and walked on water--why do you stop at Jonah?
Or do you think that Jesus' resurrection is allegorical too?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Well, John, I knew you had something to do with Aaron's family by the e-mail. See the word Cohen there.
Did I ever mention that I am a levite. I am from the tribe of Levi. God willing one day I'll be singing from the steps of the rebuilt temple(Beis Hamikdash in hebrew)
-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.
Something else, John B,
Jesus is the Messiah, even though he comes from the tribe of Judah, and yes, through Solomon.This line runs not only through Hezekiah and Josiah, but through Zerubbabel.
Jesus contemporaries called Son of David. If he wasn't , then why call him that?
Mat 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Mat 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
Mar 10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, [thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.
Mar 10:48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, [Thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.
Later gentile Christians made him a divinity. They equated him with God himself.
Even Paul of Tarsus knew that:
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; [Blue Bible]
Thus, John B., since no person living today, other than the Cohanim, can prove to descnd from King david, then
by default,
Jesus is Ha Mashiach, The Messiah, The Christ.
The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

I think that the Jonah story tells us to do what God tells us to do.
As far as being Catholic, I will follow Church teaching and believe the best I can. I find I have to look at issues regarding faith with two sets of eyes, the rational that lead me to agnostism for so many years and that pester me endlessly, and the more spiritual, that lets me step away from my overpowering tendencey to have to make things "make sense."
I've come to the conclusion that issues of faith can not (for me) be logically spelled out, with this quote or that dogma. I try to do that Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" thing. I suspend my natural impulse to scepticism with regard to certain specific stories or beliefs. The ultimate truth, and the message that shines through--- I have no trouble recognizing at any level.
All that being said, I'm doing it as a Catholic, and thats it. Its not as easy for me as it is for you. I have tremendous respect for your genuine level of faith. Still, I couldn't do it your way any more than you could do it mine.
The fact that my brain works is a small wonder. I have no explanation for that.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005.

The above in answer to Faith's question to me.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005.

Thanks Jim,
But do you really think you answered my question?
I really didn't ask what do you think the allegorical meaning of Jonah might be, did I?
Of course, every story in the Bible has lessons for life that we can take away even today. But does that mean the story is fake? Are Adam and Eve not real people?
And if you think *yes*, they are not real, and Jonah never really survived in the belly of a whale--it ju8st doesn't compute--then what about the resurrection of Jesus? Does that compute to you, really? Can't we just say that that too, was a lesson about following God's will?
Do you see what I am asking? What measure do you use to determine what things in the Bible are true and what are allegorical?
Surely the answer must rest in the literature itself. Just consider non-biblical literature. How do you know when the author is telling a story which is allegorical and when he is reporting a true story? Isn't the answer in the writing style?
In my study of Scripture--I have come to recognize writing styles. Foe example--many people claim that the Creation story is just a myth. But I always argue that the book of Genesis reads like a factual account and does not have the earmarks of fanciful story telling or of lengendary influence. But you really have to understand what these differences are. It is a study in itself.
There is nothing in the account of Jonah to indicate that we must receive it as a fanciful story. Jesus refers to it as though it were factual in the same way that He refers to Adam and Eve as if they were actual people.
Do you believe in the resurrection? And if yes, why is that believable yet Jonah's experience can not be believed because you have a brain?
In my opinion, God is not asking us to blindly believe things without being able to give a reason for our faith. Faith is not something reserved for people who have no brains.
Faith is something we are blessed with when we believe the gospel and receive the Holy Spirit--who makes all these things make perfect sense. When you have faith, you will trust God and His Word anjd you will see the truth--even when it confounds the wisdom of the wise.
Do you believe in

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Ignore that incomplete sentence...Do you believe in

