Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Robert]

UR and God? nah......

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
UR and God? nah......

Well, he was talking about religion. And for an atheist, religion is a purely theoretical construct. In the case of Christianty, it also has a supreme, omnipotent, perfect being.

If you were an atheist (or if you were believing in a religion where there is no perfect omnipotent being), I could understand your reaction. But as a Christian, you're supposed to believe in "a perfect solution somewhere". Heck, you made it clear that it's your belief in this very thread.

[Vesayen]

Still doesn't touch on the problem of evil. It's really my main point, the introduction of evil on the world is one of the fundamental points behind this whole passage of Genesis. Your interpretation would ignore this point.

I see no reason to write my own response on this one, someone else already did perfectly. See proteus’s post. Then again…. this “problem” has nothing to do with prophesizing Jesus. The snake(satan) could not be the source of evil…. It could just be a snake, like Jews have believed since BEFORE Christianity arrived and believed since.

Well, how do you know this is Jesus? What is the context to say "Jesus" in this passage? Where IN THIS PASSAGE or the ones near it, is there any indication the person reffered to here, is Jesus?

Your claim is that this passage prophecises Jesus. I want to know how you know it is Jesus?

Christ's death and resurrection, as he died as the perfect atonement for sin. As such, he crushes the power of death over us once and for all.

You did not answer my question. How do you know it is Jesus?

I would greatly disagree with your statement here that Jews do not see the world as filled with evil, from my standpoint, there is great diversity in Jewish teachings.

The world is not inherently evil, I do not think most Jews would disagree.

I couldn't tell you anything else. All I could tell you is what is important is how we act here, for no reason that it is important to make this world the best we can.

So we should expect earthly rewards for our deeds?

I could not tell you.

Disagree in what way? That the world is inherantly evil and filled with sin? I really don't think that many Rabis would disagree with me on that one.

That is the fundamental divide between the earth or kosmos and heaven. How do you explain all the evil things that go on in the world?

I need you to define evil again. On the defenition I would use for evil… I think the answer is mostly explainable, a lack of empathy. All evil is from a lack of empathy for other living beings. Not so much hatred, as misunderstanding, or because of how they were raised, or the conditions they live in do not permit the creation of empathy. Really, people are evil because they were not hugged enough as children(etc). I am not confident I am correct about this.

A distinction between the cosmos and earth is not evil, afterall, G-D made the divide, it can not be inherently evil…..

Actually, we choose to jump into the river ourselves.

As for the rest of your point, this is a long, long question. I'm not a Calvinist, I'm what the Christians would call an antinomian, I believe that God knows all the choices that we can make, but that the choices are made by us that determine which path we choose to follow.

He makes the river, the river bank and us. He puts us on the river bank knowing we will hop in. He gives us compulsions to hop in and no clear, logical reason not to. He as good as throws us in in the Christian ideology.

Repent to whom? The people you have harmed? The only difference between what you have said here and what Christians teach is that Christians see God as the third party of the transaction who is also grieved by our sins.

If you harmed another person, apologizing and making restitution is part of it. If to G-D by ignoring a ritual observance to G-D AND to yourself, because you realize it is wrong and something you should not do. There is a huge difference here between Jews and Christians. You see G-D as a necessary tool, the entire focus, who without you can not be “forgiven” of sins… Jews do not see it that way. The focus for getting rid of “sin” for you, is on G-D. The focus for Jews, is on the act, though G-D is a part of it.

Interesting. You should really read Romans at some point. You will probably find it very helpful.

I have, I have read the entire Christian bible 3 times…. Twice end to end over a few sittings and various other passages so many times for a class I was in I think I read most of it by the class.

My knowledge of the Christian bible is not good enough that I would call myself knowledgeable about it though. I have read Romans though.

That squares with what I was taught. However, those who are aware of the law are obliged to follow the law, whether they are Jew or Gentile.

The law only applies to Jews, non Jews who know it, are under no obligation of observance. This is not “Ignorance of the law IS a defense”, this really is, they are under no obligation, non whatsoever to observe-it is not for them.

