Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Dinner]

The old testiment god is an evil SOB of a god. The very fact that god can change so radically between the old and the new testiment show that either god is completely made up (and a fiction which can be changed when ever people feel like it) or that god is imperfect. Either way monotheistic dogma is violated.

[Robert]

John imagines him to be 'not yet fifty years of age' .

Never heard about this, where is it in the gospel of John?

I'm not going to react on the rest since it's really a pathatic attempt to proof that the gospels are totally not in line with each other.
Different story tellers, different stories.

There are differences, which I have already admitted, but they are small. Different evangelists use different structures to tell their stories. They leave things, focus on other things. Those things you mention are hardly worth any time I spend on them. The gospels are not 100% accurate for what happened, they are for the message they bring. The Bible isn't faultless historically, the message is clear and fautless though. The Bible never even claims to be infallable. But those 'faults' you 'discovered' are laughable.

If that's your reason for not believing the gospels than that's surely a pathatic reason.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy
[

If that's your reason for not believing the gospels than that's surely a pathatic reason.

I don't believe in the gospels partly because I don't believe in the supernatural.

It isn't me who claims that:

a) the Bible is inerrant

b) the Bible is historically accurate

c) a human being is the son of a god and works supernatural miracles

it's Christians.

That being the case, if the bible is supposedly inerrant, then how can the four gospels disagree, on major or minor issues ?

Is it the same story, the same person, the same place, the same events or not ?

Were they eyewitnesses or not ?

Does the story agree with what we know about the period from other sources ?

It seems to me I might just as well believe in the Greek myths or Norse tales as believe in the bible.

a pathatic attempt ... laughable.

... a pathatic reason.

Wow, you Christianistas sure are a polite bunch aren't you ?


What would be good reasons for not believing in your scriptures ?

[Robert]

Molly Bloom, it's really really frustrating to always face those really really bad reasons for why the Bible isn't good enough. It doesn't make me polite when the 20596th person comes and copies and pastes the same reason. Besides that, I didn't say that you were pathatic, I said that your reasons were pathatic. As far as I know that's not inpolite.

Regarding your 'the Bible isn't innerant / perfect / historically true' thing, do you know symmetry? There is biological symmetry and there is math symmetry. Biological symmetry (as ie. the human face) is nowhere near mathmatic symmetry.

You're trying to find 'math symmetry' in the Bible while you should look for 'biological' symmetry.
Even the super-best biographies you'll read will contain errors. Errors like switching events, putting a focus on a certain thing that wasn't that important, etc.

If you want a Bible that is something like a computer-log of history, then you're never going to find it. That doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate. And if stuff like that really satisfy you then I'm sorry for you.

And of course that you don't believe them because you don't believe in supernatural stuff, then I guess that's a valid reason. I disagree with you, but I respect your argument.

[Arrian]

Pathetic. It's pathetic![/spelling nazi]

-Arrian

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The old testiment god is an evil SOB of a god. The very fact that god can change so radically between the old and the new testiment show that either god is completely made up (and a fiction which can be changed when ever people feel like it) or that god is imperfect. Either way monotheistic dogma is violated.

I could give you examples from the old testament where God was compassionate and merciful. And, I could give examples from the NT where God was judgmental. God does not change between the OT and NT. In both, God is loving but He does judge evil.

This notion that God changes between the OT and NT, and that in the OT, He is mean but in the NT He is loving, is a common error from people who know nothing about the Bible.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Arrian
Pathetic. It's pathetic![/spelling nazi]

-Arrian

Thanks

[Arrian]

Originally posted by The diplomat


I could give you examples from the old testament where God was compassionate and merciful. And, I could give examples from the NT where God was judgmental. God does not change between the OT and NT. In both, God is loving but He does judge evil.

This notion that God changes between the OT and NT, and that in the OT, He is mean but in the NT He is loving, is a common error from people who know nothing about the Bible.

Or it's a differing interpretation by people who disagree with yours. :shrug:

-Arrian

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Arrian


Or it's a differing interpretation by people who disagree with yours. :shrug:

-Arrian

Sure, people can give their own interpretations. I just felt I should respond to Oerdin calling my God a SOB. Of course God can defend himself. But as his follower, I think I have a right to give my opinion.

[Vesayen]

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.

Is their any evidence from the Torah that would support such an interpretation?

Most of the concepts about the Meshiach are not in the Torah but from later works. Based on the Torah alone, you could read it and miss the concept of the Meshiach entirely. This does make the entire concept, questionable. I poke at the flaws and inconsistencies as readily as I do for any other religion. I am an equal opportunity seeker of truth.

