Might as well make use of this space

[Fenris]

I'm not more correct. They apply to anyone who does Gods' will.

I do God's will. Does it apply to me?

God will decide if Paul Simon loved him.

Sam Cooke, actually. 

I'm just thanking God that his Messiah conquered all of our enemies. Some don't believe it.

That's because nothing visibly changed.

Deuteronomy 4  You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.

"You saw no form at Horeb, so don't worship anything that has a form" seems self explanatory to me.

I also believe we should only worship our Creator.

But you worship something with a form also.
 

...Yet you're saying that it's actually the gentiles who are right, and not the Jews...

I didn't write it. The Jews did lol.

Not "The Jews". We actually don't know who wrote the NT (and you refuse to discuss this) but even if it was some Jewish person, so what? Jews are entitled to be just as wrong as anyone else. I still find it a bizarre idea that one can conclude that it will be the Jews who are wrong at the end of history, and everyone else right.

The text says Rachels' children are no more

And it concludes by saying that she shouldn't worry because they will return to the land. How you can conclude it means anything other than what it explicitly says is beyond me. 

Apparently religious leaders of his day.

Perhaps a source?

None, but my point was if eating certain food would make someone unclean, why wait to prohibit it?

If marrying two sisters is wrong, why wait to prohibit it?

It's time to agree to disagree.

Rather than answer my questions, want to conclude the discussion. As you wish.

[journeyman]

I do God's will. Does it apply to me?

Absolutely. 😊

Sam Cooke, actually. 

Lol...right. What a voice he had.

That's because nothing visibly changed.

Well, he changed me life along with many others over the last 2000 years.

But you worship something with a form also.

I do believe God once visited mankind in human form. I know you don't believe that could happen.

Not "The Jews". We actually don't know who wrote the NT (and you refuse to discuss this) but even if it was some Jewish person, so what? Jews are entitled to be just as wrong as anyone else. I still find it a bizarre idea that one can conclude that it will be the Jews who are wrong at the end of history, and everyone else right.

I just have a better way to verify the integrity of the scriptures, instead of citing scholars who disagree with other scholars. I believe the Jews who knew Jesus were right.

And it concludes by saying that she shouldn't worry because they will return to the land. How you can conclude it means anything other than what it explicitly says is beyond me.

I don't think it means something else. I believe it includes the faithful dead.

Perhaps a source?

My source is the NT, which you reject, so why bother?

If marrying two sisters is wrong, why wait to prohibit it?

Right. When Jacob married Leah and Rachel, it wasn't against the law.

Rather than answer my questions, want to conclude the discussion. As you wish.

Fenris, I haven't ignored any of your questions. We just have different views on what Jesus did.

[hisleast]

Man I miss sentence by sentence quote responses. 

I really resonate with Fenris' opening post.  Back in my 30's when I hit the big old RESET button on my religious thinking, I went back and read the bible from start to finish.  I was well into the new testament before it hit me:  "wait, where is the OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE prophecies of Jesus".  Sure when verses were precision extracted from all over and placed in one document, a convincing case could be made... but reading each book like its own book gave a distinctly different impression.

Now, I'm not a smart dude, but I ain't dumb either.  The whole thing was confusing as a jello helmet. 

And the thing that kept bothering me in the years since.  Just WTAF does God expect of us?  I know I went to the bleeding edge of sanity and beyond trying to figure it out, and came up empty.   And in most denominations of most formal religions, that means an eternity of torture.

[Athanasius]

Man I miss sentence by sentence quote responses. 

Who wouldn't? As for journeyman, I don't think he's posted since that time I temporarily banned him for calling me deceived by Satan, and then I called him naive.

[Fenris]

I was well into the new testament before it hit me:  "wait, where is the OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE prophecies of Jesus".

I mean, there are reasons that the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah. Perhaps you see them now.

I've been here a long time and listened with interest to the proof texts, but did not find them convincing. And it's not, as some would say, because I'm "wicked" or perhaps "brainwashed by the rabbis." It's simply because the plain text does not support the contention.

