Jews

[Anonymous]

Felgar, thanks for answering.

The faith of Christianity does not collapse if Jesus was not born to a virgin. Surely, the idea of virgin births was not a new concept in Jesus's time and the gospel of Luke makes it seem as it was so to give Jesus divinity. It doesn't make sense as to why Jesus's geneology would be repeated several times in the NT.

I will give you an example of a small error. The bible describes of wise men bringing frankincense, myhrr, and gold as gifts to the baby Jesus. What more to offer a Hebrew messiah, they did not know since these gifts were not even in Hebrew character as a gift to a newborn infant, but rather Arabian.

Just as we can say that in Isaiah, "virgin" which means "young woman" in Hebrew was translated to mean "virgin" by the Greek translators so that Christianity was popular to ancient religions. Surely it was easier to make Jesus God so that it was easier to convert the pagans.

However, the idea of original sin is biblical, sure. For when God cursed a person, he usually did so by cursing generations after the person who committed the first sin. If we go by this logic, we are saying that God is a cursing God, and smites people. But the God I know wants to fill the spirit with his divine love. It is this same love that Jesus got, I believe. And it is this same love that he wanted to continue preaching. I don't get why people want to continue preaching of a God that is contrary to this. When Jesus says that no one comes to the father except through him, I believed him to say that you can't get to the father without receiving this love from God (the holy spirit) within you. If ALL religions would think this way, the world would be peaceful. We know that Jesus said that his kingdom wasn't of this earth. Well then he knew that we had to fill our souls with love, since that was all he taught...

[Kurieuo]

Jesus was the messiah that was supposed to come. True. Except his words and actions have been misinterpreted, as has the OT and NT. For surely you don't think that Jesus was an actual birth like Mithra who was supposedly also born of a virgin. These were things thought of at the times. The dieties or gods had sex with vistile virgins and from there came a God-man who was later chopped into pieces and on the third day ascended to the heavens. Jesus's father is time and time again mentioned in the NT as being Joseph, who was from the line of David. Jewishness is through the father, not the mother as rabbis teach (non-biblical). Jesus came to teach of how to be at one with the Father. He always mentioned "My father sent me", "My father how sent me", etc. I could give many instances where the OT and NT are wrongly interpreted and I hope that I can shed some light.

No, I don't think Jesus was an actual virgin birth is the same manner as Mithra. For one Mithra was supposedly born from solid rock! I suppose rocks doen't necessarily have intercourse, thus the rock could perhaps be classified as a virgin.

To quote J.P. Holding:

First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this!

Did The Mithraic Mysteries Influence Christianity?
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Felgar, thanks for answering.

The faith of Christianity does not collapse if Jesus was not born to a virgin. Surely, the idea of virgin births was not a new concept in Jesus's time and the gospel of Luke makes it seem as it was so to give Jesus divinity. It doesn't make sense as to why Jesus's geneology would be repeated several times in the NT.

If Jesus wasn't a virgin birth, then Jesus was not God coming to reunite humanity to Himself. Rather He would be a man like any other man, and deluded by thinking He was God being able to forgive sins.

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

Felgar, thanks for answering.

The faith of Christianity does not collapse if Jesus was not born to a virgin. Surely, the idea of virgin births was not a new concept in Jesus's time and the gospel of Luke makes it seem as it was so to give Jesus divinity. It doesn't make sense as to why Jesus's geneology would be repeated several times in the NT.

If Jesus wasn't a virgin birth, then Jesus was not God coming to reunite humanity to Himself. Rather He would be a man like any other man, and deluded by thinking He was God being able to forgive sins.

Kurieuo.

Not necessarily. After all, God is a spirit, and Jesus was both man(the body) and God(the spirit residing in the body). Whether God intervened to create the body, or it was created in a normal way and God used His own spirit rather than make a new one for the child would not really matter as Jesus would still be God. However, I see no reason not to believe it WAS a virgin birth since it wouldn't be the first time it occurs in nature. Hell, I think there are rare cases where it occurs in humans.

[Felgar]

The faith of Christianity does not collapse if Jesus was not born to a virgin.