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.

Yet you can state with assurance that the messiah is not going to be a single person. What do you really believe in Vesayen, the Torah which you keep holding up or other things besides the Torah?

I did not state with assurance that the Meshiach will not be a single person, I said it was possible. There is a very, very big difference between stating there are several possibilities for a thing, and choosing any of those possibilities.

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.

And why would the Torah mention Christ by name? Are you really insisting that the Torah must do so in order to be considered a fulfilled prophecy?

Because it would make this a whole lot easier? It need not name Jesus specifically, but it must provide enough details that we know they are talking about Jesus. It is not a prophecy for which anyone would be swayed to Jesus, if it can not clearly be identified, as Jesus who is prophecised

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

So if we have a perfect society then man would be perfectly good?

Or do you believe as Rousseau did that if we remove society altogether and leave man on his own that we will have good people?

I didn't know there were folks who still believed in the noble savage.

I said that the source of “evil”, really is a lack of empathy and ignorance. Stripping away the walls of order and law would not help for either of those things. People see others as “them” and all but their closest relatives as “us”. When others are expanded into “us”, apathy expands and the standard of treatment rises. When a part of “us” becomes “them”, horrific treatment is suddenly and instantly justifiable. I’d point to Nazi Gemany and the holocaust as the most well known example from the immediate past but I can come up with plenty of other similar examples. The lack of apathy is that we do not always extend apathy to “them”. Ignorance is not realizing that *EVERYONE* really is “us”. I am not a one-worlder by the way.

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.

So after that moment passes where the gun is shot and the person dies, no evil has been committed? We could not sentence anyone for their crimes or hold them accountable with your definition.

Consequences for the evil act can and should continue after that moment however the evil itself only exists in the moment of the action. Evil is not a thing. Evil is an action. Christian ideology almost makes evil into a thing.

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.

One may be tempted without such temptation amounting to coercion. I cannot go in a court of law and say I was tempted to steal, therefore I was right to succumb to my temptations by stealing.

An analogy of a court of law is completely inadequate because in this case the judge did not make you, make your desires, make the environment, or even make the law. The only thing the judge does is interpret the law. This is so dissimilar from G-D as to be a worthless analogy.

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?

Very easily. God allows us to do things contrary to his will, to sin. You don't believe that we have no choice in the evil that we do?

Matter of perspective. From the perspective of any sufficiently omniscient observer(i.e. G-D, but not necessarily him… from any sufficiently knowledgeable observer), free will does not exist, it CAN NOT exist. Free will only exists from our perspective…. And it may in fact be an illusion. I am unsure of that.

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.

Horse hockey!

People have used all sorts of things to justify their own actions, whether it is christianity, a poor upbringing, circumstances, genetics. It matters not what they use, the result is the same.

So when precisely do “Christian values” cease to be a thing which were practiced by Christians for century after century? Are you saying that Christians had no connection to Christian values from 500 CE to 1800 CE?

Yet in your eyes, the only thing there is Hell, and Christians would want people to go there. We don't which is why we try to teach people about Christ so that they will be saved.

I did not say you want people to go to hell.

Heck, if Christians wanted people to go to Hell, they would do nothing, they would just sit and not tell anyone about their God and keep it to themselves.

Straw man. I never said that.

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

So Christians are all blind devoted sheep who follow their masters unquestioningly while Jews are somehow better for having 3 temples for 2 Jews?

I know the stereotypes, and that is all they are, stereotypes.

Did I say Jews are better? Did I give any indication of superiority? Nope. I mentioned this same point earlier in this thread…. I took greater pains then to make it very clear that this was not meant to be offensive, I omitted the waiver, assuming it was read earlier.

To Jews, faith if stupid. Faith is stupid because faith is a “mystical feeling” and to a Jew, you could just as easily have a “mystical feeling” aka faith about a carved piece of wood if you were taught to. Faith is not only stupid to Jews but a danger because since you can have faith in anything, faith might lead you astray from G-D.

Faith is fine for you-it is GOOD for you. For us, it does not work, for us it is very bad.

This is another *FUNDAMENTAL* difference between Jews and Christians. Our religions are not similar. We may share enough in common to live peacefully as neighbors and our religions are different, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but we are very different.

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.

Horse hockey!

There are two strains of Western civilisation, one from Greece and one from Israel. The similarities were not present in civlisations predating Judaism, the concepts were entirely unheard of, which is why they call it Judeo-Christian because of those similarities.

