Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, apologies arrian, trying to catch up with the thread.

[Arrian]

It wouldn't really be surprising, would it, for a group of Christians, who had hitherto been Jews, to celebrate the resurrection right around the time they used to celebrate Passover, would it?

Kinda like how Christmas ended up coinciding with pagan festivals and whatnot?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sorry, apologies arrian, trying to catch up with the thread.

No prob. It's a whole lotta thread.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Passover might not be appropriate for gentiles who want to honor the G-D of Israel. Simchas Torah and Smini Atzeret(I can’t spell transliteration for crap, sorry) definitely should, both of those holidays have to do with the giving of the Torah. Yom Kippur definitely should be observed, it is about asking for forgiveness for sins but more importantly promising to refrain from doing them in the future.

Some Jews argue endlessly about which of the 5 “Yom Tovim” or high holidays are the most important and people make good arguments for each of them being the most important….. but Christianity threw all of them out.

Yet Christ is the passover lamb without blemish...

The similarities are not striking. Every advanced society has a code of ethics which at its base is a message of respecting the rights of others, these ideas predate both Christianity and Judaism and are part of the foundation for an advanced society.

Granted by what other religion does so explicitly as Christians do from the Jews?

The Romans crucified him, not the Jews. The punishment prescribed for an idolator in the Torah is stoning. It is questionable if the Jews even practiced capital punishment at the time because they were not in control of the country. I don’t have much to comment on the rest.

You are right, they turned him over to the Romans, as they did not have the authority to stone him.

However, that neglects the passages that say they did want to stone Christ for claiming to be God.

The apostles, for fairly obvious reasons, in the Jewish mindset, were not very good Jews, so if you are saying that Jews make good proselytizers because they don’t like to do it… I am not sure if that holds, because well, they were bad Jews. More then that, if you are saying Jews make good proselytizers because they are hesitant…. I’ve read the gospels, they do not seem very hesitant to me, Paul in particular seems positively giddy.

Nope, I am agreeing with you that the Jews seem to be set aside for a different purpose.

I think you would be hard pressed to go ANYWHERE in the world where they have electricity today and find a group of people who have not heard of Jews. Seems the entire world knows who Jews are…. somehow this happened without Jesus coming again. Jews were widely known in much of the world long before Jesus’s birth.

They were widely known prior to Christ, but part of their subsequent influence is from the Christians spreading the word.

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 torah makes no explicit mention of Christ because he had not came to the earth yet.

You betcha. The covenant only talks about this world and is promised to continue through children. No new children, no continuation of the covenant.

But the children are not dead, they are living in paradise along with their father.

More importantly one of the more important commandments is the one of circumcision which is an reaffirmation of the covenant… no new children means this reaffirmation can not be done.

Yet as Paul states, the act of circumcision in no way reaffirms the covenant one can be circumcised along an entirely secular mindset.

The extended beliefs of Judaism holds that Passover is one of the holidays which is commanded to be observed even in the era of the Meshiach, so that new children do not forget and they can remember when all of Israel stood at Sinai. This implies earthly descendants forever. Judaism is chock full of similar examples. G-D also promised to never destroy the world in Genesis or to wipe our mankind and with that promise, I see little reason why we would magically stop having children…..

Indeed. God specifically promised never to wipe out mankind with a flood. If some are saved then he is hardly wiping out mankind on Judgement day.

The “prophecy” does not say nations, it says Moabites(I really think this one is probably the most questionable of all of the passages you picked… it just seems very much out of context.). The Moabites are long, long dead.

Moab is mentioned, as is Edom, the traditional enemies of Israel.

Israel is doing fantastic with the nations around it.

Peace has been established with Egypt and Jordan and will likely be a permanent peace.

I could see a future towards the end of my own life where Egypt and Israel become very, very good friends, possibly Jordan as well(a bit more questionable). Egypt is progressing economically and economic prosperity for the masses means less children and less religious fundamentalism. A prospering neighboring democracy could be very good friends with another prospering neighboring democracy, especially when they share a long border.

