Might as well make use of this space

[Fenris]

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.

Yes. You believe in a different religion than I do. And I believe in a different religion than you do.

Yes, that's why I disagree with how you describe the Christian position, as if Christians are "gullible," whereas Jews are not.

I'm not saying that Christians are somehow intellectually inferior to Jews. I'm saying that by reading the NT first, and being told that Jesus is the Jewish messiah first, it makes you less capable of examining the claims of Jesus's messiahship from an objective position.

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.

They also considered Bar Kochba a possible messiah candidate. And several others, some even named in the NT. But when they didn't deliver the goods (Jewish exiles returned to the land, a rebuilt temple, world peace and universal knowledge of God) it was understood that they were not, in fact, the promised messiah.

And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews.

We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where.

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.

Indeed. But as mentioned above, once he didn't deliver, they dropped away. Furthermore, they didn't stop following the law. The tension between Paul and Peter(?) shows that the early church hadn't sorted out all of the dogma between the Jewish-Christians and the gentile-Christians. In fact, major theological points would not be decided on until Nicea, some 300 years later! So to say that early Jewish believers of Jesus were in fact "Christian" in the modern parlance is most certainly incorrect.

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 actually don't believed that he fulfilled *any* prophecies.

Obviously not. Jewish bias or independent judgment?

Plain text of the bible.

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

Again, being told that Jesus is the promised messiah before even cracking the bible is not reason.

Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah,

He actually doesn't, at least not publicly. Anyway.

which must precede our acceptance, as Christians, of his messiah-hood. So we consider the NT claims that he fulfilled the role of Messiah.

No. You accept them. After he's already been accepted, you go into the Tanach and look for the proofs that you already believe to be true.

These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies.

No, we only have the NT's claim of this. Which again, was written by we don't know who.

Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King.

And people of other faiths don't have religious experiences? C'mon, man.

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,

It quotes the Jewish bible after it is already accepted the Jesus is the messiah. It's like having a court trial in which the defendant's guilt or innocence is determined before the trial begins. And once the decision is made, the jury looks over the evidence to "prove" their already determined verdict.

It is neither reason nor logic. It is...faith. And that's fine. Just don't pretend it's anything but.

just as the Jewish Bible itself looked forward to Messianic Salvation for the nation.

Which hasn't happened yet. So Jesus wasn't the messiah. See?

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.

Well, none of these things have yet occurred, so much for Jesus's messiahship. But the Jewish bible's promises of the messianic era for the entire world seem adequate enough for me.

Isaiah 2 is a perfect example.

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
 Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.

[Fenris]

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

I dunno, Christians haven't had prophets for 2000 years now. Muslims had a prophet more recent than that. Is the "newest revelation" automatically correct?

Hell isn't very compelling.

It's also really not mentioned in my bible because it isn't important to the topic.

And the answer is ?

And the answer is that God, having created us, knows that we are imperfect and doesn't expect us to follow the law perfectly. And that is why the concept of repentance and mercy exist.

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.

All this says is that God sanctifies Israel. It doesn't say anything about being perfect.

[ProDeo]

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

I dunno, Christians haven't had prophets for 2000 years now. Muslims had a prophet more recent than that. Is the "newest revelation" automatically correct?

The last prophet was Jesus. After centuries of absent God send Him to Israel. Among other things He also said - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

And the answer is that God, having created us, knows that we are imperfect and doesn't expect us to follow the law perfectly. And that is why the concept of repentance and mercy exist.

Or the answer is to learn that no one is (was) able to keep the Law (God's standard) except one, Jesus.

[Fenris]

The last prophet was Jesus.

Jews say the last prophet was Malachi. Muslims say the last prophet was Mohammed. Why is your statement any more or less credible?

Or the answer is to learn that no one is (was) able to keep the Law (God's standard) except one, Jesus.

Again. No place does the bible say that God expects anyone to keep the law perfectly.

And Jesus couldn't have kept the law perfectly. No one person can. Because the entire law doesn't apply to any one person. Some laws are only for priests. And some for non priests. Some only apply to kings. Some only apply to farmers. Some only apply to women.

See?

[RandyPNW]

I'm not saying that Christians are somehow intellectually inferior to Jews. I'm saying that by reading the NT first, and being told that Jesus is the Jewish messiah first, it makes you less capable of examining the claims of Jesus's messiahship from an objective position.

