Great Joke

[etoile]

I read many answers already, and I have this to say:
1) A few (admittedly) bad jokes:
a) This one is old, but hey, it's still a joke...I might as well write it.
A delegation from Israel under Menachem Begin is about to arrive in the Soviet Union to see how Jews live there. Now, the local government officials assemble all the influential Jews of the neighborhood and threaten them- very real threats- with all sorts of horrors if they, and all their friends and families, do not yell in protest "Begin, we are not going to Israel!" when the comission arrives. When Begin arrives, the eldest Jew of the town comes up to him and sais, "Begin, we are not going to Israel?"

b) This one is morbid. But a bit newer. And you have to be a bit familiar with Israel...
The day after September 11th, Yassir Arafat calls Osama Bin Laden, and Osama says, "well, how did you like my attack? Nothing is left of the WTC. NOTHING!" And Arafat replies, "You idiot. I told you, the CYLINDER and the CONE and you went for the two big boxes!"
Explanation: there are 2 skyscrapers in Israel, side by side, which are shaped like a cylinder and a cone.

2) I can't contribute to the whole Jesus debate. I haven't read the Bible, am an atheist, and am perfectly content with it.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by etoile

I read many answers already, and I have this to say:
1) A few (admittedly) bad jokes:
2) I can't contribute to the whole Jesus debate. I haven't read the Bible, am an atheist, and am perfectly content with it.

Etiole thanks for the jokes. They were amusing. Now I have one for you.

The Chief Rabbi of Israel decided to visit the Pope in the Roman Vatican. When they were talking in the Pope's private office, the Rabbi noted a small red phone on the desk.

The Rabbi asked the Pope the use for this phone. The Pope told the Rabbi that this was a direct phone to G-d Himself. The Rabbi asked if he might be able to speak to the Creator. The Pope agreed and sure enough the Rabbi spoke directly to G-d for a good half hour.

After the audience with the Pope, the Rabbi asked if he could pay for the phone call and the Pope said certainly. It will be 5,000 Lira for the half hour.

Several months later the Pope went to visit the Chief Rabbi of Israel in Jerusalem in his office. And sure enough there was a small red phone. The Pope said, "Oh I see you now have a phone to G-d, may I make a call to Him?" "Yes of course said the Rabbi."

The Pope spoke for an hour and a half and after their meeting, the Pope asked if he could pay for his call to G-d. "Of course said the Rabbi." How much is the call" said the Pope. The Rabbi said that will be 10 cents for the call. The Pope said you spoke on my phone for only one-half hour and the charge was 5,000 Lira and your phone is only .10 cents.

The Rabbi said, " Yes, it is a local call."

Etiole are you an atheist or an agnostic? Slight difference...

 

[etoile]

I think I am an atheist, or I wouldn't say so. I just do not think religion is pertinent to my life, so I so without it. I do not base any part of my life on religion and I do not practice any religious customs. I don't read the bible becuase I never really found the need to, even if it is the most widely read book in the world.

Since we're on the topic of jokes, here's one:
What does a dyslexic insomniac agnostic do every night?
Answer: he lies awake at night and asks himself, "Is there a dog?"

I do not lie awake at any time of the day (certainly not in half my classes) wondering if there is a supreme being, dog, ogd, or god. I think I am an atheist. Or, as some say, "no religion." I mean, I am not averse to religion, I just don't practice it.

Happy?

 

[Annie]

I knew an Etoile Harmon. She was an atheist too, as were her parents.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by etoile

I think I am an atheist, or I wouldn't say so.....

Or, as some say, "no religion." I mean, I am not averse to religion, I just don't practice it. Happy?

Actually you seem to be saying that you are not adverse to religion or have no religious beliefs.

Agnostics have no belief in religion nor are they adverse to it. They simply admit they don't know if there is a 'watchmaker.'

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
I think I am an atheist, or I wouldn't say so.....

Or, as some say, "no religion." I mean, I am not averse to religion, I just don't practice it. Happy?

Actually you seem to be saying that you are not adverse to religion or have no religious beliefs.

Agnostics have no belief in religion nor are they adverse to it. They simply admit they don't know if there is a 'watchmaker.'

What good is it to know there is a watchmaker when you cannot tell time?

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

What good is it to know there is a watchmaker when you cannot tell time?

There you go again trying to think again. It seems that the little squirl running around in your cranium is getting tired again.

 

[Merlin1047]

Damn! I bet you guys are a real hoot at parties.

 

[walwor]

You intially said that all the statements in this Luke chapter were uttered by Jesus Christ of Nazareth himself and now you claim the 'nobleman' was the one who wanted to slay his enemies before him. How can you be taken seriously when you make contradictory statements? Why did Christ Jesus have to speak in parables at all?