We must be reading very different newspapers. Why is Israel walling itself in if they are doing so well with the surrounding nations.

Jordan has made no such guarantee of independence, only Egypt.

That’s a different thing altogether, not really related to the coming of Meshiach(not really….)

Elijah must come first has nothing to do with the Messiah? Come on.

The Super-Nostra-Cliff Notes in my example are not written by the same author, but in fact by someone who stands to profit economically or politically by exploiting the supposed prophecies of Nostradamus to his benefit. What made it into the New Testament well…. Seems pretty arbitrary, what was popular made the cut and what was not, did not.

Really. This is from the same person who rejects Daniel and Esther?

I should think your decisions are more arbitrary then theirs because they are much closer to the books then we are.

Except for that to be true, the new testament needs to be accepted as true, which is either a matter of proof, or faith. That means the “prophecies” are only prophecies to those who already believe in them….. not all that useful then, are they?

The prophecies stand by themselves. The evidence of Christ's life stands apart from analysis. It is left to the individual to decide after reading of Christ's life whether he fulfills the passages that are considered to be messianic.

I would say this is particular helpful when speaking with those who are familiar with the prophecies, especially Jews.

I am not having it both ways. I said we can not use information from the new testament as proof of the prophecy. However we can use information from the new testament to show it does not fit because if it does not fit with the new testament then surely it is NOT a prophecy of Jesus.

Nope, don't work that way. You can't use the NT to disprove the prophecy and say that I cannot use the NT to prove the prophecy.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If the NT is authoritative when it says that Christ's father was his adoptive father, then the NT is also authoritative when it says that Christ is the Son of God.

If Jesus is the son of G-D, he is not a member of the tribe of Judah and thus this “prophecy” can not be describing him.

You qualified your own statement earlier by admitting one can be of Israel if adopted into the family.

Secondly, if you sincerely believe that Christ is the Son of God, then why are we nitpicking over the status of Joseph in Israel?

My point exactly. No prophets of Israel are like G-D, yet whoever this prophet(if it is only 1, or even if it is not) is “like me”. No prophet is like G-D, so can’t be Jesus because you claim Jesus is like G-D. Heck besides the “like me” line…. Think about the word prophet himself. In Judaism, prophets are whole human, they are not in any way divine… an individual who IS divine, would not fit this description, he is not a prophet, he is something else.

True, Christ is not merely a prophet, in that he is also God, and speaks with that authority. However, Christ demonstrates this through his sinlessness.

No its not, it is something completely separate and distinct.

Also… you can think whatever you want, how you act is important. You can think whatever you want, it is how you act. Heck, a Jew who hates following the commandments and does not like G-D but follows the commandments anyway is said to be a greater person then someone who loves to follow the commandments and loves G-D.

So compliance without joy is greater then joy and compliance? Not sure where you are getting this from.

And I challenge you to show why it is seperate and distinct when Christ shows us that our thoughts do matter with compliance with the Law of Moses.

Jonah was not the only prophet who did not want to be a prophet, nor was he the only one who disobeyed G-D. I really do not see how he is unique… I suppose you could say because he was eaten by a whale but I doubt that is it heh.

How long was Jonah in the belly of the whale, dead to the rest of the world?

[Vesayen]

First off, if the Jews who have the Torah cannot agree among themselves on the simple question of whether the Messiah is a person or some nebulous 'concept' then how could it be possible to establish that a specific person is the Messiah?

The common assumption that must be made is that the Messiah is going to be a person, otherwise the rest of this is pointless.

It is a nebulous concept. A person is what most Jews would guess, but a large # would admit it needs not be a singular person.

To me this demonstrates the insufficiency of the view
that the Messiah is a concept and not a person, I see no evidence for that view from the Torah and it seems a modern invention. And I know there are Jews who agree with me here.

The Meshiach is barley mentioned in the Torah, at all. The concept of the Meshiach itself is a "modern" invention and by modern, I mean once the diaspora started. There is little to no messianic discussion in what are *proboably* the oldest Jewish texts, chronologically speaking.