That doesn't mean that Christians are bad (I love you guys!) and it doesn't even mean that Christianity was not sent by God; because Christianity has been a fantastic movement to civilize the world!

It just means that I don't think that it is the truth.

[RandyPNW]

I really resonate with Fenris' opening post.  Back in my 30's when I hit the big old RESET button on my religious thinking, I went back and read the bible from start to finish.  I was well into the new testament before it hit me:  "wait, where is the OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE prophecies of Jesus".

There is something to that perhaps. Some Christians, like myself, find loads of "proofs" for Jesus being the Messiah in the Bible. In fact, the NT Scriptures were written, in part, to prove this!

You can't read the Gospels without seeing that the Gospel authors cited the OT Scriptures as proof texts for Jesus being the Messiah! It was an attempt to convince the Jews that their own Scriptures supported the conclusion that Jesus had come to fulfill the prophecies of Messiah.

However, the prophecies are indeed delivered, for the Christian, in a subtle way. Often, the prophecies of Messiah were provided in typologies or foreshadowings, such as in the character of a patriarch, saintly king, or prophet. You had to sort of look through these old saints of God to see characteristics of the coming Messiah.

The greatest proof, according to Paul, was spiritual and a matter of discerning righteousness from God. If one could, as a Jew, discern righteousness in the Law, it should be equally recognized that Jesus operated in the same righteous spirit.

It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant." Otherwise, a change in the covenant would look like direct rebellion against God.

There were many prohibitions for the Jew against changing or even obscuring the laws of God as given under the Law. Any change had to be clear. And as I've said, the clarity with which one sees in Jesus God's righteousness is the degree to which he can, with certainty, accept a change into the New Testament.

As a Christian, though, faith is based on reason, and not on the obscurity of references to the Jewish Messiah. Jesus' works had to look both lawful and spiritual in order to accept his termination of the OT legal system.

[Fenris]

It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant."

Yes. Or to put it more directly, the "proofs" are only "obvious" after once accepts the NT as holy writ. If one doesn't already believe that Jesus is the messiah, the proofs are not proofs at all.

Which is why, historically, Christianity was much more compelling to gentiles than to Jews. It's easier to sell Jesus as the messiah by introducing the NT first.

[ProDeo]

It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant."

Yes. Or to put it more directly, the "proofs" are only "obvious" after once accepts the NT as holy writ. If one doesn't already believe that Jesus is the messiah, the proofs are not proofs at all.

Which is why, historically, Christianity was much more compelling to gentiles than to Jews. It's easier to sell Jesus as the messiah by introducing the NT first.

Really? 

The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself.

[Q] - why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep?

[Fenris]

Really? 

The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself.

Interesting that such an important and fundamental concept as eternal damnation wouldn't be introduced until a thousand years and more after Sinai.

[Q] - why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep?

The law can be kept. Observant Jews today follow the law.

[ProDeo]

Really? 

The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself.

Interesting that such an important and fundamental concept as eternal damnation wouldn't be introduced until a thousand years and more after Sinai.

Well, I am not going to argue about God's timing of revelation.

Besides the concept of eternal damnation is also adapted by Rabbi's.

whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12446-purgatory

[Q] - why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep?

The law can be kept. Observant Jews today follow the law.

Willing to follow is not the same as never breaking the Law. No one ever lived was able to keep the Law, that was my point. So my question remains.

[Fenris]

Well, I am not going to argue about God's timing of revelation.

I would, though. I mean, God makes this great covenant with an entire nation and fails to mentioned what seems to be a pretty important point  for over a thousand years?

Besides the concept of eternal damnation is also adapted by Rabbi's.

whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).

Then why did you say this?

"The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself."

Willing to follow is not the same as never breaking the Law. No one ever lived was able to keep the Law, that was my point. So my question remains.

Oh. Well, that's a different point. So your new question becomes "Why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep perfectly?

So allow me to ask a question in return. [Q] Where does it say that God expected anyone to keep the law perfectly?

[RandyPNW]

It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant."

Yes. Or to put it more directly, the "proofs" are only "obvious" after once accepts the NT as holy writ. If one doesn't already believe that Jesus is the messiah, the proofs are not proofs at all.