Only in attaining righteousness could we ever be with the Father eternally, and this is why no one comes to the Father but through Him. Jesus, being completely sinnless, is the only one who could have the ability to confer that righteousness onto us - for we could never attain it ourselves. Were Jesus a sinner, His death would pay for nothing, would redeem nothing, and righteousness would not be His to give. He had to be born and live sinnless; it's the only possible way it can work.

And although the concept of a virgin birth may not be unique... The concept of an almighty God being manifest in man only to die for the freely given - yet not earned - redemption of all mankind IS certainly one-of-a-kind...

[Anonymous]

I am not against the notion that Jesus was the messiah. I believe this with all my heart. But I just wanted to make it clear that the gospels aren't always what they seem to be.

Here's a good one....

Kurieuo: Text removed - see http://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish2.html (please reference material!)

[Felgar]

I'm not going to argue the specifics of what you said... And in general you are right, that the entire Bible including the gospels are open to interpretation of the sort you have just provided.

However, being misinterpretted and being corrupted by the original authors are 2 different things. You started by saying how the authors infused common myth into their accounts, thereby tainting the truth. What I am stating to you is that the Bible is the Word of God and IS therefore truth, despite the fact that our understanding of it may be suspect. What this means is that you can very easily argue that Jesus was born in a house and not a stable... But you cannot argue whether Jesus was sinnless, born of a virgin so as not to be born into sin, died for our transgressions, rose again to conquer death and give all eternal life, and most importantly that through Jesus' sacrifice we who have faith are given the gift of righteousness and salvation. If you start cannot believe the latter statements, then there is nothing left on which to put faith - the entire religion will crumble as you've undermined its very foundation.

[Kurieuo]

Most people understand that to get into the details, you should compare multiple translations, look up Strongs, or the original language. This does not mean the Gospels can't be trusted. While you may find certain descreprencies, just about every translation (if not every) are clear and accurate on the main things.

Kurieuo.

[OneFishRedFish]

Where does it say that the promises God made to the Jewish people were temporary and would be revoked at a later date because they were outdated?

Also, the concept of "chosen" does not mean "special".

"Chosen" to a Jew simply means that they were chosen to "receive" the Torah. When all other nations did not accept, the Jews did accept the Torah and all of its commandments. All 613 positive and negative commands.

It does not mean that they are loved more, or paid more attention by God, or that they are a nation which cannot change. It does mean however that they are bound to keep all of the laws of the Torah, and those laws are not changed, with exception of the laws pertaining to sacrifice at the Temple because the Temple is yet to be rebuilt.

[Strix]

Where does it say that the promises God made to the Jewish people were temporary and would be revoked at a later date because they were outdated?

You might read Galatians 3:16-29 (cross-reference Exodus 12:40 with verse 17).

You might also read Hebrews 8 & 9.
8:7 states "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second."
8:13 states 'When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete...' The first covenant was between God and the Hebrews as a spiritual as well as a political nation; two separate things. The new covenant does not discount the Jewish people, but embraces them if they will accept the teachings of Christ (Heb. 9:15; Galatians 3:23,24). Look at all of the Jews who were there, and a good many of which were saved, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9-11). It is no longer about Jew vs. Gentile - 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patent toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (Romans 2:9-11; 3:29)

As to the temple being rebuilt, please see the following:
1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19


Proverbs 2:6

[OneFishRedFish]

No, I'm not talking about justification using the New Testament text. I am talking about where is it in the Old Testament that says that God's convenant changes and is replaced?

The first covenant was with Abraham.

The second covenant was the convenant at Sinai.

Both are still active.

[Strix]

Forgive me if I misunderstand your question. Let me take another stab at it...

I think it is clear the old Sinaic law is no longer in effect, even from the Old Testament. Remember, the Old Testament was the Scripture that the Apostles used to teach Jesus:

Psalm 110:1-7
Is this Moses the Psalmist is writing about? The scepter will stretch forth from Zion (vs. 2), not Sinai. Interestingly, Hebrews 12:18-24 plays on the contrast of Sinai and Zion.

Psalm 40:6-8
Sacrifice and offerings are not what the Lord desires. These are commands under the Law. What then has taken their place? Hebrews 10:4-10 answers.