I'm not seeing much of a divide here, other then the fact that Christians see themselves as obligated to follow the same laws (for the most part), as the Jews are obligated to follow, and extend the same freedoms to those who are unaware of the law.

It is a BIG divide heh . Christians do *NOT* see themselves as oblidged to follow the same laws. You have different laws. You threw our laws out and made your own. A few overlap, most don’t. Where is Kashrut(kosher), where is Shabat, where are the observances of the yom tovim-the big holidays, Yom Kipur, Simach Torah, Smini Atzeret, Pessach and Sukot? I really do not like saying this, but worship of Jesus is idolatry in the Jewish mind. Most Jews do not really like saying this… some may disagree, most don’t. We don’t want to be rude so we keep that to ourselves. I do not want to be rude, but well, worship of a man is idolatry in a Jewish mind and that alone is enough to blow apart all similarity in the “law” between the 2 groups.

Not being an isolator is the most important ritual law…. and it is not even entirely a ritual law, there are sound, solid reasons why idolatry is bad for an individual and society. You have a fundamentally different view on G-D and your own religion

Yes you are right that the promises to Abraham were to become the father of a great nation, but some of the promises, as we go into later on have not yet been fulfilled. The Mosaic code limits the relationship to God as one between Israel and God, as you so put it, there is no requirement that Jews bring others into the fold.

in response….:

Keep in mind the mosaic code, is for Jews..... who says there is no relationship between G-D and non Jews? I couldn't tell you what that is, G-D never told us.

God created each and everyone of us. Acts I believe has the point where God opens up the mission to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Trying to remain on task… well if you are saying that this relationship expands… well this relationship has nothing to do with the covenant of the Jews and G-D. It is between the Jews descendants, not, non Jews.

As per my long explination right above, we do not think people neccesarily need to reach out to G-D. Be good to your neighbor, thats enough.

Christians would cite the Great Commission, a command that doesn't appear in the Old Testament as a sign that they are to go out and spread the word in addition to living holy lives. Two forms of testimony.

There are sound, important reasons why Jews do not believe in proselytizing.

The promise to Abraham is not a promise of a meshiach or a "redemption" of the world. Where do you see that? I do not see where in the covenant to Abraham it implies a redemption or a meshiach.

All nations will be formed through you. I don't see how that could occur through natural means.

It does not say all nations will be formed through you. It says those who bless you will be blessed and he says he will be the father of a great nation. There is absolutely no mention of a worldly redemption in the covenant.

You won't find that in the Torah. Matthew pretty much is the Gospel to the Jews, in that he begins with the geneology and moves on through various prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.

Well why I am enjoying our conversation… and I think this might be the longest, most civil discussion on G-D in the history of Apolyton heh… while I am enjoying our discussion, I am sticking to you assertion, that the Torah prophecise Jesus. We can not take the Torah, combine it with the new testament and say “Ah, well if we take the secret decoder ring from the new testament it shows us the prophecy in the old…” well its not much of a prophecy then, not much of a useful one, or even an accurate one now is it? We can not use the new testament to give context or details to a supposed prophecy in the Torah. If the supposed prophecy does not point out Jesus within its own text, then it does not point him out in any useful, or accurate way, in fact it would seem more likely to say that the prophecy is not real….

The covenant does not in any way speak of the end of the world.... in fact it is an undending covenant with him and his anscestors. The covenant never ends. It is with his children. How can the covenant be undending and extend to his children, if at some point the world ends and ther are no more children? If anything the covenant speaks of the fact the world WILL NOT end... which is one thing I can at least say all Jews agree on. There will be no apocalypse, no destruction of the world.

True, existence will not end with the world, and thus the promise will not be broken to Israel. Just the world in which we know will pass away.

The world is necessary for the continuation of the promise. It explains an endless series of descendants.

Yes, but in this instance... in this line... besides the other lengthy reason I explained, Jesus never beats the moabites! The individual(s) described here, beat the moabites. Jesus did not beat the moabites. Can't be him.

Not yet. Never claimed he has already fulfilled that passage.

He can never beat the Moabites. The Moabites have been dead for thousands of years, the Jews destroyed them at the command of G-D.