Since we are adopting a more civil tone, please hear me out. I have made no contradictory statements. Forget about whether you like parables for a minute. The verses in question, as I have stated, are the contents of the parable, which Jesus spoke. Let's say Jesus told a story. It's about a nobleman. Jesus is speaking the whole time. But he is relating a story, and in the story, he relates what the nobleman says. He quotes the nobleman as saying, "Bring my enemies before me to be slain." So Jesus is speaking, but these are not His words, to bring His enemies, at that place and time, before Him to be slain.

Now, you say you don't like parables. Why did Christ Jesus have to speak in parables, when G-d gave 10 clear commandments to Moses? But Jesus also gives clear commandments: Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Thou shalt love the Lord thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. These are spoken clearly. But G-d in Genesis is not always so clear. He tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but then He stays his hand. Jacob goes to Isaac pretending to be Esau, and gets the blessing of the birthright. G-d allows it, He even predicted it. Joseph interprets dreams, the interpretations come from G-d. G-d uses many devices to communicate with men. Why not a parable?

Now, as for this parable, the one about the nobleman and the minas. The nobleman represents Jesus, but not then. The context is that the nobleman returns after a trip. This parable speaks of Jesus at His second coming. Why the mystery? You said this:

But if the Jesus of the Gospels rejected the Jews for not "accepting Jesus" as you and Christianity claims, why have the Jewish people survived 2,100 years of Christian persecutions? How do you or Christianity explain the miracle of Jewish survival? Why has G-d restored the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel to His "rejected" people even though they "killed His son?"

First of all, Jesus of the Gospels didn't reject the Jews. Let's call a spade a spade, the Jewish leaders of His day rejected Jesus. You ask why the Jewish people survived "2,100 years of Christian persecutions," well let's be real about our years, here. Christians could not have persecuted the Jews for 2100 years. It was the Roman Empire that destroyed the Temple and defeated Bar Kochba. They also persecuted Christians. I suppose you heard about the "throwing Christians to the lions." The Roman Emperor Constantine didn't convert to Christianity until the 4th century, and that was about 1700 years ago, so let's say it happened some time after that- it has certainly been well over a thousand years. So, how do I or Christianity explain the miracle of Jewish survival? I'm no genius, but the source for this is Paul of Tarsus. In Romans 11 he says, "Just as it is written: 'G-d has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.'" That's a quote from Deuteronomy 29, in which Moses explains to the Israelites why they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. The wandering in the wilderness was due to their unbelief, which in turn was due to their sojourn in Egypt. The diaspora is a later, larger type of the same wandering. The Jews ARE living out G-d's plan, and their survival, as you rightly point out, is a sign to Christianity, to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles wouldn't know anything about the Jews if faith in Jesus hadn't brought the G-d of Israel to the attention of the Gentiles. Otherwise, the Gentiles wouldn't care about the Jews good or bad, but as it is, the Gentiles know the story of Moses, of Samson and Delilah, King David, King Solomon, all these JEWISH stories. Did you ever stop to wonder about that? There are Christian pastors who know way more about the Books of Chronicles and Kings than I do, and I've read them.

Okay, the last thing you said was:

You call yourself a former Jew but you have taken on the mantle of those who have scurged, pierced and crucified the son (the nation of the Hebrew children) in the past two eons.

Someday you will answer for your own decision.

I'll answer for it right now. It's the best decision I've ever made. Judaism means more to me than it ever did by wearing a yarmulke or spinning a dreidle in Hebrew school. Christianity helps me to see this incredible and sublime plan that G-d has laid out for all humankind, including the Gentiles and not just exclusively for the Jews. G-d sacrificed His Son. That's made clear. G-d did it. His Son was rejected by the Jewish leaders of His day, but that was G-d's purpose. G-d didn't want Jesus to be the Messiah King of the Jews at that time, He used the opportunity to introduce Himself to the rest of the world. But He is going to return, and at that time, those who hate Him, who do not want Him to "reign over them," will be slain before Him, just as He slew the firstborn of Egypt and Pharaoh's charioteers. It's unfortunate that the Jews of today still don't see this, because if they did, Israel would not be struggling against these petty terrorists, they would reign over all the earth. But that's not going to happen until Jesus returns, and that's according to Bible prophecy, not according to me. As for me, I have no problem believing that the G-d who parted the Red Sea and made the sun stand still in the sky could come down to earth and walk and talk as a man, in such a way that it would be a mystery to those around Him, so that He is in that way the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit as well.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by walwor

Since we are adopting a more civil tone, please hear me out. I have made no contradictory statements. Forget about whether you like parables for a minute. The verses in question, as I have stated, are the contents of the parable, which Jesus spoke. Let's say Jesus told a story. It's about a nobleman. Jesus is speaking the whole time. But he is relating a story, and in the story, he relates what the nobleman says. He quotes the nobleman as saying, "Bring my enemies before me to be slain." So Jesus is speaking, but these are not His words, to bring His enemies, at that place and time, before Him to be slain.

Okay I have re-read Luke 19 and find that in the beginning Jesus says that he is telling a parable. During Jesus parable in Luke, he was relating a story about a nobleman wanting his enemies brought before him to be slain.