But it is suddenly dawning on me that I must be missing something very important from a conceptual standpoint. Do you understand that the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses are both in effect simultaneously? If so, do you mean the Law of Moses governs the Jews and the Law of Christ governs the Gentiles? My question to this hypothetical assumption would be, how can two Laws be in effect simultaneously to govern one people (the people of God) (Mark 3:25)? If this is true, then those under the Old Law will never be truely free from their sins (Heb. 10:4 - You did allude to the fact that the laws concerning sacrifice are "on hold" pending the rebuilding of the temple).

I must seriously be missing something here... Can you expound a little on your position?

Proverbs 2:6

[OneFishRedFish]

The Psalms are song/poetry written by David... and the figurative language about sacrifices did not mean that they do not exist and that they were not relevent.

Yes, I think there are different covenants for Jews and Gentiles.

I think that the Jews are still held to the 1st covenant with Abrahama (re: circumcision) and the 2nd covenant at Sinai (Re: they are God's people who chose to receive the Torah from all the nations, and who are obligated to be an example)... and the Gentiles covenant is the one Jesus made whereby gentiles go through him to reach God/have sins forgiven.

If the Jews do not use the New Testament, I don't see how those who DO use the New Testament can wipe out a belief system that's several thousands of years older than Christianity.

Perhaps each belief has their separate covenants so to speak, which does not negate the others... but they remain mutually exclusive to the group it represents?

[Strix]

Thank you for the clarification. Very interesting perspective, which, I must admit, I haven't thought much about. If you don't mind, I would like to take one of your statements and draw it to conclusion:

Perhaps each belief has their separate covenants so to speak, which does not negate the others... but they remain mutually exclusive to the group it represents?

I'm going to assume that no matter Jews or Gentiles, you believe there is one true God behind each covenant.

Each belief has their separate covenants -
So we might say that Allah is just a depiction of (the one true) God for Islamists which they chose to recieve through Muhammad and his writings the Quran.

Vajradhara is simply the depicition of (the one true) God for Buddhists which they chose to recieve through Gautama Buddha (born Siddhartha) and his writings the Pali Canon.

Brama is simply the depicition of (the one true) God for Hindus (" Worship the God who is the origin of Four Vedas", 3rd Sutra, Chapter 1 of Vedanta Darshana) which they chose to recieve through the writings of the Rig Veda.

So each group has a mutually exclusive religion that represents it.

The problem we run into is that, though some of the tenants are the same, we come to different conclusions about mankind, reality, and the true nature of God. As an example, let's look at the Quran for a moment. Adam, Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Dawood (David), Yahya (John the Baptist), and Isa (Jesus) are a few of the familiar names you would recognize as you read through the text. But even though the Quran speaks of Jesus, it denounces Him as God (Surah 5:72-75). You stated perhaps they would be mutually exclusive but not negate one another.

So back to Jews and Gentiles and separate but equal covenants... Moses wrote about Jesus (Genesis 3:15b). Where is the fullfillment of this prophecy? If I were a Jew under the Mosaical covenant I would still be looking for this Messiah. That would negate the New Testament, because inherent in that viewpoint is Jesus is not the Messiah. Instead, it is fullfilled in the New Testament (]John 5:46). If Jesus came to fullfill the Law, then the Old Law is obsolete (Hebrews 7:11-12; 8:7-13).


I don't want this to become an exhaustive post, but one more observation:

If the Jews do not use the New Testament, I don't see how those who DO use the New Testament can wipe out a belief system that's several thousands of years older than Christianity.

If we are to judge a religion on the merits of its archaic quality, then we should all renounce Christianity and become Hindus. I am not an authority, but the Rig Veda is said to be the oldest book in Sanskrit or any Indo-European language. Its date is debatable, but many date it cerca 4000 B.C., perhaps as early as 12,000.

[OneFishRedFish]

I dont see a problem with allowing different religions to view God ni their own way.

Also,

Genesis 3:14: And God said to the serpant, "Because you have done this, accursed are you beyond all the cattle and beyond all beasts of the field; upon your belly you shall go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life."

Genesis 3:15: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel."

Genesis 3:16: To the woman He said: I will greatly increase your suffering and your child bearing; in pain shall you bear your children/ Yet your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"

I just wanted to post the verse before and after Genesis 15 to put everything in context.

From what I see here, this section deals with the conseuences that Satan and Eve have to live with. I don't see anything about Jesus here, and I also don't see why you brought this verse up?