Yes, you're claiming Christians are driven by presumption, which is exactly how I'd categorize your own position, since you have a vested interest in the outcome of any examination. But as I was saying, it is not presumptuous to examine claims, which have to be made *before* examining them and then choosing to believe them.

And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews.

We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where.

I see...

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.

Indeed. But as mentioned above, once he didn't deliver, they dropped away. Furthermore, they didn't stop following the law. The tension between Paul and Peter(?) shows that the early church hadn't sorted out all of the dogma between the Jewish-Christians and the gentile-Christians. In fact, major theological points would not be decided on until Nicea, some 300 years later! So to say that early Jewish believers of Jesus were in fact "Christian" in the modern parlance is most certainly incorrect.

There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later. What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today!

I actually don't believed that he fulfilled *any* prophecies.

Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?

Have you even read the NT Gospels? They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.

Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder?

Again, being told that Jesus is the promised messiah before even cracking the bible is not reason.

Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults.

Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves.

Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah,

He actually doesn't, at least not publicly. Anyway.

Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

No. You accept them. After he's already been accepted, you go into the Tanach and look for the proofs that you already believe to be true.

No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying.

You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah?

These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies.

No, we only have the NT's claim of this. Which again, was written by we don't know who.

Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim.

Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King.

And people of other faiths don't have religious experiences? C'mon, man.

Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself! And the experience of God can be verified when we recognize the authentic marks of holiness, or righteousness. Love is a major element, as are characteristics like forgiveness, mercy, compassion, etc.

It quotes the Jewish bible after it is already accepted the Jesus is the messiah.

That just isn't true. Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively. There is often a sincere period of consideration of the claims of Jesus, with *lots* of skepticism and doubt, and the every present questions about the limits of human knowledge.

Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself.

Which hasn't happened yet. So Jesus wasn't the messiah. See?

From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see? For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world. The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries, which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.

[ProDeo]

The last prophet was Jesus.

Jews say the last prophet was Malachi. Muslims say the last prophet was Mohammed. Why is your statement any more or less credible?

Enough reasons.....

1. Jesus said - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Name one (so called) prophet who said that over himself and which came true. Secondly after all nations are reached (and Christianity is not far from that) the end will come and for that to happen the nation of Israel need to be on the map again as He (Jesus) will return in Jerusalem on mount Olivet.

2. God's timing sending Jesus. Around AD 30 Jesus predicted AD 70, the end of Israel as a nation.

3. The resurrection. All the apostles have seen the risen Jesus. They proclaimed the risen Jesus and died for that not willing to retract. Name one or two persons in history who died for a lie. There is a difference believing in a lie and knowing it is a lie. No one dies for a lie while knowing it is lie, only madman.

4. As you have said yourself, Judaism and Christianity (aside all their bad things) have changed the morals of the world, starting with the 10 commandments and Christian goodies. Except in tyrannies the courts in countries are based on justice and morals based on Jewish and Christian values. And even non-believers have embraced these values, the human-rights declaration of 1948 isn't a pure Christian thing.

Well, I could go on but you probably heard all the arguments a dozen of times. You are talking here with pretty intelligent people who are not easy to fool, have done their homework and have weighted the evidence. I mean, either Jesus resurrected else we are believing in a book full of lies.

Or the answer is to learn that no one is (was) able to keep the Law (God's standard) except one, Jesus.

Again. No place does the bible say that God expects anyone to keep the law perfectly.

And Jesus couldn't have kept the law perfectly. No one person can. Because the entire law doesn't apply to any one person. Some laws are only for priests. And some for non priests. Some only apply to kings. Some only apply to farmers. Some only apply to women.

See?

Jesus (in contradiction to us and as only one) lived a sinless life. The problem of Sin is such an issue we also disagree. Speaking for myself, In Eden A&E lived in the presence of the Lord, what happened as first thing when A&E sinned? They were expelled from the presence of the Lord for their own good as no sinner can see God and live, as Moses found out. So one act of disobedience / rebellion (by only 2 people we never met, we did not even take part in the disobedience / rebellion) caused this world we live in with all its horrors and finally we all will die at some point. That's pretty serious don't you think? Just one sin.

So as a Christian I take sin as the root of all problems. Without Genesis chapter 3 our Bible would be pretty thin. And what went wrong in Eden could be only restored by one person, the one able to lead a sinless life.