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

What if being in the belly of the fish,aka whale also means to be dead, faith?
By that I mean, Jonah was pronounced dead or he was very close to dying?
In Spanish there is a saying: vivito y coleando (English alive and kicking) but cleando means you move your tail!!!!
The one that could have been my first son lasted 3 days in the belly of my wife trying to survive. I went from clinic to clinic, to a public hospital.Then my son came out, dead, 3 days later.
Another Spanish saying: Mas fresco(fresher) que una lechuga(lettuce) meaning you feel 100% well.
That is our problem with Hebrew, how many are expressions only, which are true.
The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

you can delete this post

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Bold test

-- test (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

John B.
Did you have a look at this thread?
HTML Thread
.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

"wait a sec,do you really think that it makes someone evil to eat pig or to read the playboy? if it was then i think that god would have put this in our minds,in the minds of all people...then we would know that it's wrong just like we know that murder is wrong and we would feel guilty after doing such a thing,because the laws can't be kept by all the people,the world is not and was not only existing of christians and jews...how can god blame me now for reading the playboy when he never told me that i shouldn't? one more question:would you all(christians & religious jews)be keeping all your commands if you knew that there is no life after this life and that everything ends with the death? -- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 03, 2005."
How do you think you know murder is wrong? You think it's in your mind already? sdqa we need to take a look back in history.
If you go back about four thousand years ago give or take a couple centuries people were sacraficing childred to their pagan gods. People were eating people. People stole from each other. Rape, violence, might makes right was the rule of law. Where was there inherent moral values. Ah, but then came Abraham who understood that there is one god. And he went around teaching everybody about god and spreading his word.
Coincidentally this is where anti-semitism comes from contrary to the popular thought that it has to do with money or killing jesus. Anti-Semitism existed long before jesus and what about the jews in russia who were poor and in ghettos and underwent horrible pogroms during the last 400 or so years. Imagine if you are doing something wrong or something low. For example imagine if you were partying for two days straight and stumbled out of a whore house at 6 in the morning. Who would be the last person you would want to see. A parent, minister, rabbi, in essence somebody who is doing good. Now imagine that the whole world is pagan and killing, stealing, raping, sacraficing children for gods sake. And you see this group of people who say everyone is equal. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. The law applies evenly. You can't steal, you can't kill, you can't just do whatever you want cause it feels good at the time. Well everyone viewed the Jews the same way that guy who stumbles out of the whorehouse sees somebody who is respectable or righteous. This is where Anti-Semitism comes from. Even Hitler got it right when he said in mein kampf that the Jews are the "conscience of the world", he said if you get rid of the Jews you get rid of guild in the world. The hitler youth used to cheer kill the jews bring back paganism. Sort of a tangent but related to the topic at hand so I thought I'd bring it here.
Anyway so you see that the only way that we have values is that god gave us an outline to follow. That is the torah. God would have to give it to us and make sure that we have it for all of time otherwise we wouldn't know how to act or what to do. This is the only thing that makes logical sense. There is only one book that we know of that fits the qualification of coming from god and suriving through history unchanged and that is the torah.
Now to the first part of your question about eating pig or reading a playboy. These are two very different questions. I'll bring Rod's comment in here as well to kill two birds with one stone.
I will stop eating pig. Actually, I stopped a long time ago. I do have turkey bacon with eggs, though. And, SDQA, it isn't the pig or playboy, it's about obedience to God. -Rod
Like I just stated God made a book with the rules for us to follow. If god makes the rules then we're talking morality. If I make the rules then it's simply moral relativism and has little to do with morality in the absolute sense. I am assuming that we all agree here in absolute morality. Murder is wrong no matter where or when you are. We know this cause it says it in the torah, written by god.
Okay Pig falls under that category. God wrote don't do it so we don't. If we do then we're breaking gods commandments just as if we murdered somebody. It's not for sdqa, rod, or me to say what is morally okay or not. That is gods realm. He lays it out for us. If I am going to have a moral debate team I'll have god as my first pick.
Now as far as playboy goes. In judaism we have the sneeus(modesty) laws. However these are more custom and tradition then necessarily laws in the sense of those coming from the torah. But let me throw something out to you.
We don't sell guns in groceries stores to anyone who wants one. Why? Because we know that guns can be dangerous and can lead normal people into a bad situation. I wouldn't say it's a sin to buy, posess or sell a gun. We do it as a precaution. You may not agree with this concept but you do of course understand it.
Another example, why don't we have cocaine readily available for those who would like to use it. Well it could be damaging to the person. It could cause the person to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. It poses a threat to society in the second example. There are many other reasons. You get the point.
Now with playboy just like with cocaine or a gun, it could or could not do something to you. It definately affects society as a whole. Objectifying women is a horrible thing that men do. It leads to all sorts of problems in or society. Pornography contributes to that heavily. When I see a person as an object instead of a person we're both in trouble. If a person is simply made of body parts I like to look at, I have reduced that person to an inanimate object. An object for my own personal pleasure to the exclusion of the object or woman in this case. In addition what it does to a person when they look at pornography is just horrible. Think about it. How do you feel after looking at pornography? How do you feel after you masturbate? Is it a good feeling? Is it guilt? Depression?
Another thing to consider is that we make laws(legal laws) to prevent us from going down a certain path. The gun laws are an example. We try to limit exposure to young people of overtly violent or sexual things. We do this to try to steer them towards some moral objective. We have drug education in schools to try to get people not to do them. We make all kinds of laws within society that try to curb a behavior before it happens. This is also a reason to not use pornography. Look find me sex criminals or people with failed marriages that weren't using pornography. How many people cheat on one another. The more we objectify people and the more we see this stuff the more likely it will take us to a bad conclusion.
So I would not say that it is necessarily a sin to look at pornography although some rabbis would probably argue that with me. I think it's more of an issue of it not being healthy for you as a person and for us as a society. The pig on the other hand can not be eaten.
Rod sorry about your bad experience on a Jewish website. I guarantee you that I would never kick you off, to the contrary I actually enjoy our excahnges.
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Sorry about my last post. The cursor jumps around on me in this forum. does anybody else have that problem. It erased the end of rods quote about eating pig and doing what god wants. It also erased my end italics thing. I don't know how to edit a post I already made otherwise I'd do it. So tell me how to or anybody else feel free to. And thanks faith for telling me how to bold and italics.
[Formatting Has Been Edited.]

