Religions of Abraham Backwards?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Was it ever challenging? I'm not saying I don't do these things, just that it's a battle at times.

No, not really. Seriously, forgiving and forgetting has always been quite a natural thing for me. Life is too short to be pissed off all the time. Don't get me wrong, I get mad at people and sometimes I'm a dick for no "real" reason... I'm not "perfect" But... I'm not "troubled" either, I guess.. I don't feel like it's ... work... or ... "hard" to do the right thing, I guess... (unless I'm driving )

Nor have I, but that desire is obviously in stark contrast to what I want & believe in.

Eh... it's human nature... You're supposed to find women attractive (knowing, of course, that you're not gay)... you do.. what's the big deal? No harm, no foul.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Life isn't supposed to be hard.

This may be the most interesting thing you said. And maybe the only time I've heard it.

It's almost like we need a poll.

All I can remember is quotes like "Life ain't supposed to be easy, kid."

But really I think this is the second time you've said something the opposite of what I thought was accepted by everyone. The other one being contention with the idea that self sacrifice isn't the highest form of showing love.
I find this interesting.

 

[scarletmike]

Forgive me for interrupting the flow of the discussion, but I feel like a question/point that has found its way in and out of the discussion has still been left largely hanging. S&G and BKB have both brought up the issue of the perception G-d of the NT as a loving, gentle person vs. the perception of the OT G-d being one of wrath, anger, death, and destruction. I feel like a somewhat acceptable reconciliation can be had with the consideration of just one NT passage.

Matthew 21:12-13, 18-22 (NLT)
Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer, but you have turned it into a den of thieves!”

In the morning, as Jesus was returning to Jerusalem, he was hungry, and he noticed a fig tree beside the road. He went over to see if there were any figs, but there were only leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” And immediately the fig tree withered up. The disciples were amazed when they saw this and asked, “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” Then Jesus told them, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don’t doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, ‘May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and it will happen. You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it.”

Here we see Jesus break out in an uncharacteristic fit of anger twice, once destroying His own creation, seemingly just because it held nothing for him to eat. While a singular and seemingly insignificant instance in the NT, I think it helps lead us to the conclusion that perhaps the G-d of the Old and New Testaments aren't so different. This is especially significant if you consider that Jesus was sent as a messenger and sacrifice meant to win hearts to G-d. The G-d of the Old Testament, on the other hand, was still "merely" a deity, a religious belief passed through an ever-expanding family, not yet the object for a goal of conversion (though instances of conversion certainly do exist in the Old Testament, they are not "the reason"). One does not win the hearts and trust of others by being a seemingly uncaring and brutal person. In the Old Testament we see a "painting" of an all-powerful being who is the object of worship, and thus very little need for a personal, gentle G-d. In the New Testament we see a "painting" of the all-powerful humbling himself, coming in gentle and frail human form to win the hearts of the unbelievers, that His love and goodness may be experienced by all in the present and future. In this there is a need for a loving, caring, and gentle person. However as the passage from Matthew shows, He was still the G-d of the OT, quick to anger at the desecration of his house of worship and the failing of his creation.


Now that I read back through it, I'm not sure if I really accomplished what I intended. I admit that my theological background and understanding is rather shallow, and thus apologize if I am simply rehashing old discussion that I am not aware of (and doing a worse job of it!). Hopefully I've done no worse than manage to contribute absolutely nothing.

 

[Taosman]

In the Buddhist tradition, life is made up of "suffering".

"Alone among the world's religions, Buddhism locates suffering at the heart of the world. Indeed according to Buddhism, existence is suffering (dukkha). The main question that Guatama Buddha(c.566 BC - c.480 BC), the traditional founder of Buddhism, sought to answer was:
"Why do pain and suffering exist?"
The conquest of suffering : Buddhism versus utilitarianism

Interestingly, Buddhism suggests a path very similar to the Christian path.
With compassion at it's core. And values almost identical to Christian values.

 

[muffler dragon]

I'll try to be brief (sincerely).

IMO, G-d is ?creation.? The spirit of G-d is in each human, each animal, each living thing ? the trees, the grass, etc. This is Eden after all, according to Genesis. I always found the story of Eden odd. Here is god.. all knowing and all powerful.. warning man not to eat from the tree of Knowledge. This same god is the one who couldn?t find Adam when Adam hid. He didn?t know he had eaten from the forbidden tree until Adam confessed. Could god had been playing stupid ? teaching a lesson to all mankind?

FWIW, most of Eden is considered allegorical. Furthermore, the Judaic perspective is that G-d may use anthropomorphic ideals in order to convey ideas EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T REPRESENT THE PHYSICALITY OF G-D. G-d is spirit.
When G-d portrays not knowing something (in this case the apple eating), oftentimes, it was in order to open up a dialogue.

I don?t think we, and by ?we? I know mean ?me?, can understand or comprehend what G-d the creator is or isn?t.

I agree completely. This is what I mean when I use the word, "ineffable".

However, I highly doubt G-d is how is portrayed in the bible.

This is contradictory to the very statement you just made.