Civilization is a hell of a lot older then Greece, even older then the “first” Sumerian city states. Peoples in Asian proper probably built the first cities. But going to a more “classical” source…. Heard of hamurabi’s code? Prohibitions on theft, on murder? Civilization was old before Jews were on the scene and prohibitions on murder and theft of equals, just as old. If you look to Judaism and Christianity as a common cause for our moral prohibitions, you’d have to look further back to where they got theirs from.

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).

Right so Christianity is wrong when they are wrong and wrong when they are right.

Wow, this thread has really deteriorated.

I expected better then this tripe Vesayen, you don't see me saying the same thing about Jews.

I wonder why I bothered to reply at all...

The original point(going up) was a challenge to my assertion that Christians practiced slavery for ages. This is bad. “Christians” did not ban slavery, economic pressures, banned slavery in the most of the world. Slavery was always justified with religion. Its banning was justified with the fact it was no longer profitable.

“Christians” ending slavery is not a black mark(even though it was not “Christians” but a Christian society), however it is not a gold mark. It was not done for moral reasons, but economic ones. I am speaking of slavery on a global basis, not just America-which used JESUS to justify slavery long after much of the first world had given it the boot in their countries.


The more ridiculous the claims, the easier it is to clearly and rationally explain their error.

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.

The only way you can deny the connection is to reduce Pesach to a pagan spring festival.

Excellent job Vesayen. The same critique that you applied to Easter applies to Pesach.

Easter has nothing to do with Spring, but everything to do with the death and resurrection of Christ. This death and resurrection occurs during the time of the Passover because of the prophecies made surrounding Christ as the passover lamb without blemish, as the perfect sacrifice for our own sins.

Easter has EVERYTHING to do with Spring. It is a date inherited from pagan fertility festivals. It is about the “rebirth” of the world in spring time. How can it be a usurped pagan fertility festival and not be about spring?

Passover does not have a spring or rebirth aspect. It is about a specific historical event. The natural worlds apparent rebirth in Spring has nothing to do with Passover in ANY way. Passover is entirely about commemorating a specific historic event which happened in Spring.

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.

Yet Jesus willingly gave himself up to the Cross.

I'm not denying that it is horrifying that such atonement would require his death and his resurrection, but that is the truth of our sins.

I don't see Christians going around and saying that human sacrifice is required for redemption, however one has to realise that the Jewish sacrificial system cannot redeem someone through the use of animals.

The same is true for other persons. We are all sinful, hence the sacrifice could by no means redeem anyone. The person had to be sinless and thus not responsible for any sins of his own.

Any person sacrificing themselves to G-D in a sacrifice of that manner, is little different then sacrificing someone else to G-D. Unbelievably taboo.

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?

Frankly, no I don't.

I see one religion which says that blowing yourself up to kill Jews gets you 72 virgins. Murder seems to be a-ok with them.

I see other religions that kill people for alleged conversions, especially Hindus in India. Yet I don't see Christians killing those who convert their own brethren to another faith.

Wow….. and you accused me of being incensetive before? Wow. Way to insult the majority of the worlds population. I guess if you’re a Christian or a Jew you’re a godless Satan worshiping idolater who fornicates in the moonlight huh? Inside every society in the world, theft or murder of equals is a crime. Who are equals varies as much based on religion as on cultural issues. Theft and murder of equals is a crime everything on the planet.

[post split in half]

[Vesayen]

“You will not murder” is only extended to equals. People who commit crimes against the rules of the society are not equals. People are excluded from the status of being an “equal” for lots of unjust reasons and Christians are as guilty of this through time as anyone else. People say that murder is not murder, since the other person is not “X”.

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.

That's when they did these executions, and the Jews didn't seem to be rid of their King.

Christians grossly overstate the importance(or basically COMPLETE lack of) in ancient Judae. He was some trouble maker. Not even hugely important. I doubt most Jews even had heard of him and this is collaborated by historical evidence. Where are authors and sources from the time of his life, writing on this individual if he was so important? From his life time. Most of the gospels came after. He was not anyone’s king. He had a small following which grew enormously after his death.

No one knew who the hell he was. Jesus was a nobody during his life, they could hardly be happy to be rid of their “king”, if they had not even heard of him.

In any event, no. You don’t execute people on Yom Tov(the high holy days). Does not matter what they did, you do NOT do it. It is really, really bad.

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 don't think they minded all that much since they would get rid of a blasphemer, and the blood was not on their own hands.