Next issue,
John B. Are you saying that the scriptures must be read only as historical fact. I have always believed that allegorical understanding is also permitted. Is the story about Jonah and the whale to be taken as an histoical event? Can't the truth be revealed through allegory? I could see both of the geneologies as a continued revelation for greater understanding. A message taken from a smaller to a larger group. Continued revelation. Please believe, I in no way search to find inconsistencies in the Tanach. Its not my mission to disprove anything. However if there were inconsistencies, it would not shatter my already shakey faith. -- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005 -Jim/Frank :)
Yes Jonah was swallowed by a whale. If he wasn't then it's not from god.
Let me say that there are poetic writings like psalms. Things can have deeper meanings but they still have to be factualy correct. If they are not then again they are novels or poetry or philosophy.
However there is a difference between tanach and torah. Torah is the five books of moses. They clearly were directly from god. The rest of tanach, the nach part(naviim and katvim(prophets and writings)) were written by men inspired by god. They are factually correct but are not at the same level as god writing something. So the Torah is elevated above the others. In addition the torah is where our laws come from. We have 613 commandments all from the torah. So if you want to ask me about a story, ask me about one from the torah. We should start there before tackling the rest of nach. If your faith is shaky in the nt, I can understand why. But if you're interested in knowing more about the torah and why it has to be valid if you believe in god. Then there is a great book you should read. It's a quick read and very compelling. It is called, "Permission to Receive (Four Rational Approaches To The torah's Divine Origin)" By Lawrence Keleman. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568710992/104-6791239-1219929 not trying to support amazon just wanted to gve you a look at the cover. I'm reading it now. The first chapter is very compelling. The second is not as strong. I can't wait to read the last two arguments.
The torah is such an amazing book. Like lsat weeks parsha(portion) the giving of the torah at mount sinai. The mountain is smoking and the people are trembling, and then god in his own voice speaks the first two of the ten commandments for almost 2 million people to hear at the foot of mount sinai. It's incredible. Could you imagine being there...Hopefully we'll all be there again soon.
John