Especially considering the messages of the prophets ? namely Jesus ? that G-d is love. In my mind, killing for punishment is the exact opposite of ?turning the other cheek? and in my mind, I can?t reconcile this fact.

1) I don't consider Jesus a prophet.
2) I have to ask, "Have you read the TaNaKh (your Old Testament)"? And I mean the whole thing.

What if, this is Satan?s world? What if the greatest trick of all time is deception through ?faith??

But if the spirit of G-d is in all living things, as I suggest, wouldn?t ?Satan? be G-d too?

What if this was really ?Satan?s? world? The morning star? Whether it be in the form of a false idol, religion, or government ? throughout man?s time ? Satan has been pulling the strings.

FWIW, IF Satan exists; then Satan is a minion of G-d. This is portrayed in Job quite clearly. The angels, from a Judaic perspective, are not agents of free will. Furthermore, Satan is not a name. It's a title. Technically, the transliterated HaSatan means "The Adversary". This could be someone, something opposing you whether it be internal or external.

Jesus, and his life, is the entire basis for my argument/theory/post. I guess what I'm saying is, Jesus is the complete opposite of god in the bible. So, if Jesus is love - what is the god of the bible?

Depending upon what topics you precisely mean I'm inclined to disagree wholeheartedly. The vast majority (if not all) of Jesus' main teachings were spoken beforehand by Jewish Sages who were inspired by the words of the Tanakh. These would be the words of the G-d whom Jesus would have believed in as well.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, Elohim created
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."[/i]

Jwins:

There's more to determining the plurality and usage of words in Judaism than a singular word. The context must be evaluated. Furthermore, "-im" is not indicative of a plurality. The word for water ends with -im (Ma'im).

Psalm 82:6 I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' (gods was written using the hebrew word Elohim, multiple gods)

Or according to a Jewish source:

6. I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."

The word elohim can also be used for "judges".

They were most confused because he did not fulfill their perspective on what and how he would conquer. If a god-man had been born into a figure like Napolean or Alexander the Great, they would have been on board much quicker.

There are very specific failures of messianic Scripture which Jesus did not fulfill. This has been discussed elsewhere; but suffice it to say that IF Jesus HAD fulfilled all of the Messianic passages; THEN 1) we wouldn't be having this discussion and 2) he wouldn't need a Second Advent.

BKB, I've discussed this enough times on here that I'm not going to get into it again, but the questions that have been coming to mind recently when I hear the statement that the Jews would not have been looking for "X" are 1) how do we know what the first-century Jews were anticipating, 2) which Jews are we talking about, and 3) how do we know if their understanding of the messianic prophesies were on target?

The info in the link you provide is essentially rabbinic Jewish theology (descended from the Pharisees) that developed in part as a counterpoint to the Jewish sect of Yeshua's followers that came to challenge the Pharisees in the post-temple period--especially after the bar Kochba revolt in the 130s.

Our understanding of first century Judaism has been revolutionized over the past 60 years as the dead sea scrolls and other works from non-Pharisaic/rabbinic and non-Jewish Christian sources have emerged. The old image that Judaism as understood today, during the middle ages, or even in 200 AD when the Mishna was redacted, was the Judaism of Yeshua's time has been essentially discredited despite what rabbinic Jews or Christians want to claim today. The beliefs of the first century Jews were greatly varied and all over the map. To say that the "Jews" did not expect a "god-man", whatever that means as that is not the understanding of Yeshua that I have as "the Word made flesh", requires more scholarship than simply what modern Judaism provides.

Of course I disagree with a great number of your points and inferences. If we want to rehash; then let me know. Otherwise, I'll just put it out there for others to understand that there isn't agreement with what a Messianic Christian and a Noachide believer consider to be true about Jewish history.

And yet, there are modern Jews, decedent of the hated Pharisee.... Epic fail?

Coupled with rampant misrepresentations of the Pharisees in the Christian testament, and it becomes even more muddled.

We would be wise to remember the book of Acts, where we see that some of the Pharisees became disciples in the early ekklesia--most notably Paul.

If one believes Paul solely by his words instead of his actions, but I digress with my snarky remark. :tongue2:

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Says the guy who is actually Satan. :box:

I always new it. I just couldn't quite put my thumb on who I thought he was. Now it all makes sense.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Of course I disagree with a great number of your points and inferences. If we want to rehash; then let me know. Otherwise, I'll just put it out there for others to understand that there isn't agreement with what a Messianic Christian and a Noachide believer consider to be true about Jewish history.

Nah, no need to rehash.

However, just for the record, the account I gave above is not really my understanding of Jewish history--though I certainly share some of the ideas. In my statements above I was trying to represent Jewish history as understood by secular historians, both Jewish and non-Jewish, as I was trying to present the view I thought BKB would most likely accept--that of modern scholarship.

Lately, I've been reading a lot by Martin Goodman (historian at Oxford considered a leading expert of Jewish history during the Roman period) and Eliezer Segal (chair of religious studies at U. of Calgary who holds a PhD in Talmudic Studies from Hebrew U.). It is the views of these two authors, as well as other secular historians, who write from modern, critical perspectives that I was trying to represent in the above statement.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

...as I was trying to present the view I thought BKB would most likely accept--that of modern scholarship....

