Who said Gd is irrelevant? I said the gospels are irrelevant for dedicated Jews.Gods view counts 100% in the end.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who said Gd is irrelevant? I said the gospels are irrelevant for dedicated Jews.Gods view counts 100% in the end.
You do. I'm not political. Feel free to prove me wrong with actual evidence from my posting record.No I don't
So Christians should believe as Jewish people do to not be idolaters?Vague my ass. You are an idolator. Your church teaches that defying the first command is the way to eternal life. THIS IS A LIE. Scripture teaches that your vile and degrading practice of defiance celebrating the death of Jesus as a mangod and eating him in the form of a matzo for spiritual life results in death, hades, and unless you repent, permanent destruction. Its in the Bible so I believe
This is not a game. You died in the very day you first got down on your knees, decades ago, in the deranged adoration of a matzo made by human hands that you eat for spiritual life (derp) where you remain separated from God, tormented day and night by "demons" and actual reality which contradicts your delusional "beliefs" like a raging consuming fire that will never ever go out.
That right there is the truth. It couldn't be more clear unless you are having a mental malfunction, so if there remains something vague about what I said, just say so and I'll be happy to say it again.
Affectionately yours,
Secular Jesus
According to Judaism?This is not a game. You died in the very day you first got down on your knees, decades ago, in the deranged adoration of a matzo made by human hands
I doubt that guy is Jewish. I don’t even know what he means by worshipping a matzah.According to Judaism?
If your goal is to make Jewish people look bad, you are doing a wonderful job.
He's talking about the Catholic Eucharist. He seems to think Catholics don't worship God, that they worship a piece of unleavened bread. What's worse to him, is that Catholic belief/faith is that Christ is present in the Eucharist.I doubt that guy is Jewish. I don’t even know what he means by worshipping a matzah.
That would be like a Catholic mocking me as worshipping matzah on Passover: it’s not the product itself but what it represents that we include it in our Seder.He's talking about the Catholic Eucharist. He seems to think Catholics don't worship God, that they worship a piece of unleavened bread. What's worse to him, is that Catholic belief/faith is that Christ is present in the Eucharist.
For someone who holds no belief that Jesus is One with God, this is an extremely hard teaching. It was in Jesus' time and it still is today--even among some Christian denominations.
Because of manna sent by God and the bread of the presence in the Ark and later in the Temple, to me it seems odd he can't grasp the teaching of God's presence and care--even for someone who has no belief in Jesus. In any case he loathes the idea and all those who are practicing, believing Catholics.
I believe (though I speak with no authority) that it is called a wafer.That would be like a Catholic mocking me as worshipping matzah on Passover: it’s not the product itself but what it represents that we include it in our Seder.
Same for Catholics with the cracker at services. (Just curious: do you have another word other than cracker? I thought Eucharist was the process of taking the cracker, not the cracker itself.) Do you actually call it matzah, as that poster implied?
Wafer (as rosends noted) or host.That would be like a Catholic mocking me as worshipping matzah on Passover: it’s not the product itself but what it represents that we include it in our Seder.
Same for Catholics with the cracker at services. (Just curious: do you have another word other than cracker? I thought Eucharist was the process of taking the cracker, not the cracker itself.) Do you actually call it matzah, as that poster implied?
You're either intentionally or unintentionally butchering that verse.
First of all, if you're talking about John 18:36, what Jesus actually said was "My kingdom is not of this world" - which obviously is true, but here's where you're getting things all wrong...
Just because Jesus' Kingdom has not yet come (in a physical, literal way) to this earth doesn't mean that we're supposed to throw our hands up in the air and say "It's not time yet for God's Kingdom so I'm going to do whatever the hell I want!"
No. Jesus teaches the exact opposite of that!
Here's an important and pertinent scripture that completely contradicts your world-focused perspective. The bold and underline is mine, because you keep missing it.
Jesus taught us to pray for the following:
"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."- Matthew 6:10
That verse teaches us to have an eternal (as opposed to worldly) perspective. And it means He wants us to manifest God's Kingdom in our lives and in this world. Not put it off til later while living just like this fallen world lives. Did you forget the parable of the Ten Virgins? It clearly teaches being READY for God's Kingdom, as opposed to being unprepared like the foolish virgins in that parable.