-- john b (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Hi Frank, If your faith in the historicity of Christ is shaky, may I suggest you read a book by Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Harvard. Here is an excerpt concerning what this contains. "Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen." If I am not mistaken, Prof. Greenleaf was a "legal evidence" expert and lawyers from around the country sought him out for his expertise. I believe that he was Jewish as well. For further about this book, go here. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html Also, Lee Stroebel's "The Case for Christ" is a pretty good read. **** John B, It is wonderful to have you on this forum. Hope you stick around. I believe that the Passover Feast's fulfillment in Christ is THE most compelling evidence of Christ's messiahship. Jewish commentary in this regard is astounding, and the ordinary gentile quite often misses the symbolisms/Passover parallels found in the Passion story. Gotta get to work! Gail -- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 03, 2005.
Jesus is not the messiah and the NT has little if any truth to it. Sorry to state my position again but we haven't even settled the basic question of geneology. Even if we do(which many of the Jews today and in Jesus's time would qualify under) get past it we have other questions that need to be settled. So do you have an answer to my geneology question? And as far as the book being written by somebody from harvard. I have less respect for it then if it was written by somebody else not from harvard. The garbage that has come out of that school...don't even get me started. Didn't you hear about this professor who compared american society to the nazis and said we deserved 911. Not the guy from on oreiley but another guy from harvard.
Anyway not to condem all of harvard but it just doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
I'm glad you appreciate having me here, and I feel welcome.
What does passover have to do with jesus. Passover is the festival of god passing over the Jewish houses and smiting the egyptian first borns. We eat matzah as commanded by god in the torah. And retell the story of the exodus at a seder. What does any of this have to do with Jesus.
As for the passion story, very few credible christian theologian will say today that there is any validity to this story at all. The whole concept was developed over a couple centuries and appears nowhere in the nt not to mention early christian writers. It's simply a story, a myth so to speak. I can tell you the via delarosa did not exist in jesus's time. About 30 years ago in an excavation in the old city they found a mosaic map of jerusalem dating back to the 3rd century. There was no via delarosa on the map. That area that is called the via delarosa wasn't even part of Jerusalem at that time and was added later. So none of that stuff could have happened. In addition they did not crucify people inside the old city or bury people there. That is a halachic prohibition(Jewish Law). You can't be buried inside the old city nor can a death penalty occur there. In addition Jewish people don't crucify. That is a roman advent and i'm not sure it was ever practiced in that region. I'll have to look it up. The only death penalties according to the torah are burning(pouring hot lead down a persons throat), Stoning(push off a cliff and then throw stones), Strangulation(not sure how it's done), and I think that's all of them. Incidentally it says in the gemara that if they gave the death penalty once in seventy years it was one too many.
Anyway, there is no evidence anywhere that a passion story ever happened. There is no evidence that any of the story of Jesus's death ever happened. There is no mention of it in the gospels and no mention by early christian writers. If it was so important it would've been mentioned, wouldn't it?
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