I know you don't believe in Jesus despite you have been reading the gospels, my compliments BTW. But as it is with unbelievers, those with some basic knowledge and an average IQ will never call themselves a 100% atheist, maybe 90% but never 100%, excluding a Creator (which is something else as a specific religion) for 100% is just stupidity. Applying this comparison do you believe you know for 100% sure the gospels and the message that came with it are untrue?

[Fenris]

Yes, you're claiming Christians are driven by presumption,

No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.

which is exactly how I'd categorize your own position, since you have a vested interest in the outcome of any examination.

I don't have a "vested interest" in anything. I'm not trying to convince anyone to convert to Judaism, because it is unnecessary in my view. Being a devout Christian is good enough, and being Jewish is very difficult. 

But as I was saying, it is not presumptuous to examine claims, which have to be made *before* examining them and then choosing to believe them.

You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."

I see...

This is not addressing my claim, which you have a habit of not doing. It isn't trivial. We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where. To claim that "it was written by Jews" and therefore I must accept it as evidence, when it is entire possible that it was written by gentiles seems like a major point. Your rebuttal? "I see".

There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later.

You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?

What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today!

Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.

Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?

That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.

But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?

Have you even read the NT Gospels?

I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. 

They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.

None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.

Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder?

The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.

Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults.

Yes. And you were taught "Jesus was the messiah" at a young age, before reading the bible. The jury was tainted, as it were. You were told what to believe before the evidence was even presented.

Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves.

I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.

Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.

No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying.

So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!

I'm reminded of the tale of a man walking through the forest. He comes across many trees, with a bright bulls-eye painted on them, with an arrow in the exact center. "What an amazing archer this must be", he thinks. After a time he comes across a man carrying a bow. "Are you the archer who has been shooting at the trees?" he inquires. "Yes, I am", the man replies. "How do you always hit the exact center? You must be an amazing archer". "Not really," the man replies. "You see, I shoot an arrow into a tree, and then I paint a bulls-eye around it".

Jesus does something. His followers look into the bible, find something approximating that act, and presto! Messianic prophecy, fulfilled! Even if the original something isn't a prophecy at all. 

You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah?

Jews also accepted Bar Kochba, and in far larger numbers than Jesus. Or Shabtei Tzvi for that matter. Jews can be as wrong as anyone else. The fact remains that one looks to the bible for the ingathered Jewish exiles, the rebuilt temple, the world peace an universal knowledge of God, all proper messianic prophecy, and see them unfulfilled.

Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim.

How does this rebut the fact that we don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where? Why should I accept claims from a book of unknown authorship? Because you say so?

Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself!

You say your experience is "right". I say my experience is "right". A Hindu would say his experience is "right". Ok, and so?

That just isn't true.

It just is.

Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively.

You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.

Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself.

And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?

From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see?

Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.

For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world.

Yes, and this point we can agree upon. That doesn't make it true however.

The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries,

And there are no prophecies that say the Jews will be wrong at the end times, and the gentiles right.

which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.

Which was always available to them. Jesus was not necessary for this.

[Fenris]

Enough reasons.....

1. Jesus said - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Name one (so called) prophet who said that over himself and which came true.

So would this also apply?

See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”

The nations of the world will find Israel wise, because they follow the Law.

Or this?

...the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.

Secondly after all nations are reached (and Christianity is not far from that) the end will come

Let's talk about this after it happens. If it even happens.

2. God's timing sending Jesus. Around AD 30 Jesus predicted AD 70, the end of Israel as a nation.

Well... It's very likely that the NT was actually written after the year 70. So Jesus was "predicting" a past event. Not evidence.

3. The resurrection. All the apostles have seen the risen Jesus.

And the only proof we have of this is a book written decades later, in another country, in another language. A book whose sole purpose was to create new believers. Not evidence.

They proclaimed the risen Jesus and died for that not willing to retract. Name one or two persons in history who died for a lie. There is a difference believing in a lie and knowing it is a lie. No one dies for a lie while knowing it is lie, only madman.

People are willing to die for something they believe in strongly enough. How about all the Jews who refused to convert and were killed by Christians? Did they die for a lie? Were they madmen?

Every religion has martyrs. What makes Chrisian martyrs "special"?

4. As you have said yourself, Judaism and Christianity (aside all their bad things) have changed the morals of the world, starting with the 10 commandments and Christian goodies. Except in tyrannies the courts in countries are based on justice and morals based on Jewish and Christian values. And even non-believers have embraced these values, the human-rights declaration of 1948 isn't a pure Christian thing.