Re-adding the entire chain of quotes on this one, so it can be clear what we are discussing….

Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Context: Jacob is dying, he is giving his blessing to his sons. He speaks to each of his sons, each of which goes to found one of the 12 tribes of Israel. This quote is from the blessing he gives to his son, Judah. He is describing the fate of Judah and his children. It is describing the political dominance of the tribe of Judah, which historically is true. Judah is not one of the lost tribes. Judah also held Jewish sovereignty the longest as a nation of any of the tribes. After most of Israel had fallen under foreign rule, Judah held out and was the last Jewish political rulers in Israel. Most Jews today are descended from Judah.

So this is not a description of Jesus, this is Jacob’s blessing to Judah. Lets suppose he is describing Jesus. “until he comes to whom it[the rulers staff] belongs and the obedience of nations is his].” Jesus has never ruled any country. I am ADAMANT about being truthful even when it harms my point of view. This could be interpreted loosely as prophesizing the second coming of Jesus, if he rules over all nations forever, after he begins his rule… but he never began his rule, now did he? Jesus was a descendant of Judah, as far as I recall

Again, the same critique of earlier. Not all these prophecies have been fulfilled yet by Christ. It's that last part that is the sticky part, how can it refer to Judah when Judah will never rule over all the earth. Christ in his second coming is supposed to fulfill these things, the Jews themselves acknowledge that this is what the Messiah is supposed to do, even if they reject Christ.

Your claim was that the Torah prophecise Jesus. How exactly can you use the Torah as evidence if that event has not happened yet? We’ll talk about this one when Jesus is still not here in another 2,000 years(Apolyton will last that long, right?)

As you said earlier, 'we do not know the hour or the day.' We could debate all day about whether all the messianic prophecies have been or will be fulfilled by Christ. What I have clearly shown is that the Torah does refer to the Messiah.

Yes, but your claim is that these lines refer to the coming of Jesus(part one, or part deus-I heard the sequel will have awsome special effects btw). Based on existing evidence, that does not seem to be the case. If you are depending on future evidence to proove your claim... well to proove the claim based on that evidence, we have to wait for it, now do we? As it stands, there is no evidence POINTING TO JESUS in this instance, or most of the other instances highlighted.

There is evidence, Christ is a prophet from Israel, born of the line of Abraham, Isaac, and born of the tribe of Judah.

This is not proof that the messiah is Christ, just parts of the Torah that have already been fulfilled. There are other messianic prophecies elsewhere, but your specific challenge was to look for prophecies within the Torah fulfilled by Christ.

What evidence that Jesus is born from the tribe of Judah?
Even it he is… that’s not enough. Most Jews today are from the tribe of Judah and if a Jew is the Meshiach, statistically he will probably be from Judah… besides the fact he is supposed to be a descendant of King David(also Judah).

Nothing in this context points to Jesus any more specifically then if it said “He will be a Jew”.

See comment directly above. If you want to use quotes from the Torah as proof of prophecy, the details have to be within the same text or else their source is questionable. The gospels can not provide evidence of prophecy in the Torah, it has to stand on its own merits.

Bull. Evidence of Christ is in the gospels. The prophecies themselves will be in the Torah.

Bull? That’s like saying Nostrodamus’s prophecies only work if you add Super-Nostra-Cliff Notes, written 1200 years later by a different author.

How useful is a prophecy if the context is not inside of it? How likely is it to be true? More so…. Well, the new testament was written in response to the Torah, how easy is it then to say “Oh by the way, that old passage, add the following lines in for context…”. Er…. Well that’s not a prophecy. That means the REAL prophecy is in the New Testament, since without the context it adds there is no prophecy in the Torah.

If you want to say there are prophecies in the New Testament, I certainly would never begrudge you your beliefs.

I think this might be a compromise we could both agree on. That for you, for some of the "prophecy" to be true or accurate, it needs context and details only given in the new testament-you seem to agree at least because you want to use the new testament as evidence.

Don't you laugh at me , that was clever! Jesus's BIOLOGICAL FATHER was not Joseph and membership in a tribe, went by your birth father(this changed, eventually). How can Jesus be a member of the tribe of Judah if his biological father, is not from Judah?