Nope. Killing people on Yom Tov is *REALLY* bad.

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?

One can rail at the lack of evidence, but the truth is that anyone can find a lack of evidence enough to convince him not to believe something.

That is not difficult at all to say, to demand more evidence.

Me: “I do not have enough evidence to believe you are a magical fairy, therefore I will not believe that you are a magical fairy.”

Someone: “But the evidence is right there! LOOK! I have a name tag and everything! It even says “Magical Fairy” right there!”

Me: “I am sorry someone, but I am not convinced. It may say “magical fairy” but that is just not enough evidence for me. I need more’

Someone: “Well you can deny anything is true by asking for more evidence!”

Me: “Actually that is wrong on two fronts. On the first front something which is proven to be fact, is true. If I want to prove that iron oxidizes I can perform the experiment repeatedly to show that under certain conditions, oxygen always oxidizes. This is called a “fact” It rarely enters into religious discussion. There is something else called a reasonable level of proof. Your name tag is just a piece of paper. It is not evidence in itself. Not only is it not evidence in itself, but it does not even have your name on it and I have a strong compelling reason to believe that you wrote that name tag moments ago when you turned your back to me.

Me: “You go on to infer that ANYTHING can be questioned as untrue because a person wants more evidence.”

Me: “When someone demands more evidence the reasonable response is to either provide more evidence, explain why more evidence is not needed, or explain the absence of evidence and condece the point. Since you took none of these routes, this does in fact, make you an asshat.

Me: Example of an asshat for further study:



A history of asshats: http://www.confusednation.com/asshat/

Someone: (no response)

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.

Even those in hell are not destroyed, they suffer enternal punishment.

Show me where heaven is the same as destroying mankind.

And he never made the promise not to destroy the earth, only mankind.

Material body + soul = human. Soul != human. We’ll continue this in a moment, per your other response.

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.

Who is us? I didn't know you were a Christian. Paul is saying that the ritual observances can be done, but only if the heart is where the head is at.

Paul tells everyone this, not just Christians. Paul tells it to anyone who read his gospel. I’ve read it, so I am an us. G-D says to Jews to follow the observances he gave us. He said to follow him. How you feel about them is irrelevant. He is the boss and we made a deal, so we keep up our end of the bargain.

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

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, it's the faith that counts.

Fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity #4875….and a phenomenal example of an earlier point. Faith is bad for Jews because of something like this. Faith can just as easily be to a piece of carved wood as to G-D. Faith has the potentials to draw Jews away from G-D, so faith is bad. Circumcision is a fundamental part of the contract Jews made with G-D. This does not extend to you, we circumcise our kids and always will.

[q
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.]
[/q]
Awesome.

I am so happy with you Vesayen I could dance!

You are very right, that we need body and soul together. Hence bodily resurrection as taught by the Christians!

Continuing with the earlier point….. No. The covenant can not continue through new offspring after the resurrection. Any Jew who upholds the covenant would be cast down into hell for spurning your god. This would end the covenant that G-D says will never end. Even more basic then that…. What about before the resurrection? There would be a moment with no Jews to uphold the covenant and no new offspring. An eternal covenant has no interruptions.

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

He will crush the foreheads of Moab

Judge the living and the dead.

Does not say judge, it says crush the skills. Kill. Prophecy does not fit.

Elijah need not come first.

Oh, why's that? Because Malachi doesn't count?

Because much or potentially all of the text about the coming of the Meshiach is questionable and may be untrue, solely inspired by men who despaired and thought they heard G-D. This is not an act of malice, just a mistake.

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.

Jews wrote the Septuagint not Christians. I think you have to little faith in Christianity if you believe we would deliberately write the Old Testament without going back to the best Jewish sources. Your earlier citation confirmed this similarity.

I have little faith in Christianity. I think that Christian scholars wrote texts they knew were not the work of G-D and long after these individuals were dead, these texts made their way into canon.

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.

Then your beef is with the 70 scholars who included both books in the septuagint and not with me.

I have no beef. I am an equal opportunity questioner. Anything which is questionably untrue is questionably untrue, regardless of the source.

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

Depends on the eye and the critic moreso on the depth of the details.

See above conversation between me and “someone”.

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 you can disprove the prophecy through the NT then I can prove the prophecy through the NT.

Either the NT has authority or it does not. Bottom line.

Bottom line you are either intentionally or accidentally misunderstanding what I said.

If the details of the prophecy do not fit the NT, then it must be false, because the NT is the ultimate source of truth, yes? Anything which conflicts with the NT is wrong, from a Christian view.