OK, and so? Judaism underpins large parts of western civ. It's as much evidence for Judaism being correct as Christianity.

Well, I could go on but you probably heard all the arguments a dozen of times. You are talking here with pretty intelligent people who are not easy to fool, have done their homework and have weighted the evidence. I mean, either Jesus resurrected else we are believing in a book full of lies.

"Lies" is harsh.

I prefer "a book with some good lessons written by people to spread beliefs".

Jesus (in contradiction to us and as only one) lived a sinless life.

No. We have the NT's contention that Jesus lived a sinless life.

The problem of Sin is such an issue we also disagree. Speaking for myself, In Eden A&E lived in the presence of the Lord, what happened as first thing when A&E sinned? They were expelled from the presence of the Lord for their own good as no sinner can see God and live, as Moses found out.

Uhh actually the bible says "No man can see me and live". Nothing about "sinner". Why are you adding words to the bible?

So one act of disobedience / rebellion (by only 2 people we never met, we did not even take part in the disobedience / rebellion) caused this world we live in with all its horrors and finally we all will die at some point. That's pretty serious don't you think? Just one sin.

So as a Christian I take sin as the root of all problems. Without Genesis chapter 3 our Bible would be pretty thin. And what went wrong in Eden could be only restored by one person, the one able to lead a sinless life.

The logic doesn't follow, and it isn't in my bible anywhere. No place does God say that He expects perfection. Read Deuteronomy 30. It's about making the choice to return to God. Not about some sinless being performing magic.

And what happened in the garden was in some ways a good thing. It gave humans free will, and this gives our lives meaning.

I know you don't believe in Jesus despite you have been reading the gospels, my compliments BTW. But as it is with unbelievers, those with some basic knowledge and an average IQ will never call themselves a 100% atheist, maybe 90% but never 100%, excluding a Creator (which is something else as a specific religion) for 100% is just stupidity. Applying this comparison do you believe you know for 100% sure the gospels and the message that came with it are untrue?

Is you belief in Jesus 100% ironclad?

[RandyPNW]

No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.

If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly.

But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians.

I don't have a "vested interest" in anything.

Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing?

You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."

This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him. I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My person failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ.

You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not.

I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions.

We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where.
[/QUOTE

There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later.

You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?

What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today!

Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.

Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?

That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.

But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?

Have you even read the NT Gospels?

I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. 

They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.

None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.

Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder?

The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.

Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults.

Yes. And you were taught "Jesus was the messiah" at a young age, before reading the bible. The jury was tainted, as it were. You were told what to believe before the evidence was even presented.

Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves.

I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.

Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.

No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying.

So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!

I'm reminded of the tale of a man walking through the forest. He comes across many trees, with a bright bulls-eye painted on them, with an arrow in the exact center. "What an amazing archer this must be", he thinks. After a time he comes across a man carrying a bow. "Are you the archer who has been shooting at the trees?" he inquires. "Yes, I am", the man replies. "How do you always hit the exact center? You must be an amazing archer". "Not really," the man replies. "You see, I shoot an arrow into a tree, and then I paint a bulls-eye around it".

Jesus does something. His followers look into the bible, find something approximating that act, and presto! Messianic prophecy, fulfilled! Even if the original something isn't a prophecy at all. 

You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah?

Jews also accepted Bar Kochba, and in far larger numbers than Jesus. Or Shabtei Tzvi for that matter. Jews can be as wrong as anyone else. The fact remains that one looks to the bible for the ingathered Jewish exiles, the rebuilt temple, the world peace an universal knowledge of God, all proper messianic prophecy, and see them unfulfilled.

Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim.

How does this rebut the fact that we don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where? Why should I accept claims from a book of unknown authorship? Because you say so?

Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself!

You say your experience is "right". I say my experience is "right". A Hindu would say his experience is "right". Ok, and so?

That just isn't true.

It just is.

Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively.

You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.

Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself.

And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?

From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see?

Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.

For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world.

Yes, and this point we can agree upon. That doesn't make it true however.

The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries,

And there are no prophecies that say the Jews will be wrong at the end times, and the gentiles right.

which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.

Which was always available to them. Jesus was not necessary for this.

[RandyPNW]

No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.

If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly.

But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians.

I don't have a "vested interest" in anything.

Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing?

You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."

This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him.

I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My personal failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ.

You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not.

I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions.

We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where.