"Jim, You don't believe that Jonah could be literally swallowed by a whale and live to tell about it? The Scriptures don't read as though this is an allegory.... Once we can believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead--it is perplexing to me as to why people find anything else in the Bible that is clearly taught as fact, to be unbelievable! The catholic Church wants to allegorize everything that shouldn't be allegorized and when something is plainly revealed as symbolic--then the catholic Church insists it is literal. Go figure?*%#*%? -- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.
I agree that the tanach is truth. And I don't think we should speak of allegory until we prove the thing factually or not to be factual first. Again we can learn concepts from various sources. We can learn from Descartes, Kant, Hume, Rand(one of my favorites). Hey we can even learn from John Steinback, or any other fiction writer. But I'm not interested in picking up fiction to learn allegorical lessons from it. I am interested in truth. And gaining knowledge from truth which will lead me to do the right thing. My job is to make sure I do the right thing everyday. I just need to wake up in the morning and start my day off right. And god can show me the way to do that. But not through allegory. At least not at it's most P'shat(simple) level. I am at the simple level. Maybe one day god willing I'll be able to see the many depths of the torah and kabballah but right now I am a simple man.
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Faith, I've returned to the Catholic Church and accept its teachings. You have to do this to be a Catholic. I want to be Catholic. It isn't always easy, life itself is not always easy, but I'm doing it. Maybe not perfectly, but I'm plugging along. This doesn't mean my brain has stopped working. -- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 03, 2005.
Well put. It's all about doing the next right thing. Plugging along is great as long as you are plugging in the right direction. I guess even if it's the wrong direction hopefully a person figures it out fast. I don't think catholic doctrine is the correct approach however who am I to say. Every person has to find their own path.
John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

"Anyway so you see that the only way that we have values is that god gave us an outline to follow. That is the torah. God would have to give it to us and make sure that we have it for all of time otherwise we wouldn't know how to act or what to do. This is the only thing that makes logical sense. There is only one book that we know of that fits the qualification of coming from god and suriving through history unchanged and that is the torah."
[god gave the torah to the jews(if the torah comes from him off course)...how does he then expect form all the others to be 'good people' and keep the laws from the torah?... john,you can't deny that feeling guilt after murdering someone(if you a normal person at least...)isn't part of the human mind,it isn't something we achieved because we have been taught so,it's something we're born with...what i am saying now is that is eating pig was so evil and it was so important for us not to eat it that god would already have put this in our mind...does eating pig makes someone evil and not eating good? and what about masturbation? and what about not believing in jesus? and what about not shaving your head and wearing a wig? and what about covering whole your body and your hair so that a man can't see it? etc...
i repeat again would you all(christians,jews,muslims,hindus...and i don't know who else)keep your commands if you knew that there is no life after this life,no heaven and no hell,just this life here and now
my opinion about good and bad is pretty simple:we all have our freedom,to make this freedom possible we need laws and rules,my freedom reaches to someone else's freedom,laws should be here to draw that line...i can do whatever i want as long as i don't harm anyone else with it

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 04, 2005.

'Now with playboy just like with cocaine or a gun, it could or could not do something to you. It definately affects society as a whole. Objectifying women is a horrible thing that men do. It leads to all sorts of problems in or society. Pornography contributes to that heavily. When I see a person as an object instead of a person we're both in trouble. If a person is simply made of body parts I like to look at, I have reduced that person to an inanimate object. An object for my own personal pleasure to the exclusion of the object or woman in this case. In addition what it does to a person when they look at pornography is just horrible. Think about it. How do you feel after looking at pornography? How do you feel after you masturbate? Is it a good feeling? Is it guilt? Depression? '
[well john,let's just say it like this: with the playboy it's the same thing with whole your life,it could be something good for you and others but it could also be a disaster...i think this is pretty much with everything,alcohol for example,it isn't bad to drink it,but you can get addicted and become an alcoholic
[you maybe objectify the women if you read the playboy,but i don't...it doesn't mean if she turns me on that i stop seeing her as a person anymore,this is pure ****,that i get turned on by this is a normal and natural reaction,so when you have sex with your girl or woman and you see her naked you also objectify her?
and i feel good after looking to this kind of pornography,i feel good after masturbating,but i didn't feel good when i did it every day]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 04, 2005.

no offense but because the torah doesn't match with my rational distinction between right and wrong,because it defines certain things as wrong and certain right with which i really don't see what's wrong or right with it i really don't believe that it comes from god,i don't believe in dogmas exepet the things that god has already put in our minds,he gave us our brains so i think we should start using them for once...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 04, 2005.