The problem comes immediately after the parable in which Jesus is talking about a nobleman wanting enemies to be killed when Jesus says:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Is this the place in this Luke chapter wehre Jesus parable ends and then he is talking about himself or does the parable continue? It seems like that in line 29 either Jesus or the Nobleman sent two of his disciples. Whose disciples do they belong to and who is sending them?

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.
29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,

It seems that in this parable of a Nobleman, Jesus does not take any effort to punctuate the end of his parable or either continues with references to himself.

Now, you say you don't like parables. Why did Christ Jesus have to speak in parables, when G-d gave 10 clear commandments to Moses? But Jesus also gives clear commandments: Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Thou shalt love the Lord thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. These are spoken clearly.

Unfortunately those same commandments you claim for Jesus are identical to the original ones in the Old Testament G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In other words, these commandments from Jesus were just a carbon copy of Moses revelation from G-d Himeself more than 1,300 years earlier. .

But G-d in Genesis is not always so clear. He tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but then He stays his hand. Jacob goes to Isaac pretending to be Esau, and gets the blessing of the birthright. G-d allows it, He even predicted it. Joseph interprets dreams, the interpretations come from G-d. G-d uses many devices to communicate with men. Why not a parable?

These examples you gave are not only crystal clear but they are not parables. Joseph interpeting dreams that have nothing whatsoever to do with parables but clearly obvious revelations given to Joseph as a gift. You might want to learn the difference between parables and metaphors.

Now, as for this parable, the one about the nobleman and the minas. The nobleman represents Jesus, but not then. The context is that the nobleman returns after a trip. This parable speaks of Jesus at His second coming. Why the mystery? You said this:

If not then, when is Jesus represented by the Nobleman. If as you say Jesus was represented by the Nobleman in his parable, then it would be Jesus giving by example (parable story) that it was actually he and not a Nobelman who wanted his enemies brought before him to be slain. The second coming of Jesus in the Nobleman's return somehow escapes any learning experience in the parable as the second coming can only be interpreted in the light of Christian dogma.

First of all, Jesus of the Gospels didn't reject the Jews. Let's call a spade a spade, the Jewish leaders of His day rejected Jesus. You ask why the Jewish people survived "2,100 years of Christian persecutions," well let's be real about our years, here. Christians could not have persecuted the Jews for 2100 years.

Why would the Jewish leaders reject Jesus when in fact they were waiting for the coming of the long prophecized Messiah to save them from the Romans? In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus (minus the later additions about Jesus) spoke of the hope of the Jewish people for G-d to send a Messiah to save them from the persection of the Romans.

In fact, the early Pauline Christians did persecute the Jewish people long before Constantine.

Revelations 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Starting from the book of Revelation, the Christian churched began to persecute the Jews by cursing them as sons of the Devil and cursed. Even when the Jews were alleged to be at the crucifixion of Christ, they condemned themselves and their children throughout all generations for killing the son of a god. No I don't want to go through the lengthy history of Christianity scurging, piercing and crucifying the Hebrews (nation son) of G-d. They are too numberous to mention. But the Jews never persecuted Christians throughout the generations. The original blood libel against the Jews by the earliest Christian church of Paul.

It was the Roman Empire that destroyed the Temple and defeated Bar Kochba. They also persecuted Christians. I suppose you heard about the "throwing Christians to the lions." The Roman Emperor Constantine didn't convert to Christianity until the 4th century, and that was about 1700 years ago, so let's say it happened some time after that- it has certainly been well over a thousand years. So, how do I or Christianity explain the miracle of Jewish survival? I'm no genius, but the source for this is Paul of Tarsus. In Romans 11 he says, "Just as it is written: 'G-d has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.'" That's a quote from Deuteronomy 29, in which Moses explains to the Israelites why they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. The wandering in the wilderness was due to their unbelief, which in turn was due to their sojourn in Egypt. The diaspora is a later, larger type of the same wandering. The Jews ARE living out G-d's plan, and their survival, as you rightly point out, is a sign to Christianity, to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles wouldn't know anything about the Jews if faith in Jesus hadn't brought the G-d of Israel to the attention of the Gentiles. Otherwise, the Gentiles wouldn't care about the Jews good or bad, but as it is, the Gentiles know the story of Moses, of Samson and Delilah, King David, King Solomon, all these JEWISH stories. Did you ever stop to wonder about that? There are Christian pastors who know way more about the Books of Chronicles and Kings than I do, and I've read them.

Sorry but these facts about the Gentiles not caring about the Jews good or bad is as far from reality as New York City is from the Andromeda galaxy. How many centuries has the Christian church tried to force conversions not only on the Jews but many people around the globe by torture, fire or death?