I don't take this very seriously because if one looks at the systematic theology of the NT, one would know that only someone with extensive, personal knowledge of the Law could write these things, namely Jewish authors. Gentiles did not have easy access, and certainly not without conversion--otherwise, the knowledge of the Law would be very sketchy, and lack any deep thoughts about it.

So, you don't have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve either. And yet, the evidence of the Fall of Man is all around us.

There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later.

You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?

You have to know the relationship of the NT Scriptures to the historic creeds of the Christian Church, which are the standard fundamentals of Christian belief.

Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.

This just shows the poverty of your knowledge on the subject. The creeds were an explanation of apostolic doctrine in the Roman world, applying that same doctrine in a more diverse context. Same teaching, and expanded application, structured into creeds.

Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?

That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.

You think because the Jews  founded a religion that in future generations other ethnicities cannot read the same material and render better conclusions? Of course they can, in particular when the founding people turn against their own religion.

Have the Jews turned against their own religion? Yes. Many times.

But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?

That's the 1st thing I did on internet forums more than 20 years ago! I was asked to stop, even though the Usenet forum was titled alt.messianic! It was a discussion between Jews and Christians as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. I presented many, many proofs, which of course would always be rejected by Jews committed to Judaism and raised up in Jewish schools.

I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. 

I'm glad you have. However, you don't seem to understand the NT Scriptures even if you've read them. You don't even recognize that they've been adhered to by those who formulated the creeds and by conventional Christianity ever since.

They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.

None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.

How convenient! You deny Messianic prophecies are genuine Messianic prophecies when they point to Jesus death, burial, betrayal, resurrection, and rejection by the Jewish People. But you accept as legitimate Messianic prophecy only prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus!

The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.

Like I said earlier, for you choosing a religion is like choosing a lottery number! One ticket is as good as the other, and it's all decided by chance, depending on where we were raised and what propaganda we were fed.

But for me religion is a conscientious decision based on our experience of God and the dictates of our conscience. It is a reasoned choice based on the design of our world and on the design of our own personal life. What works? 

I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.

No, being raised up in a religion does not make one an independent thinker. When God proposes something to us, apart from all of the machinations of man, then we can render our own independent judgment on the matter. It really depends on if God is the one making the proposal, because only He can expose all of our ulterior motives.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.

Yes, for doctrinally-orthodox Christians, Jesus' divinity is equal to his claim to Messiah-hood. For example, in Dan 7 we read that the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on earth. We see that as God's divine heir inheriting God's earthly Kingdom in the form of a human being. He was made to be the "firstborn" among many brethren. Just like Joseph was a virtual "king" in Egypt over his Hebrew brothers.

So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!

Yes, even Isaiah said that Israel could go blind along with the prophets, so that they would be unable to see clearly the word of God. The Gospel accounts indicate the Jews were very confused about Messianic details in the time of Jesus. They had a number of opinions on what various prophecies even meant.

Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively.

You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.

Every abusive political system has done things like that. Putin wants to put people in jail for 15 years if they don't portray his "military action" properly. I'm speaking of genuine conversions--not failed Christian kingdoms!

And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?

Yes, Jews and Muslims can be kind. But they can't produce the spirit of Christ along with their kindness. Christ produces in believers an enhanced kindness, if you will. That is, the knowledge of Christ is able to come through the act of kindness, acting as a testimony to what he is like.

Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.

My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!" How inappropriate! A religion is always started by God, as any advocate would claim. To claim the Jewish People are responsible for a religion they despise is absurd!

I realize that you show more tolerance than usual, which I appreciate. But still, no--your people starting Christianity is not my argument. That is just to show that the arguments were made by dedicated Jews themselves, and not just by outsiders! The NT Scriptures are therefore *Jewish arguments!*

[ProDeo]

I will answer in parts to keep our conversation readable.

Enough reasons.....

1. Jesus said - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Name one (so called) prophet who said that over himself and which came true.

So would this also apply?

See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”

The nations of the world will find Israel wise, because they follow the Law.

Or this?

...the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.

Not happened yet, but I believe that will happen, was God's intention from the start when he called Moses, right?

Secondly after all nations are reached (and Christianity is not far from that) the end will come

Let's talk about this after it happens. If it even happens.

So far the prediction came true, even when you think it was rigged. Oh wait, you just said that.