I'm not going to go through all your misused, handpicked verses that have nothing to do with the point.
The point of my previous post - that you completely missed - stands. It is not God's perfect will. And it's unnecessary. If it WAS necessary, then you would have a point. But it's not.
And since it's off topic, I'm not going to go round in circles with you again, since as I just mentioned, we have been over this many times before. But I had to reply to your misuse of John 18:36 and your complete opposition to what Jesus taught us in the Lord's prayer - to want God's will to be done and Kingdom to come on earth as it is in Heaven.
Meat eating must be a special problem to you, that you judge others so harshly as if to say 'those who eat meat have total disregard for God and do whatever the hell they want.'You're either intentionally or unintentionally butchering that verse.
First of all, if you're talking about John 18:36, what Jesus actually said was "My kingdom is not of this world" - which obviously is true, but here's where you're getting things all wrong...
Just because Jesus' Kingdom has not yet come (in a physical, literal way) to this earth doesn't mean that we're supposed to throw our hands up in the air and say "It's not time yet for God's Kingdom so I'm going to do whatever the hell I want!"
No. Jesus teaches the exact opposite of that!
Here's an important and pertinent scripture that completely contradicts your world-focused perspective. The bold and underline is mine, because you keep missing it.
Jesus taught us to pray for the following:
"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."- Matthew 6:10
That verse teaches us to have an eternal (as opposed to worldly) perspective. And it means He wants us to manifest God's Kingdom in our lives and in this world. Not put it off til later while living just like this fallen world lives. Did you forget the parable of the Ten Virgins? It clearly teaches being READY for God's Kingdom, as opposed to being unprepared like the foolish virgins in that parable.
I'm not going to go through all your misused, handpicked verses that have nothing to do with the point.
The point of my previous post - that you completely missed - stands. It is not God's perfect will. And it's unnecessary. If it WAS necessary, then you would have a point. But it's not.
And since it's off topic, I'm not going to go round in circles with you again, since as I just mentioned, we have been over this many times before. But I had to reply to your misuse of John 18:36 and your complete opposition to what Jesus taught us in the Lord's prayer - to want God's will to be done and Kingdom to come on earth as it is in Heaven.
My interest in Charlemagne is Biblical. I believe he was a type, if not the actual, white horse(man) of the apocalypse, as well as the "flood" sent by the dragon to destroy the fledgling church in Europe (Revelation 12).Woodznutz
By the way: What is your problem if Charlesmagne really gave the order to execute 4000 Saxons about 1200-1300 years ago -
I didn't invent the notion of "archetype". As soon as a talking serpent was introduced in the fairy tale it was the author using well known and universal tradition of every nation and language to compare other people to lower beasts to teach children lessons to ether praise or insult ever since people could talk.why invent this notion of "archetype"?
Thats was me. Pay attention!who says they represent anything?
Right. And a talking serpent is a classification of what type of animal if not the human sort? What about talking donkeys, bottom feeders, teeming vermin who go down on all fours, vultures etc., These are universal metaphors for human archetypes in the vernacular of every language.They are a classification of animal.
The theme is the described animals represent human archetypes which most people who ever read a fairy tale with talking animals to teach children understand that those animals from angels to demons to every creature in-between accurately depict the heights and depths of human potential.what "theme"?
If a person sins the death consequent, the effect of the cause of sin, cannot be avoided by killing a goat. The entire 'belief' is as irrational as the believing the "sacrificial" murder of Jesus can in a mysterious way pay the price for everyone else sins, as long as they worship a trinity and eat him.what are you talking about? What "cause and effect"?
Ritual slaughter is about eating hamburgers.

God also commanded Moses to make a bronze statue for people to turn to for healing during the time of testing in the wilderness which ended up in hundreds of years of peaceful idolatrous prosperity. When Hezekiah was credited for keeping the commands and doing what is right in Gods eyes by destroying the statue then it was never right to turn to it for healing. It seems that God likes to test people who think they can get over on him. Its really sad because it always ends up with thousands of years of hell on earth. Don't make the mistake that monetary prosperity is a blessing especially if the wealth is gained by religious deceit and hoarded by demons and ghouls.What hint? God commanded us to build it, so we did, and there were many years of peace and prosperity.