Which is why, historically, Christianity was much more compelling to gentiles than to Jews. It's easier to sell Jesus as the messiah by introducing the NT first.

I really don't care for the way you frame that, as if Jews are logically opposed to a false claim of Messiahship and non-Jews are gullible "believers" in something that has no valid evidence amid support for the Messianic claim. But I suppose that is the whole difference between our religions?

I probably am distasteful to you when I insinuate that your loyalty to your ethnicity is greater than any interest in "Christian logic?"

I wouldn't at all say that you buy into something *before* any real evidence appeals to the conscience. To appeal to the conscience properly there must be reason.

So it isn't just holy writ that is "believed in," but more, holy writ that is both written in a reasonable way and then experienced as such, validating what is written with what is experienced and justified as authentic righteousness.

But before faith the NT must of course come first. And that's because unless there had been some kind of progressive development beyond the demise of Israel in Jesus' generation, there would be nothing to hope for with respect to the hope of Israel's final salvation.

In the time of the Babylonian Fall, Jeremiah was given the 70 years of hope for Israel's restoration. And in the time of Roman occupation we Christians believe that Israel was given the hope of Messianic salvation. We just differ from the Jews in believing that Jesus was that Messiah, and had to suffer first before coming back and judging the world.

A lot of Christians don't appear to realize it, but the eschatological judgment of the world was framed in the context of Israel's salvation from Gentile oppression. It is, however, expanded in the NT to include Christians among the nations who equally suffer the oppression of pagan systems.

[Fenris]

I really don't care for the way you frame that,

I really don't care how you feel about it. This is the "Non Christian Perspective" part of the forum and I can say as I please.

as if Jews are logically opposed to a false claim of Messiahship and non-Jews are gullible "believers" in something that has no valid evidence amid support for the Messianic claim.

Yes. That's a good way of putting it.

I probably am distasteful to you when I insinuate that your loyalty to your ethnicity is greater than any interest in "Christian logic?"

I'm loyal to the bible and it's plain text. I don't find Christianity to be especially logical.

I wouldn't at all say that you buy into something *before* any real evidence appeals to the conscience. To appeal to the conscience properly there must be reason.

Sure, but a reason doesn't have to be logic. The reason could be emotional.

So it isn't just holy writ that is "believed in," but more, holy writ that is both written in a reasonable way and then experienced as such, validating what is written with what is experienced and justified as authentic righteousness.

I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.

But before faith the NT must of course come first. And that's because unless there had been some kind of progressive development beyond the demise of Israel in Jesus' generation, there would be nothing to hope for with respect to the hope of Israel's final salvation.

The bible says it's going to happen so...I believe God's word?

In the time of the Babylonian Fall, Jeremiah was given the 70 years of hope for Israel's restoration. And in the time of Roman occupation we Christians believe that Israel was given the hope of Messianic salvation.

The bible promised Israel would have messianic salvation long before Jesus. And nothing that Jesus did or experienced covered any of that.

We just differ from the Jews in believing that Jesus was that Messiah, and had to suffer first before coming back and judging the world.

Jews don't believe that because it isn't in our bible. It was introduced in the NT. Which is, again, why its easier to believe in Jesus if one reads the NT first.

A lot of Christians don't appear to realize it, but the eschatological judgment of the world was framed in the context of Israel's salvation from Gentile oppression. It is, however, expanded in the NT to include Christians among the nations who equally suffer the oppression of pagan systems.

Yes, it was expanded in the NT. But also not really. The bible promises world peace and universal knowledge of God in the messianic era. A world united under God's rule. This comes from my bible, not yours. From my perspective this really makes Jesus unnecessary.

[RandyPNW]

I really don't care for the way you frame that,

I really don't care how you feel about it. This is the "Non Christian Perspective" part of the forum and I can say as I please.

Saying I don't care for the way you frame something is not the equivalent of denying you the right to respond! I'm simply commenting on how I feel about the way you position the Christian position, in comparison with how you see the Jewish position. I'm disagreeing with how you describe the Christian position, and I'm trying to explain why.

as if Jews are logically opposed to a false claim of Messiahship and non-Jews are gullible "believers" in something that has no valid evidence amid support for the Messianic claim.