However the original claim is that the Torah has prophecies of Jesus.

Facts relevant: The NT written after the Torah.
Facts relevant: We have no proof that the NT is divine.
Facts relevant: There are arguable reasons to believe that the NT is in fact not divine, but entirely human.
Facts relevant: It is possible that the men who wrote the NT or parts of it looked back at the Torah and then wrote texts WITHOUT the inspiration of G-D, but wrote them to exploit earlier texts.

If the NT is untrue which is possible, then it is also possible that all evidence from it, is void. However the NT has to be consistent with itself, so if the details of the Torah do not fit with the NT, it is also, wrong.

If you can not understand that –shrug-. I’ve explained it repeatedly, this time breaking it down as simply as possible. If you do not understand after this time, you are stating I am wrong in a one linger because the issue is complicated and your refuse to look at the details involved.

Your one liner is “either the NT has authority or it does not” and I COULD NOT agree more! However in the instance of the NT being consistent with itself, its authority does not matter! It is irrelevant! Whether it has authority or not is irrelevant to it being consistent with itself.

However its authority comes into question when taking NT evidence and using it as proof because them the proof only works if it has authority. The status of its authority is unknown and can not be known, so it can only be used as evidence if we already accept it as true…. In which case a prophecy is not going to convince anyone because the only ones who will believe it, already believe it.

I make no apologizes for addressing a concept which is not simplistic.

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.

When it is God speaking, he means like God.

An oversight and a mistake on my part. I admit my mistakes(unlike well, most of, but not all of the posters on this forum). I was wrong. However even when we expand it to G-D it still does not work. “Like me”. Not “As me” but “Like me”. EVERY word is important…. Which is why I rail so often on poor Christians translations of the Torah.

You will obey this person SIMILAR to the way you will obey god. Like does not mean identical, it means similar. So you will obey this person in a way which is similar to the way you will obey G-D.

Jesus demands absolute obedience and had absolute authority which is not similar to G-D, but identical.

It does not prescribe IDENTICAL obedience, but similar obedience.

To follow all the teaching of Jesus includes throwing out the old law to such a degree that only G-D himself could give such a command. The degree of obedience described is not high enough.

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?)

I think this is going to be a difference between Christians and Jews.

'My yoke is heavy and my burden light.'

Christians are called to serve not with a heavy heart but with joy.

See earlier comments that the only similarities Christians and Jews have is that we both came after a pre-existing civilization.

[Jon Miller]

Vesayen, you write huge posts about something you don't know anything about. Once more, I would recommend at least reading the NT before talking about it.

It would be like me telling you about post Temple Judaism..

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

Once more I would say you are fool who ignores what is said and makes personal arguments, one who is not commited to the truth, but to being right for the sake of his ego.

You did not even read the post.

"Well you must be wrong... you have not read the same books, and stuff..... well no I did not even read what you said, but you must be wrong, because I am right and my ego is KING!"

I have read the NT several times. We have been discussing the Torah for the last 6 pages on this thread, something which it seems questionable if you have ever read.

[Jon Miller]

I didn't read your last two posts.. just noticed that you said NT a few dozen times. I did read Molly Blooms posts (his at least sometimes bring something to the table) and his were about the NT.

If all your mentions of the NT were meaningless, then my comments were wrong. If you were in fact refering to the NT and commenting about it, then I am correct.

While you might have read it, you apparently have no background for it. It would be like a Christian Fundamentalists reading the OT and not looking up anything Jewish on it. (or actually, more like a Muslim reading the NT and not reading anything Christian on it)

Although, based upon your comments on Mathew, I seriously doubt that you have read it, or if you have, if you remember it.

JM

[Vesayen]

So basically your admitting to be an obstinate (pick an expletive) who is wasting my time? I'll be certain to think twice before I respond critically to your posts. It will be much eaiser to write a one liner.

I am more familiar with the NT then most practicing Christians in America today, but far from a theologian. The time in which Jesus lived is very, very interesting(pick 100 years in either direction... its not interesting because of Jesus, but for other reasons) and is something I have studied continuously in college. Studying Christianity has made a lot of forays into that.

Your wrong, basically. You've defended a position which is wrong for a page or 2. Now that I have clearly explained precisley why you are wrong, you give up. However your ego is too big, so instead of admitting you are wrong(it is easy, really!), you'll start up the personal attacks.

It would of been easier and more graceful to you know, say nothing, or admit you were wrong, but your too much of an obstinate (pick an expletive) to do that, so it is understandible.