In crushing death once and for all? Well I think the resurrection is the fulfillment of this prophecy, I'd be curious to know which other times you feel would make a better fit, seeing as your interpretation simply says the snake is a snake.

A snake is a snake because it is named, a snake.
A person who is not named and does not give details which are useful or enough context to be useful, is not Jesus.

I would not agree though. His creation is not “evil”. You see evil as an attribute. I see evil as a lack of apathy and ignorance, not any sort of real active “lets be evil”. I would not say the world is evil, so I do not see any problem.

The result of conditioning and their enviroment. Mankind is fundamentally good, or neutral(I'm unsure which, but not evil).

I agree that our evil cannot be attributed to god, but I also believe that our good is actually good, just like our evil is actually evil, neither are morally neutral.

I did not mean that evil is morally neutral but that "evil" is not a physical thing or even an abstract concept, it is an action which only exists in the moment it occurs.

Here is an analogy which won't help..... you might see evil as the gun which is used to murder someone. I see the evil only as the moment in which the person is murdered.

Point of view. In a court of law, a please bargain is not admissible if the defendant has been the subject of coercion. It is not fair for the person who makes the rules and the stimulus to punish you for following the stimulus provided. This one really could go either way though, it really is a matter of opinion, not really logic or faith.

If we have free will, then we are accountable for our own actions. Otherwise, it makes no sense to have a court.

Except in the eyes of the court, we have no free will. From the perspective of G-D we have no free will-how could we?

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.

With regards to Kosher, and the Sabbath, and the dates of your festivals, yes. With regards to the entire law handed down to Moses? No. We follow the same ethical strictures even as our traditions are different.

We do not follow the same ethical structures. Jewish ethical structures have a system which inherantly questions authority, including G-Ds. Christians have justified theft, war and murder for millenium by saying it is G-Ds will and still do so today and if you doubt that... I don't believe he says so, but Bush CLAIMS that G-D guides him in his wars..... The christian ethical structure has a world view which involves the torture of the unfaithful when they die.

Christian ethical structures embrace what to an outside observer APPEARS to be joyful, willing ignorance... which is called faith.

What similarities we share are inherated from the fact we both live in a civilization which requires certain respect for others or social cooperation collapses and civilization is not possible. What similarities we share, were inherant in civilizations which predate Judaism and Christianity.

Prohibitions on slavery is another huge one…. a Jew can never hold another Jew as a slave which for extension to the gentiles mean no one should keep their countrymen as slaves and even then, even slavery of foreigners is never permanent in Judaism.

Not sure if you want to bring this up, considering that it was Christians who banned slavery along the same principles.

Christians banned slavery? Historically the eye has only blinked since they did. Christians have embraced enslaving EVERY possible group that they are able to, as soon as they come into contact with a succeptible slave population and justify it with their G-D. They would put the Romans to shame. No Christian society has ever banned slavery except when it was economically viable to move to another system(that would make a great thread topic).

Passover does NOT overlap with Easter in any way besides the time of the year. Passover is about the exodus from Egypt. Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus. Sukot is about wandering in the dessert after the exodus, it also might not be appropriate for gentiles.

So it is entirely coincidental that Easter and Pesach overlap? I'm sorry I don't buy that. There is a real connection between the two.

The real connection is that every religion in the history of the world has a religious festival in the spring relating to harvest and rebirth and most Christian holidays are transformed pagan ones.... which were spring time festivals of rebirth! Alot of them also involved huge orgies... what do you think the rabbit is? A symbol of fertility.

Passover has nothing to do with rebirth or spring, unlike most other holidays from other religions which take place at the same time.

[Vesayen]

Yet Christ is the passover lamb without blemish...

Human sacrafice is one of the worst possible sins any human can commit, Jew or non Jew and is absolutley desplorable to Jews. This makes Easter even more different then passover.

The similarities are not striking. Every advanced society has a code of ethics which at its base is a message of respecting the rights of others, these ideas predate both Christianity and Judaism and are part of the foundation for an advanced society.