Then who is Jesus' father if not Joseph?

You just said I cannot submit evidence from the Gospels, yet here you are relying upon the testimony of the Gospels, in that they say that Joseph was the adoptive father of Christ.

I am not submitting information from the Gospels to judge a prophecy in the torah-which I said you can not do… and you can not do it. I am submitting information from the gospel, to judge another part of the Gospel. The mention of Jesus and his parentage, is in the gospels.

Oh really? How do we know? All of the preceding passages refer to general codes of conduct, what to do in an instance which will occur multiple times. Some of them even refer to the singular, such as in this case, but are clearly meant to be plural, as the occurances they describe can happen repetadly. Why should this one be any different? It says "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him". So if it happens twice, we should not listen to him?

As you said the second time, we will not really have the choice to listen or not to listen. That will be it.

A prophet like me. Gee, sounds a bit like Christ, no?

What do you mean we will really have no choice but to listen to him? Wrong. What I said is when the Meshiach comes, we will all choose to acknowledge him because it will be so apparent. We will make a choice.

This passage does not necessarily refer to the Meshiach, it could just refer to some prophet who will come, or prophets in general. It is little different then saying “You will not eat X”.

It does NOT sound like Christ. Christ is not like “me”, is he even remotely similar to any prophet who came before, in scope, in details?

Not for Jews. Jews have to watch it going both ways. Non Jews only need to watch on the way out.

So how is Christ denying the law in applying a higher standard of conduct?

Jews do not see him as applying a higher standard of conduct. We see it as a lower one, hardly a standard of conduct at all…. We see it as idolatry which really is the cardinal sin of Judaism-it is so bad that it is banned even for non Jews, in fact it is the only ritual observance G-D wants of non Jews… and there are good arguments which expand it from a ritual observance to a moral one, with actual societal effects.

Jewish tradition holds that when the Meshiach comes, EVERYONE will know. We'll know, it will be so abundantly clear it will be undenidable, really-no one will deny it. This is not an issue really, there will be a sign greater then the one at Sinai.

What is this sign of Jonah Vesayen?

There will be a sign, I agree, just disagree with the number of times the messiah will come.

I never said signs, I never even said miracles. No sign of Jonah, or maybe there is, who knows. Perhaps the individual or group involved possesses such enormous wisdom that he persuades the whole world? Laser light shows need not be a part of it, though maybe they will be, who knows.

[Jon Miller]

Well why I am enjoying our conversation… and I think this might be the longest, most civil discussion on G-D in the history of Apolyton heh… while I am enjoying our discussion, I am sticking to you assertion, that the Torah prophecise Jesus. We can not take the Torah, combine it with the new testament and say “Ah, well if we take the secret decoder ring from the new testament it shows us the prophecy in the old…” well its not much of a prophecy then, not much of a useful one, or even an accurate one now is it? We can not use the new testament to give context or details to a supposed prophecy in the Torah. If the supposed prophecy does not point out Jesus within its own text, then it does not point him out in any useful, or accurate way, in fact it would seem more likely to say that the prophecy is not real….

Do you not understand prophecy? Or what is in Mathew 1?

It is evidence that the prophecy is in Jesus. It is not part of the Prophecy by itself.

The Torah, to some Jews of the time, did prophecy Jesus. You claim it did not, and that is fine, but some see the prophecies in it come to fruit in Jesus Christ. And this is Jews, long ago.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Note that many Christians don't think that Christ got rid of the law (citing His statements that he wasn't doing so).

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Do you not understand prophecy? Or what is in Mathew 1?

It is evidence that the prophecy is in Jesus. It is not part of the Prophecy by itself.

The Torah, to some Jews of the time, did prophecy Jesus. You claim it did not, and that is fine, but some see the prophecies in it come to fruit in Jesus Christ. And this is Jews, long ago.

Jon Miller

The Torah does not prophecise Jesus. The Torah alone does not give enough context or details to prophecise Jesus.

Some of the lines quoted are impossible(the moabites are already gone) or nonsensical(see the covenant posts).