SDQA
I think that it is about the grasping of truth. It is about experiencing the real truth in life. That centerfold woman is noting but waxed paper published monthly for those who wish to live in a fantasy world. You could spend your life in "la la land", but to experience the true marital relationship with an honest and loving woman is the desire for truth. I truly believe that God meant for that kind of real marriage between a man and a woman. Everything that is outside God's plan is incorrect, incomplete, and insignificant.
John B.
Yes, I do like your view about each person finding their path. I tend to have the same view. Every person has walked through their struggles to find the truth. And, each has their understandings. It would be nice when everyone will be on the same page, if that will ever happen.
Why do you suppose that the New Testament is false? Is it strictly the lack of textual proof? Or, is there some kind of conspiracy against Judaism? Or, is there a conspiracy against Christianity? I'm not trying to start a war here. I tend to believe that this world is basically confused--regarding people's faiths.
Please don't think that I am making you responsible for my bad experience with that other forum. I've had bad experiences in this forum, too. I managed to talk myself out of being banned. I should sell realestate in the Antartic.
................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Also...
Sometimes, while posting, my sentences get chopped off at the end of the message. I think that's a problem with this forum and MacIntosh computers. I don't know exactly how to fix the problem. It tends to happen with very long posts, I do notice that. So, I take it for granted that my posts will be chopped. That is why I always type a string of periods [.] at the end of my messages. If something gets chopped, who cares about a bunch of little insignificant dots on the screen?
......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

John B.
I agree most with your statement that we must follow our own path. I think that with the exception of the entire NT, and belief in Christ, you and Faith seem to be on the same side with regard to scriptural belief and understanding. That is "literal" The earth created in 7 days, no evolution etc.
I am too old to change paths at this point. I made a commitment to come back to the Church, away from an aethistic/agnostic lonely emptyness. I struggle with that tendency toward disbelief still.
I am well aware of, and fairly well versed in the "mythical Jesus" hypotheses. There is much written to disprove his actual existance. I look past all of it now, and try to keep building and working on my own faith.
I have tremendous respect for Judaism, and see it as the original source, the inspiration of the Christian movement and therefore of everything that was intilled in me as a result of that Judeo- Christian relationship. Allegorical or not, with the exception of religious wars, pogroms and persecutions, I see it all as the workings of God. God moving of us toward good and away from evil. Perhaps God gives us the strength to overcome the disasters that beset us in life.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 04, 2005.

To Faith.
I have a tendency which---I try to overcome of developing my own theology. You aren't supposed to do this as a Catholic, I know, but it creeps up on me and I try to brush it aside. I think it will be with me forever til I die.
I think many of us do this. Also everyone sees what 'we'(each one of us) do in completely different and surprising ways. Once a Catholic told me she thought I was more of a Protestant Jew. I know both sides will slay that description. I wasn't offended as I see good coming from all of these orientations. But I'm determined to be Catholic.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 04, 2005.

well rod,reading the playboy doesn't mean that you live in a fantasy world,that you can't have any real relationships,that you are porn addict or i don't know what...many married people and people that have a relationship read it also,it is a form of recreation and not something to replace your relationship or a part of your relationship,because it is impossible for a magazine to do so
well you still haven't aswered to the other things that i posted...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 04, 2005.