Okay, the last thing you said was: I'll answer for it right now. It's the best decision I've ever made. Judaism means more to me than it ever did by wearing a yarmulke or spinning a dreidle in Hebrew school. Christianity helps me to see this incredible and sublime plan that G-d has laid out for all humankind, including the Gentiles and not just exclusively for the Jews. G-d sacrificed His Son. That's made clear. G-d did it. His Son was rejected by the Jewish leaders of His day, but that was G-d's purpose. G-d didn't want Jesus to be the Messiah King of the Jews at that time, He used the opportunity to introduce Himself to the rest of the world. But He is going to return, and at that time, those who hate Him, who do not want Him to "reign over them," will be slain before Him, just as He slew the firstborn of Egypt and Pharaoh's charioteers. It's unfortunate that the Jews of today still don't see this, because if they did, Israel would not be struggling against these petty terrorists, they would reign over all the earth. But that's not going to happen until Jesus returns, and that's according to Bible prophecy, not according to me. As for me, I have no problem believing that the G-d who parted the Red Sea and made the sun stand still in the sky could come down to earth and walk and talk as a man, in such a way that it would be a mystery to those around Him, so that He is in that way the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit as well.

Again you are confusing parables with historical events that can be explained by natural events instead of walking on water, the sea periodically parts itself from time to time depending on winds and atmospheric changes. The sun did not stand still in the sky as that was a metaphor but not a parable of events.

 

[NewGuy]

Mouthoffa, it is really stupid of you to quote from Revelation to prove a historical point when you claim the New Testament is fiction.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NudeGuy

Mouthoffa, it is really stupid of you to quote from Revelation to prove a historical point when you claim the New Testament is fiction.

GayGuy quoting from the New Testament and the book of Revelations simply points out the 2100 year hate for the Jewish people from the time of Paul and his conspirators.

Do you have any common sense or are you just dumb as a stump?

SO MUCH FOR THE FORGIVENSS OF CHRIST JESUS....

Not all whose verdict was to be burning alive were tied to the stake. Some were instead slowly roasted to death in the brûloir (fryer), a sort of oven which was slowly heated. While three heretics have yielded to their fate, one has to be pushed inside the oven. Note that in the foreground the populace, including women and children, watch the instructive spectacle. Executions in Christian history often had been the prime source of public entertainment

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
GayGuy quoting from the New Testament and the book of Revelations simply points out the 2100 year hate for the Jewish people from the time of Paul and his conspirators.

Do you have any common sense or are you just dumb as a stump?

SO MUCH FOR THE FORGIVENSS OF CHRIST JESUS....

Well, Mouthoffa, apparently if I AM equavalent to a stump, you are obviously far more dumb than both myself and said stump.

Apparently, as you have written, not only do you think the New Testament is false, yet proves historical points, but now you think it is a 2100 year old Testament about hating Jews.

Get a clue wino.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Well, Mouthoffa, apparently if I AM equavalent to a stump, you are obviously far more dumb than both myself and said stump. Apparently, as you have written, not only do you think the New Testament is false, yet proves historical points, but now you think it is a 2100 year old Testament about hating Jews.
Get a clue wino.

Gayguy you are not worth the white powder to give you a high for Jesus. Your brothers have been crucifying Jews since Christ and you obviously think that I or you or someone has proven that the New Testament has proof or something valid.

Just because you have a Gospel that says things proves absolutely nothing whatsoever. Show one piece of original written text by Jesus or his followers, the original gospel books or any acheological proof that Jesus existed. If you could you would be the only one that could. Even Paul of Tarsus, the guy who started this cult had none.

The following site gives picture evidence taken by the Christians who went to church on Sunday showed the love of Jesus to their fellow man.

http://www.deathcamps.info/Experiments/experiments.htm

Get a life.....

 

[walwor]

Okay I have re-read Luke 19 and find that in the beginning Jesus says that he is telling a parable. During Jesus parable in Luke, he was relating a story about a nobleman wanting his enemies brought before him to be slain.

The problem comes immediately after the parable in which Jesus is talking about a nobleman wanting enemies to be killed when Jesus says:

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Is this the place in this Luke chapter wehre Jesus parable ends and then he is talking about himself or does the parable continue? It seems like that in line 29 either Jesus or the Nobleman sent two of his disciples. Whose disciples do they belong to and who is sending them?

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.
29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,

The parable ends at verse 27. Look at verse 28, which you have just quoted: "And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem." That verse indicates the end of the parable and the continuation of the narrative. I don't want to get into a side-debate, but I don't use the King James Version, because there is not adequate punctuation. In short, there are no quotation marks. I have the New King James Version, which contains the same verses, slightly modernized to use "you" instead of "thou," and includes punctuation to avoid this kind of confusion. But look again at that verse 28, it indicates that the prior verse, 27, was the end of the parable.

Unfortunately those same commandments you claim for Jesus are identical to the original ones in the Old Testament G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In other words, these commandments from Jesus were just a carbon copy of Moses revelation from G-d Himeself more than 1,300 years earlier.

That certainly doesn't disprove that Jesus has a connection with G-d, that He is repeating Himself.