2. God's timing sending Jesus. Around AD 30 Jesus predicted AD 70, the end of Israel as a nation.

Well... It's very likely that the NT was actually written after the year 70. So Jesus was "predicting" a past event. Not evidence.

Well, it's impossible that Jesus predicted a past event (as you say), He ascended to heaven around 30-33 AD, if you think it was rigged it was done by the gospel writers, one big cheat, yes? Speaking of Mark, evidence for an early gospel of Mark is pointing to the 60's, example: There is a high degree of scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s. [ link ]

[ProDeo]

3. The resurrection. All the apostles have seen the risen Jesus.

And the only proof we have of this is a book written decades later, in another country, in another language. A book whose sole purpose was to create new believers. Not evidence.

So even more corruption by the 4 gospel writers? All 4 mention the resurrection.

They proclaimed the risen Jesus and died for that not willing to retract. Name one or two persons in history who died for a lie. There is a difference believing in a lie and knowing it is a lie. No one dies for a lie while knowing it is lie, only madman.

People are willing to die for something they believe in strongly enough. How about all the Jews who refused to convert and were killed by Christians? Did they die for a lie? Were they madmen?

Every religion has martyrs. What makes Chrisian martyrs "special"?

You missed my point, so I highlighted it in blue (me) and you (red). The gospels tell us that Jesus showed Himself alive to the apostles and those with them. So these people did not believe but knew that Jesus had risen and willing to give their life for it. What you are suggesting (actually saying) that the resurrection was a conspiracy by the 12 apostles and those others who have seen the risen Jesus.

Now imagine the hypothetical case you invent a story for dubious reasons of which people take great offense up to the point you get death threats, up to a point a guy put a gun to your head with the message, take back that lie, or else. Knowing you lied, will you die for that lie or do you retract and live? The apostles did not retract and many died.

[ProDeo]

Jesus (in contradiction to us and as only one) lived a sinless life.

No. We have the NT's contention that Jesus lived a sinless life.

You are missing the central message of the NT, what went wrong in Eden is recovered by Jesus sinless life enabling Him to defeat death and restore the broken relationship between God and mankind since the fall in the garden. The OT is unfinished, the NT is complete and Christianity is the most logic religion of all on a pure intellectual base. Ask yourself the question, why couldn't A&E not stay in the garden? Why this drastic measure by God?

The problem of Sin is such an issue we also disagree. Speaking for myself, In Eden A&E lived in the presence of the Lord, what happened as first thing when A&E sinned? They were expelled from the presence of the Lord for their own good as no sinner can see God and live, as Moses found out.

Uhh actually the bible says "No man can see me and live". Nothing about "sinner". Why are you adding words to the bible?

I am not adding, it's matter of understanding or you must believe that Moses was sinless, which you don't. So I don't understand the red.

And what happened in the garden was in some ways a good thing. It gave humans free will, and this gives our lives meaning.

A&E already had free will.

And you are implying the life of A&E in the garden had no meaning.

[ProDeo]

I know you don't believe in Jesus despite you have been reading the gospels, my compliments BTW. But as it is with unbelievers, those with some basic knowledge and an average IQ will never call themselves a 100% atheist, maybe 90% but never 100%, excluding a Creator (which is something else as a specific religion) for 100% is just stupidity. Applying this comparison do you believe you know for 100% sure the gospels and the message that came with it are untrue?

Is you belief in Jesus 100% ironclad?

I assume that the sum of both our percentages are above 100% 

[Fenris]

If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly.

But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians.

Super bad analogy. One is verifiable scientific fact, the other is religious faith.

If one reads the NT first, and accepts is as holy writ, then obviously Jesus is the Messiah to that reader. Now they go back to the Tanach and find all these wondrous "proof texts". This is the typical gentile experience.

If one reads the Tanach first and hasn't heard of Jesus, and is then presented with the NT, they are capable of being more objective about the matter. "Did this man fulfill Messianic prophecies or not?" This is the typical Jewish experience- and not just modern Jews, but also first century Jews who encountered Jesus.

Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing?

And you're not defending your religious upbringing?

I'm interested in the truth.  Perhaps you are too? I don't know.

This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him.

I don't know who you know. I'm assuming little kids in sunday school are learning that Jesus is the messiah and going with that.

I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My personal failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ.

You were raised Christian. End of story.

You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not.

And Jews don't face the same challenges? Or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists...

I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions.

That's awesome. I know Jews who had a similar experience.