Granted by what other religion does so explicitly as Christians do from the Jews?

Every religion in the world today which is practiced.... well the overwhelming majority. Do you think other religions dont have prohabitions on theft, murder, untruthfulness etc?

The Romans crucified him, not the Jews. The punishment prescribed for an idolator in the Torah is stoning. It is questionable if the Jews even practiced capital punishment at the time because they were not in control of the country. I don’t have much to comment on the rest.

Actually if the crucifiction happened when it was said to, the Jews would of been *VERY* pissed off. The crucifiction would of happened during Passover. The Romans usually did not do executions on local religious holidays and there are scholars of the era which said the Romans did not do executions in Judae on the local holy days. Jews *really* did not like people being executed on the high holy days and passover was even more hugely important then, then it is today.

I think you would be hard pressed to go ANYWHERE in the world where they have electricity today and find a group of people who have not heard of Jews. Seems the entire world knows who Jews are…. somehow this happened without Jesus coming again. Jews were widely known in much of the world long before Jesus’s birth.

They were widely known prior to Christ, but part of their subsequent influence is from the Christians spreading the word.

If I am understanding your claim in regard to this, you said that everyone in the world could only learn of Jews via some kind of divine intervention because it is too great a task. That happened by completley mundane means.

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….

Even then, why not give just a few more USEFULL details? Another detail or 3 tossed in and a sceptic like me could not deny it. If this is G-Ds work and it has to be because only he can see the future, if he wrote a prophecy for us, why didn't he make it USEFULL?

You betcha. The covenant only talks about this world and is promised to continue through children. No new children, no continuation of the covenant.

But the children are not dead, they are living in paradise along with their father.

No new children = no continuation of the covenant. G-D also promised in Genesis to never destroy mankind or the world... which means the rapture can not happen, which also means no mass ascension to heaven. That means the promise has to be carried out on earth.

More importantly one of the more important commandments is the one of circumcision which is an reaffirmation of the covenant… no new children means this reaffirmation can not be done.

Paul is wrong in the same way Paul is wrong when he tells us to ignore other ritual observances. This is a commandment by G-D and an important one, Jews are not going to stop doing it without an equally clear instruction from a divine source.

Yet as Paul states, the act of circumcision in no way reaffirms the covenant one can be circumcised along an entirely secular mindset.

I don't recall Paul saying that G-D says you no longer need to circumcise.

The extended beliefs of Judaism holds that Passover is one of the holidays which is commanded to be observed even in the era of the Meshiach, so that new children do not forget and they can remember when all of Israel stood at Sinai. This implies earthly descendants forever. Judaism is chock full of similar examples. G-D also promised to never destroy the world in Genesis or to wipe our mankind and with that promise, I see little reason why we would magically stop having children…..

Indeed. God specifically promised never to wipe out mankind with a flood. If some are saved then he is hardly wiping out mankind on Judgement day.

He also promised never to destroy the earth. Revelations describes the destruction of the earth. Humans are their material bodies and their souls. If our souls still exist, humans do not exist, just human souls. If there are no bodies, there are no humans.

The “prophecy” does not say nations, it says Moabites(I really think this one is probably the most questionable of all of the passages you picked… it just seems very much out of context.). The Moabites are long, long dead.

Moab is mentioned, as is Edom, the traditional enemies of Israel.

Long, long dead. Jesus can't smite the dead, now can he?

Israel is doing fantastic with the nations around it.

Peace has been established with Egypt and Jordan and will likely be a permanent peace.

I could see a future towards the end of my own life where Egypt and Israel become very, very good friends, possibly Jordan as well(a bit more questionable). Egypt is progressing economically and economic prosperity for the masses means less children and less religious fundamentalism. A prospering neighboring democracy could be very good friends with another prospering neighboring democracy, especially when they share a long border.

We must be reading very different newspapers. Why is Israel walling itself in if they are doing so well with the surrounding nations.

Jordan has made no such guarantee of independence, only Egypt.