Yes. That's a good way of putting it.

Yes, that's why I disagree with how you describe the Christian position, as if Christians are "gullible," whereas Jews are not. The Messianic claims Jesus made are both relevant and valid inasmuch as you can see in the NT accounts that Jews considered him a possible Messianic candidate. And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews.

Furthermore, these believing Jews did not convert to a non-Jewish religion. They, as Jews, founded this religion, simply by accepting Jesus' claim of Messiahship. It was the claim that he actually was fulfilling Jewish prophecy. Usually the argument is made that he did not fulfill *all* of the Messianic prophecies, which of course is based on the assumption that he could not have risen from the dead to fulfill the rest of the prophecies.

I'm loyal to the bible and it's plain text. I don't find Christianity to be especially logical.

Obviously not. Jewish bias or independent judgment?

I wouldn't at all say that you buy into something *before* any real evidence appeals to the conscience. To appeal to the conscience properly there must be reason.

Sure, but a reason doesn't have to be logic. The reason could be emotional.

That's not the kind of "reason" I'm appealing to for Christian convictions. Emotionalism is sometimes the opposite of Reason.

So it isn't just holy writ that is "believed in," but more, holy writ that is both written in a reasonable way and then experienced as such, validating what is written with what is experienced and justified as authentic righteousness.

I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.

Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah, which must precede our acceptance, as Christians, of his messiah-hood. So we consider the NT claims that he fulfilled the role of Messiah. These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies.

Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King. We experience his purity of heart, his purity of thought, and  the legitimacy of his arguments that things have to be dealt with in the very real conditions that existed, including Jewish prevalence to sin at the time. It was an existential reality that enabled these Jews to accept not just Jesus' claims, but also the reality of the conditions that he was addressing.

Jews don't believe that because it isn't in our bible. It was introduced in the NT. Which is, again, why its easier to believe in Jesus if one reads the NT first.

You have to read the history or hear about it if you're going to decide if you want to buy into it. Our NT Bible quotes the Jewish Bible and claims to reasonably explain it in a progressive way, just as the Jewish Bible itself looked forward to Messianic Salvation for the nation.

A lot of Christians don't appear to realize it, but the eschatological judgment of the world was framed in the context of Israel's salvation from Gentile oppression. It is, however, expanded in the NT to include Christians among the nations who equally suffer the oppression of pagan systems.

Yes, it was expanded in the NT. But also not really. The bible promises world peace and universal knowledge of God in the messianic era. A world united under God's rule. This comes from my bible, not yours. From my perspective this really makes Jesus unnecessary.

No, that doesn't adequately express the hope for world peace mentioned in the NT Scriptures. The only eschatological/apocalyptic book in the NT Bible is Revelation, which is a compilation of older Jewish prophetic allusions to fulfillment in the Messianic Kingdom. The "world peace" you speak of narrowly applies in the process of subjugating nations that are rebellious in nature. The blessing it bestows upon the world is not so much the absence of war as the experience of Messianic spirituality and favor.

[ProDeo]

Well, I am not going to argue about God's timing of revelation.

I would, though. I mean, God makes this great covenant with an entire nation and fails to mentioned what seems to be a pretty important point  for over a thousand years?

But at the time of Jesus God had stopped sending prophets to Israel for how many centuries? Does that not ring an alarm bell?

Besides the concept of eternal damnation is also adapted by Rabbi's.

whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).

Then why did you say this?

"The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself."

Because you said that Christianity was much more compelling 

Hell isn't very compelling.

Willing to follow is not the same as never breaking the Law. No one ever lived was able to keep the Law, that was my point. So my question remains.

Oh. Well, that's a different point. So your new question becomes "Why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep perfectly?

And the answer is ?

So allow me to ask a question in return. [Q] Where does it say that God expected anyone to keep the law perfectly?

Leviticus 11:44 - For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 11:45 - For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.’”
Leviticus 19:2 - Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.
Leviticus 20:26 - Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.
Leviticus 20:7 - You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the Lord your God.