If not then, when is Jesus represented by the Nobleman. If as you say Jesus was represented by the Nobleman in his parable, then it would be Jesus giving by example (parable story) that it was actually he and not a Nobelman who wanted his enemies brought before him to be slain. The second coming of Jesus in the Nobleman's return somehow escapes any learning experience in the parable as the second coming can only be interpreted in the light of Christian dogma.

The return of the nobleman represents G-d at Judgment Day. This is not an escape of learning of experience, it is definitely meant as a teaching- we are given certain gifts during our lives, represented by the minas, and we are to make use of them and not to hoard them. What are the minas, in reality? They are faith, love, charity, prophecy, witness, etc., they are spiritual gifts. We are not to hoard them, to not keep our "light under a bushel" so to speak, but to share them so they may be doubled, by being taken up by others through our example. It is very close to what I hear you saying about Judaism encouraging contributing good to the world, and it is important to remember that Christianity sprang from Judaism. All the disciples were Jews, all the people to whom Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount were Jews. It was Judea in which He spoke.

Why would the Jewish leaders reject Jesus when in fact they were waiting for the coming of the long prophecized Messiah to save them from the Romans? In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus (minus the later additions about Jesus) spoke of the hope of the Jewish people for G-d to send a Messiah to save them from the persection of the Romans.

You ask a very good question. The answer is contained in the question- the long prophesied Messiah did not come to save them from the Romans, the way they thought, did He? Not the way they thought. He did arrive. But not to save the Jews from the Romans. The Jews would go on to survive the Romans, as you have pointed out. The Messiah will arrive at the end of times to be King of the Jews, as we are waiting for Him today. But when Jesus came to Judea, it was His First Coming. He didn't come to be the Messiah king of the world, yet. It wasn't time. But what He did accomplish was to bring G-d, your G-d, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Aaron, to the attention of the Gentiles.

In fact, the early Pauline Christians did persecute the Jewish people long before Constantine.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelations 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starting from the book of Revelation, the Christian churched began to persecute the Jews by cursing them as sons of the Devil and cursed.

You are committing a logical error here, which is also committed by anti-Semites. I'm not insulting you, but you need to understand- this is written specifically to the church in Smyrna, where there were those who called themselves Jews, but were idol-worshippers. This is not, as you are suggesting, a tarring of all Jews- it says they are not Jews. Also, there is no persecution here- the Revelation given to John on the Isle of Patmos was a vision. No one was killed or persecuted.

The original blood libel against the Jews by the earliest Christian church of Paul.

You will need to bring out a good source for this statement. I know what "blood libel" is, and it was not spoken of by Paul.

Sorry but these facts about the Gentiles not caring about the Jews good or bad is as far from reality as New York City is from the Andromeda galaxy. How many centuries has the Christian church tried to force conversions not only on the Jews but many people around the globe by torture, fire or death?

You are misreading me, again. I didn't say the Gentiles don't care about the Jews good or bad. I can only defend my viewpoint if you represent it correctly, otherwise this is just a flame war. I said:

But the Gentiles wouldn't know anything about the Jews if faith in Jesus hadn't brought the G-d of Israel to the attention of the Gentiles. Otherwise, the Gentiles wouldn't care about the Jews good or bad, but as it is, the Gentiles know the story of Moses, of Samson and Delilah, King David, King Solomon, all these JEWISH stories.

Now before you jump on and say, See that means faith in Jesus has brought persecution to the Jews- I will say it first. Yes it has. And welcome to the Chosen People. Chosen People is not what the bigots like to say it is, that Jews believe they are chosen to rule the world. Jews know it is just the opposite. You have referenced that the nation of the Jews is the son of G-d, scourged, pierced and crucified, as it says in Isaiah chapter 53. I agree with you. But there is a parallel, and it isn't easy for Jews to accept. Jesus, come to Judea, was rejected by the Jewish leaders of His day, and was given to the Romans for scourging, piercing and crucifixion. Subsequently, the Jewish people have been rejected by the world (Christians and Moslems, don't want to leave them out, they've done their share), and have been scourged, pierced and crucified, like you say. It is a tremendous leap of faith to see this parallel, but it is spiritual sight which is required, not earthly sight.

Again you are confusing parables with historical events that can be explained by natural events instead of walking on water, the sea periodically parts itself from time to time depending on winds and atmospheric changes. The sun did not stand still in the sky as that was a metaphor but not a parable of events.

Ahhhhh!! Now we come to it. So you believe the miracles of the Bible were natural events? Interesting. And the sun did not stand still in the sky but this was a metaphor but not a parable, you say. Uh huh. There is room here for me to slam you, and I do not wish to do so, but read this, from the Bible you believe in, the Torah, Exodus 14:21, "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided." Is Exodus the word of G-d or is it an invention of man? It doesn't say the sea parted itself as it does from time to time (how that would allow an entire nation to cross a sea, I don't know), it says The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind ALL THAT NIGHT. If this verse doesn't mean what it says, then what other verses of the Old Testament also don't mean what they say? Is it written in "invisible flax," or whatever you said about the Gospels? Don't mistake me, I believe in those miracles, but it is on you now to defend your own beliefs, I have defended mine.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
Gayguy you are not worth the white powder to give you a high for Jesus.