And here I am trying to be less... what's the word... stand-offish? than I have been on these threads in the past... lol

 

[Bleed S & G]

While it is your faith to believe that as a true statement, if I understand S&G correctly, what happens if Jesus is essentially the same as David Koresh? (A guy who had his followers believing he was much more than he was)

This is NOT what I'm saying..

I'm not saying Jesus is evil, or Jesus himself is a trick - I'm saying the Christian faith is the trick/deception. Jesus was the greatest prophet of all, and taught with authority from G-d.

Jesus never meant for his word or life to be preverted into being what he is today, the "son of god."

What I'm suggesting is, Jesus' life/story has been combined with pagan beliefs (Christmas for one example) and is presently worshipped as a false god.

The god of the OT is NOT G-d (as we think of G-d) - but is infact evil. Or, as someone else pointed out - The Advesary - steering man away from the truth. This god is the one who has pulled the strings to prevert the Christian faith.

The entire context is crucial when looking at scripture, in this case He is speaking about false prophets and hypocrites. He readily acknowledges there will be many who will not only attempt to deceive others but will have fully deceived themselves into believing they are followers when they are not.

EXACTLY!

That doesn't change the existence of true followers, it just separates the two groups.

Understood - but speaking of context, here is the following lines..


21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I find this fascinating - Jesus says - even those who accepted me, those who prophesied my name and even preformed maricles in my name - you do not know me - depart from me.

There are a boatload of OT & NT scriptures you have to overlook in order to dismiss Jesus as the Messiah proclaimed in the OT and thus the God found in those scriptures.

This is simply not true. If it were as simple as this, there would be no jews or muslims. If it was so undisputable - we would all be in agreement.

I don't think its NEARLY that cut and dry.

Is it possible RR is not "still an ass"?

That's what satan would say. It is not so.. still an ass.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

S & G,
So you're cherry picking parts of the NT to say that Jesus is not one with the Father (the God of the OT) when I think its clearly the claim He makes.

So you're rejecting loads of content from the NT and the OT (which Jesus knew and quoted for truth) and claiming other things which Jesus said was true. I'm going to admit I have a lot of trouble just following that line of thinking.

 

[Bleed S & G]

S & G,
So you're cherry picking parts of the NT to say that Jesus is not one with the Father (the God of the OT) when I think its clearly the claim He makes.

I don't take "being one with the father" to mean "I was conceived by the holy spirit in Mary, and born of a virgin as G-d incarnate."

You can be one with the father too, if you live a good life with love - no?

I think Jesus, the man, attained a higher knowledge through love, prayer, meditation, higher vibrations, etc. and was trying to show mankind we all are one with the father - if we open our eyes and our hearts.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I don't take "being one with the father" to mean "I was conceived by the holy spirit in Mary, and born of a virgin as G-d incarnate."

You can be one with the father too, if you live a good life with love - no?

I think Jesus, the man, attained a higher knowledge through love, prayer, meditation, higher vibrations, etc. and was trying to show mankind we all are one with the father - if we open our eyes and our hearts.

That's what I'm saying man, if you're just going to assign whatever meaning you want to what Jesus is saying then you can find the same thing in Buhdda. Ask Taos. What I'm saying is what you're saying has no meaning to me.

Like I said if you're going to reject parts of the books why accept any part at all?

 

[Bleed S & G]

That's what I'm saying man, if you're just going to assign whatever meaning you want to what Jesus is saying then you can find the same thing in Buhdda. Ask Taos. What I'm saying is what you're saying has no meaning to me.

Like I said if you're going to reject parts of the books why accept any part at all?

What am I rejecting? It sounds like you interpet it diffrently..

Frankly, if what I'm saying has no meaning to you - why are you in here debating it? Change the channel dude.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

What am I rejecting? It sounds like you interpet it diffrently..

Frankly, if what I'm saying has no meaning to you - why are you in here debating it? Change the channel dude.

Interpretting differently? Have you read Luke 1 and 2? Matthew 1? I don't understand how you interpret those passages into "not born of virgin."

 

[muffler dragon]

I hadn't read the following when I went through this thread the first time so I apologize if I ascribe the wrong author to it:

There are a boatload of OT & NT scriptures you have to overlook in order to dismiss Jesus as the Messiah proclaimed in the OT and thus the God found in those scriptures.

Regarding Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, I may be misunderstanding the point you're attempting to make; but in case I'm following you correctly... I would respond by saying that there are some very key points that Jesus failed to fulfill when it comes to the Jewish Messiah. Thus, dismissal is not difficult as the Jewish Messiah is an all-or-nothing opportunity. There have been dozens of players throughout history who fulfilled portions of the Messianic texts; however, not one has fulfilled ALL of them.

As far as Jesus being G-d in the OT, that is another can of worms. However, I will simply say that interpretation of any text can have an eisegetical meaning based on biases from other considerations. Looking at the text from the time it was written forward (instead of backwards through the Christian testament glasses), the first inclination would lean towards a non-literal anthropomorphic consideration of G-d; thus, the G-d/man nature of Jesus wouldn't be in line.