The sin was building with your hands a fancy slaughter house to sacrifice farm animals. DUH!But then we sinned, so the temples were destroyed. The hint we take is "stop sinning."
Exactly. So. After thousands of years of failing to understand the teaching of the law you might want to consider the remote possibility that you are doing things the wrong way especially since you can't seem to escape the punishment for sinfulness which includes your blindness to the simple truth Jesus lived and died trying to teach you about kashrut - is about what goes into your mind and out of your mouth that defiles, not what goes into your mouth and out of your ass.and we would be punished for sinfulness. So?
He speaks not about the gospel - which is not anti-Semitic at all as far as I know. He speaks about the first letter of John. Different persons as far as I heard. In the gospel of John 2/22 is written they believed in the scripture (Jewish) and in Jesus (Christian).
-----
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
-----
-----
According to Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and anyone who read the book whatever they believe.According to Judaism?
that is your choice of interpretation. It isn't inherent to the text, just to your interpretive schema.I didn't invent the notion of "archetype". As soon as a talking serpent was introduced in the fairy tale it was the authors using well known and universal tradition of every nation and language to compare other people to lower beasts to teach children lessons to ether praise or insult ever since people could talk.
exactly my point. Why would your opinion matter?Thats was me. Pay attention!
if you need to find it as a type then whatever you decide will have to work for you.Right. And a talking serpent is a classification of what type of animal if not the human sort?
they are also actual things. Why jump over that and assume they have another value?What about talking donkeys, bottom feeders, teeming vermin who go down on all fours, vultures etc., These are universal metaphors for human archetypes in the vernacular of every language.
well, as you are inventing it, why would you expect that anyone else would know it?Am I telling you something that you don't already know?
So you mean the theme you read into the text. Since I'm not reading fairy tales, your interpretations are pretty useless.The theme is the described animals represent human archetypes which most people who ever read a fairy tale with talking animals to teach children understand that those animals from angels to demons to every creature in-between accurately depict the heights and depths of human potential.
who said it is?If a person sins the death consequent, the effect of the cause of sin, cannot be avoided by killing a goat.
I don't recall saying that. I guess that's another of your interpretations and archetype thingies.Sure, people can eat their way into righteousness as long as its not a cheeseburger?
your fantasy world is impacting your ability to assimilate fact in the real world.Are you really trying to sell that crap or are you just embarrassed and being facetious because of guilt?
there is substantial and ancient discussion of this. Am I telling you something you didn't already know?God also commanded Moses to make a bronze statue for people to turn to for healing during the time of testing in the wilderness which ended up in hundreds of years of peaceful idolatrous prosperity. When Hezekiah was credited for keeping the commands and doing what is right in Gods eyes by destroying the statue then it was never right to turn to it for healing.
That's more of your guess work and fanciful interpretation. You have decided that following God's commandments is sinful. Can't help you with that.The sin was building with your hands a fancy slaughter house to sacrifice farm animals. DUH!
who says anyone fails to understand. Sinning comes from a failure to follow. If one does not understand, then one's sinfulness is mitigated substantially.Exactly. So. After thousands of years of failing to understand the teaching of the law
No, it isn't. Jesus, if he said anything in this regard, was flat out wrong, at least as it applies to Jews.you might want to consider the remote possibility that you are doing things the wrong way especially since you can't seem to escape the punishment for sinfulness which includes your blindness to the simple truth Jesus lived and died trying to teach you. Kosher law is about what goes into your mind and out of your mouth that defiles, not what goes into your mouth and out of your ass.
that isn't written in any text I consider relevant. Feel free to follow whatever later writings you want. It means nothing to me.Anyway. As it is written; the light (the law) has come into the world but the darkness has never mastered it even as simple and as easy as it is to stand guard over the sanctity of your own mind
I'll pass on cannibalism, thanks.If not, eat my flesh, its pleasing to the eye and good to eat, and your sanity will be restored.
Ask Ding. He knows.I don’t even know what he means by worshipping a matzah.
Sure:Feel free to follow whatever later writings you want. It means nothing to me.
No, I have decided that following God commandments literally is not only sinful but stupid.You have decided that following God's commandments is sinful. Can't help you with that.
I'll pass on cannibalism, thanks.

That would be you. who is here trying to justify animal sacrifice as a way to expiate sin.who said it is?