Yet you have to keep trying, and fail miserably at proving me wrong.

Your brothers have been crucifying Jews since Christ and you obviously think that I or you or someone has proven that the New Testament has proof or something valid.

Really? Prove it. -And try NOT using Jack Daniels to do it.

Just because you have a Gospel that says things proves absolutely nothing whatsoever. Show one piece of original written text by Jesus or his followers, the original gospel books or any acheological proof that Jesus existed.

Would you then accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

If you could you would be the only one that could. Even Paul of Tarsus, the guy who started this cult had none.

Interesting.....so he was the one who prophesied Jesus from the Old Testament too then?

The following site gives picture evidence taken by the Christians who went to church on Sunday showed the love of Jesus to their fellow man.

http://www.deathcamps.info/Experiments/experiments.htm

Get a life.....

Wow. That's pretty cool.

Lemme see if I can find a Geocities website to find truth too.

Oh, look. I found a website showing Bert from Sesame Street has a POLICE RECORD. It is on the WEB! It HAS TO BE TRUE!

http://www.bertisevil.tv/index2.htm

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by walwor

The parable ends at verse 27. Look at verse 28, which you have just quoted: "And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem." That verse indicates the end of the parable and the continuation of the narrative. I don't want to get into a side-debate, but I don't use the King James Version, because there is not adequate punctuation. In short, there are no quotation marks. I have the New King James Version, which contains the same verses, slightly modernized to use "you" instead of "thou," and includes punctuation to avoid this kind of confusion. But look again at that verse 28, it indicates that the prior verse, 27, was the end of the parable.

Walwor the problem I am having with newer and newer versions of previous versions to explain things never known before. Do you consider all the versions of the New Testament to be as valid as each other even though the newer versions sometimes contradict an older version?.

That certainly doesn't disprove that Jesus has a connection with G-d, that He is repeating Himself.

That also doesn't disprove that you or I are gods. And we all have a connection to G-d as we repeat these same commandments during many prayers and for religious Jews, said three times a day. The difference is in the type of connection to G-d. If Jesus was a god then why would he need repeat his Father's primal rules of life, relationships to our G-d and also with our actions with fellow men?

The return of the nobleman represents G-d at Judgment Day. This is not an escape of learning of experience, it is definitely meant as a teaching- we are given certain gifts during our lives, represented by the minas, and we are to make use of them and not to hoard them. What are the minas, in reality? They are faith, love, charity, prophecy, witness, etc., they are spiritual gifts. We are not to hoard them, to not keep our "light under a bushel" so to speak, but to share them so they may be doubled, by being taken up by others through our example. It is very close to what I hear you saying about Judaism encouraging contributing good to the world, and it is important to remember that Christianity sprang from Judaism. All the disciples were Jews, all the people to whom Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount were Jews. It was Judea in which He spoke.

You use the words "in reality?" These 'minas' are put into a parable that only the adherents apparently understand. You also say that these principles are very close to what I have been saying about Judaism. Judaism and the Old Testament does not use parables to obfuscate that which is obvious. To what purpose is it to hide these principles under 'a bushel basket' when the entire Old Testament gives the chronilogical history of many real people who by their lives were an examples of pitfalls and paths that everyone who reads the original Testament can understand without having to decifer what a parable means or possibly says or where one person is speaking about a story and where the story ends and reality begins again. Like it says in that old New Testament spiritual, "give me that ole time religion, its good enough for me."

You ask a very good question. The answer is contained in the question- the long prophesied Messiah did not come to save them from the Romans, the way they thought, did He? Not the way they thought. He did arrive. But not to save the Jews from the Romans. The Jews would go on to survive the Romans, as you have pointed out. The Messiah will arrive at the end of times to be King of the Jews, as we are waiting for Him today. But when Jesus came to Judea, it was His First Coming. He didn't come to be the Messiah king of the world, yet. It wasn't time. But what He did accomplish was to bring G-d, your G-d, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Aaron, to the attention of the Gentiles.

Actually the prophecies of the coming of the Jewish Messiah were very specific with certain events to occur during his lifetime on earth. The Jewish Messiah was never prophecied to be the king of the Jews or anyone else. You are talking about the prophecies as redefined by the New Testament with relation to the Messiah. Jesus himself in his own beliefs that he was the Messiah always considered himself the messenger that the Jewish people were waiting for to free them from being subjugated by the Romans. You may not want to believe or accept that fact but that is the way it was until many years later after Jesus was crucified. There is no evidence that Jesus or anyone around him thought of him being a god. This concept would have been an abomination to everything that Jesus knew from his studies in his Jewish synagogues. Paul came from Tarsus. A place where there were almost no Jews and this man could have not known Jesus or Judaism as he only the knew the earlier religions of Tarsus and from which Christianity arose. But that is one of the basic difference in Judaism and Christianity.