Hi Jim.
I think and probably bleed like a Catholic. I also sweat like a heretic and drop tears like a skeptic. I'll stop there with the body fluids.
I have great respect, too, for those people who have conviction to their church, doctrines, and faith. I wish I could say the same for myself, at times. I think that we are afflicted by reality. It is tough to connect the dots of faith, experience, and reality. Theophanies are tough to come to terms with. To accept things we haven't seen is like jumping off the highest diving board. Surely, the waters will cushion our dive within reason. I know, bad analogy using something tangible with something Spiritual.
Well, a good friend once told me to just believe, "What do I have to lose?" Actually, that seemed like a reasonable way of having faith. But, that wasn't good enough. I had to go seek the Truth. What I found was more confusion and interpretations. Eventually, we must surrender to God. If it means not knowing, we must submit to what we perceive to be good. It's called "blind faith". At some point, there is nothing left, but faith. I keep hear Pontius Pilate's(sp?) words, "What is truth?". I hope God gives me mercy for my faults and confusion.
...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

well rod,reading the playboy doesn't mean that you live in a fantasy world,
Uh huh. You are correct. Those nude women are for real. They have great respect for themselves and are women of virtue. They are winning your hard earned money and destroying your sense of worth.
that you can't have any real relationships,
Oh, I'm sure that you can have a relationship with the next monthly copy. But, a woman wants a man who will love her without the extra collection of nude women pics under the bed.
that you are porn addict or i don't know what...many married people and people that have a relationship read it also,
Yes, I believe you. So?
it is a form of recreation and not something to replace your relationship or a part of your relationship,
Why would a relationship need replacing? It must then be broken or something.
because it is impossible for a magazine to do so
True, the magazine is inanimate. I worry about the subscriber. He is a creature of habit, vice, and weakness.
well you still haven't aswered to the other things that i posted...
I didn't?
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

it is a form of recreation and not something to replace your relationship or a part of your relationship,
I misread your comment.
Recreation? It is a form of lust. If lust is a recreation, sin is an artform. Actually, porn is a substitute for something gone wrong in the viewer's sexual psychology or concept. It could be anything from being lonely to being deviant. But, to call it "recreations" is not exactly accurate. Recreation is playing ping-pong or bungee jumping. One being safer than the other. Porn is of the destructive endeavors.
.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

To Jim,
you said:
I have a tendency which---I try to overcome of developing my own theology. You aren't supposed to do this as a Catholic, I know, but it creeps up on me and I try to brush it aside. I think it will be with me forever til I die.
While the Scripture say that we shouldn't try to understand revelation *alone* and that we should study together...this is a far cry from thinking that we are not allowed to read the Scriptures or understand theology apart from some hierarchy which claims to have the truth and tells people that they can not think for themselves.
In fact, God calls us to *reason from the Scriptures*., and Jesus Himself always expected His hearers to *know* their Scriptures. He would always say, "Do you not know what is written?" or "What do the Scriptures say?" Jesus fully expected people to know God's Word.
When Jesus left, He promised the Holy Spirit to those who belonged to Him--the Spirit that would guide us in all understanding. This pertains to understanding His revelation to us. The Holy Spirit was not promised to an establishment--but to individuals. Each of us has the Holy Spirit in us from the time that we believed and were baptised by the Holy Spirit...(not the water ritual). I knw--that's another debate!
The Scriptures tell us that no Scripture is for *private* interpretation. I think that this keeps us honest. When an institution or religion determines what the Scriptures are saying, and no one can question them, this leads to false teachings and doctrines because there are no checks and balances in place to keep it clean. This is how cults get started., and this is why God taught against it. I know that many people think that by private is meant individual..but that is a false understanding. Private interpretation is what the Jehovah Witnesses do--for example. The same can be said for the Mormons. And to a great extent--it is true of the Catholic Church.
I think many of us do this. Also everyone sees what 'we'(each one of us) do in completely different and surprising ways. Once a Catholic told me she thought I was more of a Protestant Jew. I know both sides will slay that description. I wasn't offended as I see good coming from all of these orientations. But I'm determined to be Catholic.
That's honorable Jim, but it shouldn't feel so hard.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