I am optimistic because 35 years ago I would of never in my wildest dreams imagined the relation which exists now between Egypt and Israel. The two countries are actually friendly, and this is after several wars. I am optimistic for the future because I think Egypt is going to prosper economically as neighboring Arab countries go to ####. Egypt has a diversified economy, it is not oil dependant. Economically prosperous democracies tend to be friends, especially when they have no other democratically ecnomic prosperous countries nearby.

I expect a quasi peaceful revolution in Jordan in my life time, followed by a democratic goverment, though proboably a Islamic republic. Even barring that, while he may not be the best to his own people(what despot is?) Jordan has been playing nice with Israel for a long time now.

Palestine is not Israel' neighbor because they do not exist as a nation(yet). Israel's neighbors to the north have no important economic or military power, nor are they very large. They are non factors. On the majority of Israel's borders, it has friends or future friends.

Obviously I am not psychic but time will either proove me right or wrong.

Elijah must come first has nothing to do with the Messiah? Come on.

Elijah need not come first.

The Super-Nostra-Cliff Notes in my example are not written by the same author, but in fact by someone who stands to profit economically or politically by exploiting the supposed prophecies of Nostradamus to his benefit. What made it into the New Testament well…. Seems pretty arbitrary, what was popular made the cut and what was not, did not.

Really. This is from the same person who rejects Daniel and Esther?

I should think your decisions are more arbitrary then theirs because they are much closer to the books then we are.

My point was that the disciples and other authors of texts in the Christian bible could be flat out writing with a critical eye on the Torah to take maximum advantage of what already exists. I was trying to be tactful and polite instead of just saying they were being intentionally deceitful and lying... which is a possibility. However on the same hand I will wave a hand against a large portion of the Torah so it is not really anti Christian(really), just anti implausability.

Ester didn't happen. It may have been inspired by anti sematism of the time or a similar event of a *MUCH MUCH MUCH* smaller localized scale, so small it was never recorded in an era of history where such things were pretty well recorded.

Daniel is an acid trip which made its way into the canon. I would also reject most of Genesis till Abraham comes on the scene-before him it is scientifically and historically improbable or flat out impossible.

Except for that to be true, the new testament needs to be accepted as true, which is either a matter of proof, or faith. That means the “prophecies” are only prophecies to those who already believe in them….. not all that useful then, are they?

The prophecies stand by themselves. The evidence of Christ's life stands apart from analysis. It is left to the individual to decide after reading of Christ's life whether he fulfills the passages that are considered to be messianic.

I would say this is particular helpful when speaking with those who are familiar with the prophecies, especially Jews.

There are not enough details to persuade anyone who gives it a critical eye.

I am not having it both ways. I said we can not use information from the new testament as proof of the prophecy. However we can use information from the new testament to show it does not fit because if it does not fit with the new testament then surely it is NOT a prophecy of Jesus.

Nope, don't work that way. You can't use the NT to disprove the prophecy and say that I cannot use the NT to prove the prophecy.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If the NT is authoritative when it says that Christ's father was his adoptive father, then the NT is also authoritative when it says that Christ is the Son of God.

No, we can. If the prophecy is in the Torah it must ALSO fit the New Testament or it does not work. Lets imagine we had never even heard of Christian or read their holy books. Would any of these make sense to you or even appear to be prophecy? The New Testament can not be proof for these supposed prophecies *BUT* if these prophecies do not fit the new testament then surley they are untrue or not prophecies, because it is neccesary that they fit the new testament.

If Jesus is the son of G-D, he is not a member of the tribe of Judah and thus this “prophecy” can not be describing him.

You qualified your own statement earlier by admitting one can be of Israel if adopted into the family.

Secondly, if you sincerely believe that Christ is the Son of God, then why are we nitpicking over the status of Joseph in Israel?

I said adoption did NOT really happen in ancient Israel and it does not confer tribe membership. On the enormously rare occurence where a non Jew would be adopted into say, the tribe of Levi, he could not do priestly duties. Adoption means you are the son of the parents, not a member of that tribe.