You are committing a logical error here, which is also committed by anti-Semites. I'm not insulting you, but you need to understand- this is written specifically to the church in Smyrna, where there were those who called themselves Jews, but were idol-worshippers. This is not, as you are suggesting, a tarring of all Jews- it says they are not Jews. Also, there is no persecution here- the Revelation given to John on the Isle of Patmos was a vision. No one was killed or persecuted.

If Revelations 2:9 speaks of certain people in Smyma who called themselves Jews, why in the world would the writer of Revelation been a little more specific in exactly who he meant to be those devil worshipers and not the entire people of the Old Testament? You say that all Jews are not tarred by this verse in Revelation but the reality is that this is not the case. Your interpretation is nice about these so-called Jews of Smyma but your interpretation is not spelled out in Revelation.

More than two centuries now the majority of the Christian world has interpreted this verse as ALL Jews being evil and rich devil worshipers. Ergo, the singling out of the Jewish people for torture, piercing, burning, murdering for being heretics or non-believers and not accepting the 'truth of Christ and his divinity.' Can you think of any cases in the history of Christianity that the Jewish people have physically harmed any Christians because they refused to accept the G-d of the universe?

You will need to bring out a good source for this statement. I know what "blood libel" is, and it was not spoken of by Paul.

Matthew 27:24-25, Pilate says, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person,” to which the Jewish mob replies, “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

This is the blood libel from the writer of the book of Matthew and indirectly from Paul where the original doctrine inspirations came to the writers of the four Gospel books. This fact is accepted by most of the Christian biblical scholars.

You are misreading me, again. I didn't say the Gentiles don't care about the Jews good or bad. I can only defend my viewpoint if you represent it correctly, otherwise this is just a flame war. I said:

Now before you jump on and say, See that means faith in Jesus has brought persecution to the Jews- I will say it first. Yes it has. And welcome to the Chosen People. Chosen People is not what the bigots like to say it is, that Jews believe they are chosen to rule the world. Jews know it is just the opposite. You have referenced that the nation of the Jews is the son of G-d, scourged, pierced and crucified, as it says in Isaiah chapter 53. I agree with you. But there is a parallel, and it isn't easy for Jews to accept. Jesus, come to Judea, was rejected by the Jewish leaders of His day, and was given to the Romans for scourging, piercing and crucifixion. Subsequently, the Jewish people have been rejected by the world (Christians and Moslems, don't want to leave them out, they've done their share), and have been scourged, pierced and crucified, like you say. It is a tremendous leap of faith to see this parallel, but it is spiritual sight which is required, not earthly sight.

May I quote what you actually wrote?

But the Gentiles wouldn't know anything about the Jews if faith in Jesus hadn't brought the G-d of Israel to the attention of the Gentiles. Otherwise, the Gentiles wouldn't care about the Jews good or bad,.....

How is it that you can be so certain relating to who would not know about the G-d of Israel? Actually the G-d of Israel was brought to the attention of many religions and peoples from the time of Abraham until the coming of Jesus Christ? Or in other words how is that it took Jesus to bring attention to the G-d of Israel when the first monotheistic religion was already known to the majority of the people of the earth prior to Chrisitanity. Example: Do you think that the Hebrew people just came out of nowhere? The early Hebrews were people of earlier pagan dieties but for some unknown reason followed Abraham and his family. There was no Old Testament Bible at that time with which to learn about the G-d of creation.

Ahhhhh!! Now we come to it. So you believe the miracles of the Bible were natural events? Interesting. And the sun did not stand still in the sky but this was a metaphor but not a parable, you say. Uh huh. There is room here for me to slam you, and I do not wish to do so, but read this, from the Bible you believe in, the Torah, Exodus 14:21, "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided." Is Exodus the word of G-d or is it an invention of man? It doesn't say the sea parted itself as it does from time to time (how that would allow an entire nation to cross a sea, I don't know), it says The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind ALL THAT NIGHT. If this verse doesn't mean what it says, then what other verses of the Old Testament also don't mean what they say? Is it written in "invisible flax," or whatever you said about the Gospels? Don't mistake me, I believe in those miracles, but it is on you now to defend your own beliefs, I have defended mine.

What the Bible does say that the miracle was not in the parting of the sea by G-d's instruction to Moses but it HAPPENED at a particular time and place and only when it was needed at that point. Remember the ten plagues over Egypt when Moses was trying to get Pharoah to set his people free.

Well every one of those plagues were all natural events including the turning of the water to blood (a metaphor for a red mud polluting the water that made it undrinkable). Frogs, lice, boils, pestilence, darkness and the rest were natural phenomena but they occurred miraculously when they were needed. In other words, the Old Testament miracles are not unnatural or out-of-this world events but simply the timing was right. Ergo miracles are timing of events and not a man walking on water or bringing the dead back to life.