Mathew 1 is not in the Torah. You can't use outside information written after a text to say "Well the text really meant this!"

when the original claim is

"The text, says this".

If the claim is that the TORAH prophecises Jesus, you can not use a later text which changes the context of the Torah and changes details, till magically, a prophecy suddenly appears.



I had always thought most Christians thought Jesus threw out the law. "I am the way" etc.

[Jon Miller]

Dude, you just don't understand. Please read some, I can suggest some things.

JM

[Vesayen]

What do I not understand? Read what things?

If the claim is that the TORAH prophecises Jesus, you need details, you need context. If the claim is that the text IN THE TORAH prophecises Jesus, then that text should make it clear. If an outside source is needed, then the claim that the Torah prophecises it is false.

When someone can not clearly explain their ideas, or clearly negate someone elses, the last resort is usually throwing out a one liner like "You just don't understand, go read some books." I understand just fine.

[Jon Miller]

No, you don't understand theology (Christian) and you show this over and over again. You don't understand prophecy, you don't understand what is Mathew 1, etc.

Now, I am not saying you have to read something, I am just saying that you can keep saying that you understand stuff, and that it is bollocks. Or you can actually spend a little time and gain some understanding, and draw your conclusions then.

Up to you.

Jon Miller
(Molly Boom, despite his vehnemence against Christianity, understands much more than you)

[Jon Miller]

Someone else has to have at least a bit of background for conversation to occur. I agree, I can give you that background.. but I don't think you will accept it form me (as you just keep saying no no no, and don't spend any time reasoning).

People have to be willing to understand.

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No, you don't understand theology (Christian) and you show this over and over again. You don't understand prophecy, you don't understand what is Mathew 1, etc.

Now, I am not saying you have to read something, I am just saying that you can keep saying that you understand stuff, and that it is bollocks. Or you can actually spend a little time and gain some understanding, and draw your conclusions then.

Up to you.

Jon Miller
(Molly Boom, despite his vehnemence against Christianity, understands much more than you)

My knowledge of Christian theology is irrelevant and I admited in this very thread I am no expert on it. However anyone can read plain text and look for content.

Instead of explaining clearly why I disagree with someone and explaining specifically why, in the future I should just say "Well you just don't understand", that will save me lots of time.

Then right after that, so I seem like less of an arrogant *pick an explitive* I can say "If you really want to learn, i'll teach you."

That is brilliant, thank you for your inspiring suggestions.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Vesayen
What do I not understand? Read what things?

If the claim is that the TORAH prophecises Jesus, you need details, you need context. If the claim is that the text IN THE TORAH prophecises Jesus, then that text should make it clear. If an outside source is needed, then the claim that the Torah prophecises it is false.

When someone can not clearly explain their ideas, or clearly negate someone elses, the last resort is usually throwing out a one liner like "You just don't understand, go read some books." I understand just fine.

Perhaps you are talking past each other?

John Miller seems to be saying there were some jews during and immediately after the life time of Jesus who believed the cited portions of the Torah were prophesies concerning Jesus that only became clear in light of the latter events.

You are saying that the prophesies do not in and of themselves show any direct obvious relationship to Jesus.

You also point out that a prophesy whose "fullfillment" only becomes "clear" by reinterpretation in light of latter events
is not a very compelling case for belief in that interpretation of the prophecy.

To that second point I might add that this is a very common problem with vague prophecy of any kind.

Anyway, you could both be right. The two ideas do not necessarily appear to be contradictory.

[Jon Miller]

Do you know what he is talking about in Mathew 1?

I can tell that he doesn't.

JM

[Jon Miller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy

might help you Vesayen

JM

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Do you know what he is talking about in Mathew 1?

I can tell that he doesn't.

JM

I'd say that he is implying quite clearly that he hasn't read matthew at all and that he shouldn't need to read matthew or even know of it's contents to decide if the passages cited from the Torah refer to Jesus.

That is a reasonable approach but it is not the only approach. others may assert that sometimes there are vague prophesies whose significance and meaning are only discernable in hindsight from information obtained from other sources.