Faith, your view is an example of the many confusing self- interpretations that add to the mass confusion.
If I am to accept your ideas, then you and any other self-interpreter should have the same exact views. But, there is only conflict and wishful thinkiing.
You are still banking on pure faith. Just like the rest of us.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Yeah, but rod,
In truth, Catholicism is just another view..a human view.
So why not use the Holy Spirit in us, the Holy Spirit that convicts our souls and leads us to the truth?
This means, rod--that you can think. Look at the Scriptures, weigh and balance what is being said, and follow the Spirit's guidance.
I am not talking about self-interpretation. But I am sure not going to follow someone else's interpretation if it doesn't ring true.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

"The Holy Spirit was not promised to an establishment--but to individuals."
A: That statement is the great flaw in Protestant theology, which is responsible for the ongoing fragmentation of the Protestant tradition into an ever greater number of conflicting sects. Nowhere did Jesus preach to the general public that the Holy Spirit would directly guide them to all truth. This promise was made to one small group of individuals only - the handful of men He had personally appointed as leaders of the one Church He founded. It was that group of leaders who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, no-one else. It was that group of men alone to whom Jesus said "he who listens to you listens to Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me". Many Christians today think that if they sit down and read the Bible, then automatically anyone who listens to their personal interpretations of what they have read is listening to Christ, and that anyone who rejects their unauthoritative interpretations of Scripture is rejecting Christ. But that simply is not true. They are not the recipients of that divine promise because they are not the leaders of the Church Christ founded. And it is obvious that this promise does not apply to them because if it did, individual Christians could not arrive at conflicting beliefs by reading and self-interpreting Scripture. The Holy Spirit would not allow it. Such an approach to Christian beliefs is clearly outside of God's plan, since He intended that all men should know the truth, and the conflicting beliefs which result from such an approach cannot represent truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 04, 2005.

Hmmm.
St. Paul must have had the Holy Spirit, God spoke to him. St. Paul went and corrected the confusion of splintered doctrines born of self- interpretations. Did his students have the Holy Spirit in them? Obviously, no.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Did the Holy Spirit indwell in them after the corrections? I don't know.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Paul,
You say:
That statement is the great flaw in Protestant theology, which is responsible for the ongoing fragmentation of the Protestant tradition into an ever greater number of conflicting sects. Nowhere did Jesus preach to the general public that the Holy Spirit would directly guide them to all truth. This promise was made to one small group of individuals only - the handful of men He had personally appointed as leaders of the one Church He founded. It was that group of leaders who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, no-one else.
You can't possibly be serious, Paul. You think that only the disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? It may have started with them, but it was given to many more people. Anyone who heard the truth/gospel about Jesus and believed it in their heart--received the Holy Spirit that day--and it has continued ever since.
Acts 2:14-20
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
“ ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Acts 2:36-39
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

It was that group of men alone to whom Jesus said "he who listens to you listens to Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me". Many Christians today think that if they sit down and read the Bible, then automatically anyone who listens to their personal interpretations of what they have read is listening to Christ, and that anyone who rejects their unauthoritative interpretations of Scripture is rejecting Christ. But that simply is not true. They are not the recipients of that divine promise because they are not the leaders of the Church Christ founded.
Your theory is flawed Paul. We who have received Jesus Christ by faith are His disciples. We follow the original disciples through His Word.
Acts 2:41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
And it is obvious that this promise does not apply to them because if it did, individual Christians could not arrive at conflicting beliefs by reading and self-interpreting Scripture. The Holy Spirit would not allow it. Such an approach to Christian beliefs is clearly outside of God's plan, since He intended that all men should know the truth, and the conflicting beliefs which result from such an approach cannot represent truth.
Well Paul, those who truly have the Holy Spirit--do know the truth.
Luke 11:13
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

A new thread has been started for this discussion.
A Continuing Discussion: Judaism and Christianity Page 2.
........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