The Jewish people really have nothing against Christianity or any of its denominations. The proselitization or evangelizing of the Jewish people which is the most offensive. Many Christians do not participate in this activity as they understand that everyone has a right to believe in G-d in their own way.

The Jewish people do not want to be saved but simply to lead a life as close to the one that G-d has commanded them to lead. The attempt to convert young Jews to a foreign religion when they are not aware of their own is considered an abomination to the G-d of Israel. And any who participate in the theft of Jewish souls will ultimately have to answer to the G-d of Israel.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Yet you have to keep trying, and fail miserably at proving me wrong.

Oh really, I thought it was you who continues the attempt to prove yourself and your entity to be the one, the only, the true god. So far you have failed miserably. You have failed to document anything except your own beliefs.

Really? Prove it. -And try NOT using Jack Daniels to do it.

Why does the obvious need to be proved? Repeating the two eon plus atrocities against the Jewish people by those of also-gods who know that as long as the Jewish people exist their own diety is invalid. How can you prove the sea is wet?

Would you then accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

For me to accept a man made god would be as possible as you giving up being saved by the shed blood of Jesus. You bring the resurected living Jesus Christ of Nazareth to my door (not his bones) and Ill be surprised.

Interesting.....so he was the one who prophesied Jesus from the Old Testament too then?

Actually Paul of Tarsus did not prophecy the coming of anyone, he only created the story of a man-god who was born by a god-woman conception, died for man's sins and rose again. This tale of Paul's ideation was not a new first time religion. So far the only Old Testament prophecy of a Messiah remains a prophecy and has not happened a first, second or third time AS YET.....

Wow. That's pretty cool.

Yea, wow, that's pretty cool all right. From another one of those who crucified the Jewish people to prove that their own god was real, you would find scourging, piercing and crucifying the Jewish people real cool.

Lemme see if I can find a Geocities website to find truth too.

Unfortunately your Bert and Sesame Street is not a working site. Just like your denial of reality and that there may just be some TRUTH to the original ONE and ONLY G-d who created you too.

But then again you would have to give up your idea that a man dying on a cross has saved you from your sins both past and future. Your own responsibilty for your sins shouldn't even be considered until you will have to answer for them.

:baby4:

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by Walwor



Ahhhhh!! Now we come to it. So you believe the miracles of the Bible were natural events? Interesting. And the sun did not stand still in the sky but this was a metaphor but not a parable, you say. Uh huh. There is room here for me to slam you, and I do not wish to do so, but read this, from the Bible you believe in, the Torah, Exodus 14:21, "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided." Is Exodus the word of G-d or is it an invention of man? It doesn't say the sea parted itself as it does from time to time (how that would allow an entire nation to cross a sea, I don't know), it says The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind ALL THAT NIGHT. If this verse doesn't mean what it says, then what other verses of the Old Testament also don't mean what they say? Is it written in "invisible flax," or whatever you said about the Gospels? Don't mistake me, I believe in those miracles, but it is on you now to defend your own beliefs, I have defended mine.

Another of those natural events that happened at a time when the Hebrew people were wandering in the desert for some 40 years. The desert can't usually feed hundreds of thousands of people for 40 years. So G-d caused manna to appear which they ate and lived.

Manna is a known natural phenomenon in the Sinai Penin-sula to this day. As Werner Keller records in his book 'The Bible as History', "In good years, the Bedouins of Sinai have been known to collect up to 4 lb per head in a morning - enough to satisfy a grown man's hunger." ('The Bible as History', Hodder & Stoughton, p. 31)

That is not to say that there is no miraculous element at all in the Exodus narrative; there is. The natural occurrence of manna in the Sinai region, even today, can by no means explain how its supply in those days so exactly matched the needs of so large an assembly, nor can it explain how the manna fell in six-day cycles so regularly for forty years. That happened by the word of the L-rd.

Interesting miracle......

 

[walwor]

Walwor the problem I am having with newer and newer versions of previous versions to explain things never known before. Do you consider all the versions of the New Testament to be as valid as each other even though the newer versions sometimes contradict an older version?.

None of that changes the boundaries of the parable. I'm afraid this is getting to be like a stalemated game of chess where neither of us is willing to give even the slightest bit of ground, and that is not conducive to a genuine debate of issues. I have an answer for you, and you have an answer for me. You make the following claim:

The Jewish people really have nothing against Christianity or any of its denominations. The proselitization or evangelizing of the Jewish people which is the most offensive. Many Christians do not participate in this activity as they understand that everyone has a right to believe in G-d in their own way.

Perhaps I have missed something, not having tried to find every post you have ever written, but I have seen several instances where you have started a thread trying to prove the Gospels as contradictory and written in "invisible flax" or whatever that was that you said, and now you are claiming that really you just want to be left alone. The truth is you obviously enjoy the whole debate. But I just can't continue arguing in circles with someone who doesn't see where a parable begins and ends, which is the only reason I got into this discussion. May the G-d of Israel show you all truth, and I add "in Jesus' name" because that's what I believe and how I pray.