I don't take this very seriously because if one looks at the systematic theology of the NT, one would know that only someone with extensive, personal knowledge of the Law could write these things, namely Jewish authors.

Their theology wasn't Jewish, so how is this evidence that the authors were Jewish?

You have to know the relationship of the NT Scriptures to the historic creeds of the Christian Church, which are the standard fundamentals of Christian belief.

Which wasn't decided policy until Nicea. Are you unaware that this happened or just don't care?

This just shows the poverty of your knowledge on the subject. The creeds were an explanation of apostolic doctrine in the Roman world, applying that same doctrine in a more diverse context. Same teaching, and expanded application, structured into creeds.

I don't even know what this means. Why don't you tell me what happened at Nicea?

You think because the Jews  founded a religion that in future generations other ethnicities cannot read the same material and render better conclusions?

I...thought this was all decided doctrine in the first century. That's what you just said. Now you're saying it's not?

Have the Jews turned against their own religion? Yes. Many times.

When they worshipped idols, you mean? Are you comparing modern Judaism to idolatry?

That's the 1st thing I did on internet forums more than 20 years ago! I was asked to stop, even though the Usenet forum was titled alt.messianic! It was a discussion between Jews and Christians as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. I presented many, many proofs, which of course would always be rejected by Jews committed to Judaism and raised up in Jewish schools.

We're not on usenet. We're on bibleforums. I'm sure nobody here would object if you and I discussed messianic prophecies as seen by Jews vs Christians.

I'm glad you have. However, you don't seem to understand the NT Scriptures even if you've read them.

OK. And maybe you don't understand my bible, even though you've read it.

How convenient! You deny Messianic prophecies are genuine Messianic prophecies when they point to Jesus death, burial, betrayal, resurrection, and rejection by the Jewish People.

Umm. Yeah. Because I'm not aware of any messianic prophecies of those matters. Perhaps you could illuminate me?

But you accept as legitimate Messianic prophecy only prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus!

Oh, so you admit that there are unfulfilled messianic prophecies? This is real progress here!

Like I said earlier, for you choosing a religion is like choosing a lottery number! One ticket is as good as the other, and it's all decided by chance, depending on where we were raised and what propaganda we were fed.

I'm not buying lottery tickets. I'm searching for Truth. But when you present something as ephemeral as "personal experience" as proof that your beliefs are correct, I'm going to point out that every believer of every religion could use the same criteria, and be no more right or wrong than you are.

I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.

No, being raised up in a religion does not make one an independent thinker. When God proposes something to us, apart from all of the machinations of man, then we can render our own independent judgment on the matter. It really depends on if God is the one making the proposal, because only He can expose all of our ulterior motives.

You are ignoring what I said. I'm loyal to the beliefs I was raised in, so I'm not an "independent thinker." Meanwhile, you are loyal to the beliefs you were raised in, so you are an "independent thinker."

What?!

Yes, for doctrinally-orthodox Christians, Jesus' divinity is equal to his claim to Messiah-hood.

That's great. Doesn't work for Jews, though.

For example, in Dan 7 we read that the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on earth. We see that as God's divine heir inheriting God's earthly Kingdom in the form of a human being.

And we see it as a human king bringing in the messianic era.

Yes, even Isaiah said that Israel could go blind along with the prophets,

Chapter and verse, please.

so that they would be unable to see clearly the word of God. The Gospel accounts indicate the Jews were very confused about Messianic details in the time of Jesus. They had a number of opinions on what various prophecies even meant.

Examples would be nice.

Every abusive political system has done things like that. Putin wants to put people in jail for 15 years if they don't portray his "military action" properly. I'm speaking of genuine conversions--not failed Christian kingdoms!

Not addressing my point, as usual.

Yes, Jews and Muslims can be kind. But they can't produce the spirit of Christ along with their kindness. Christ produces in believers an enhanced kindness, if you will.

Enhanced kindness. Right-o.

My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!"

Yes it is, as you've said several times.

To claim the Jewish People are responsible for a religion they despise is absurd!

And yet, all the early Christians were in fact Jews. A point you like to use when telling my to accept it. But when I point it out to you it is somehow absurd.

I realize that you show more tolerance than usual, which I appreciate. But still, no--your people starting Christianity is not my argument. That is just to show that the arguments were made by dedicated Jews themselves, and not just by outsiders! The NT Scriptures are therefore *Jewish arguments!*

Yet you just said "My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!" LOL.