It is not nitpicking, this really is important... and of course I do not believe Jesus is the son of G-D, I was saying "if" he was for the plausability of the situation.

My point exactly. No prophets of Israel are like G-D, yet whoever this prophet(if it is only 1, or even if it is not) is “like me”. No prophet is like G-D, so can’t be Jesus because you claim Jesus is like G-D. Heck besides the “like me” line…. Think about the word prophet himself. In Judaism, prophets are whole human, they are not in any way divine… an individual who IS divine, would not fit this description, he is not a prophet, he is something else.

True, Christ is not merely a prophet, in that he is also God, and speaks with that authority. However, Christ demonstrates this through his sinlessness.

LIKE ME means he has to be like one of the prophets. Jesus is *NOT* like one of the prophets, not even remotley similar. A Jew would never compare a human being to G-D in any way.

No its not, it is something completely separate and distinct.

Also… you can think whatever you want, how you act is important. You can think whatever you want, it is how you act. Heck, a Jew who hates following the commandments and does not like G-D but follows the commandments anyway is said to be a greater person then someone who loves to follow the commandments and loves G-D.

So compliance without joy is greater then joy and compliance? Not sure where you are getting this from.

And I challenge you to show why it is seperate and distinct when Christ shows us that our thoughts do matter with compliance with the Law of Moses.

I can say with confidence if you ask a Rabi from any sect of Judaism they would agree with me on this. Compliace without joy or actual dislike of compliace is a greater mitzvah then compliace with joy. It is EASY to comply if you like to... it is harder to if you do not like to-it shows a deeper comitment, or a deeper understanding to the inate value of compliance to that specific rule.

I never said Christ said our thoughts matter, you did(I thought?)

Jonah was not the only prophet who did not want to be a prophet, nor was he the only one who disobeyed G-D. I really do not see how he is unique… I suppose you could say because he was eaten by a whale but I doubt that is it heh.

How long was Jonah in the belly of the whale, dead to the rest of the world?

I assume there is some christian prophet named Jonah I am unaware with then?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
It wouldn't really be surprising, would it, for a group of Christians, who had hitherto been Jews, to celebrate the resurrection right around the time they used to celebrate Passover, would it?

Kinda like how Christmas ended up coinciding with pagan festivals and whatnot?

-Arrian

So you have never read the Bible? (Christian)

Easter is after the Passover because that is when it happened. It is a key part of the story.

JM

[Vesayen]

LOL and of course we forget the obvious... that is another good reason.

[Arrian]

Details, details.

I honestly can't remember if I did read that part. If I did, it was long enough ago that I've forgotten.

-Arrian

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Indeed. God specifically promised never to wipe out mankind with a flood. If some are saved then he is hardly wiping out mankind on Judgement day.

But then gods promise doesn´t make any sense,
as with this presupposition god never wiped out mankind first place (after all even in the flood there were some humans which were saved [Noach and his family])

[Robert]

The world would never be flooded again. As far as I can see that promise has never been broken. What's your point, proteus?

[Proteus_MST]

Ben made a point that during Armageddon mankind isn´t wiped out because some humans are saved.

But this contradict the flood event he mentions.
Even in the flood event some are saved, but the bible nevertheless says that mankind is wiped out
(or, to quote Genesis 15:

and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

so, regardless of the survivors of the flood the flood is said to have destroyed all flesh).

So one could say, regardless of the survivors mankind is indeed wiped out on judgement day.

Seemed to be an important point in the discussion between Ben and Versayen

[Vesayen]

This is what G-D said to Noah. Noah and G-D both obviously understood what was being said, that everything would be destroyed, except them.

The promise to not destroy the world comes later.

Anyway it does not matter, the Noah story never happened, at all, zip, zilch, nada. No way.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Anyway it does not matter, the Noah story never happened, at all, zip, zilch, nada. No way.

It's not a part of one of the holy books

[Vesayen]

Of course it is, its right in the begining. It also did not happen.

It could of been inspired by a particularly horrific flood roughly 9,000 years ago..... but maybe not.

ANYWAY it didn't happen.