Jesus died for our sins......

[guno]

That doesn't make sense to me. We make our own "sins", we have to take responsibility for them. We can't expect someone else to purify them.

How much sense does it make that one man died over two thousand years ago from crucifixion and somehow that purifies anyone's sin now?

Surely, crucifixion is a tortorous way to die, AND many more people have died worse ways than crucifixion since then.

Are we to believe that Hitler was saved?

The entire story is incoherent.

God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?

But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God (whatever that means), so mankind could go to heaven instead.

So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...asons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense-2/

and that is why we Jews don't follow the pagan man god jebus, the Hebrew bible says no person can die for another's sins and the goyim didn't know Torah so they bought into the jebus godman story becasue it was just like their former pagan religion

 

[guno]

Ah, so this is all about influencing a majority to join in your disbelief? Have you ever asked why that is so important to you? More importantly, you understand that you are failing miserably, right?

Have I ever tried to change your beliefs? Do you think I care what you believe? The answer to both questions is no.

You seem to forget that most atheists were raised in Christian homes. I certainly was. I considered myself to be a Christian until I hit 40. It didn't happen overnight either. Problems started to arise when I started reading the Bible.

The truth is, our modern morality is much more loving and humane than what's in the Bible. And if you're looking for family values from Jezus, you can forget about it.

Most of the people I know say I'm agnostic, because I do not know if there is a Gawd or not. But I don't consider myself an agnostic, because I don't live my life under the assumption that there is a Gawd. And I don't necessarily like the word "atheist" because that puts me on religious terms. I think "naturalist" is probably the most appropriate word to describe me.

So see, this topic is of interest to us non believers, because, for many of us, religion has played a big part of our lives.

Perhaps, the label "non-theist" is more accurate for you.

I can live with that. You can call me anything, just don't call me late for dinner. lol

I call myself a non-theist. I was raised in the Catholic Church, but it never made sense to me.

I used to be jealous of Catholic's because they got to drink real wine, and I only got grape juice. Or at least that's what I was told from the Catholic kids who lived down the street.

Have you ever seen Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God?" She was raised Catholic, and her story is very interesting. If not, I did find it on audio.

During The Passover Seder jewish children drink wine, however alcohol does not play a big part of the Jewish culture, unlike certain cultures that shall remain nameless

 

[BreezeWood]

the Hebrew bible says no person can die for another's sins ...

.
well then, you do believe the crucifixion was not a sin - good luck, chosen one ....

.

 

[the_human_being]

That doesn't make sense to me. We make our own "sins", we have to take responsibility for them. We can't expect someone else to purify them.

How much sense does it make that one man died over two thousand years ago from crucifixion and somehow that purifies anyone's sin now?

Surely, crucifixion is a tortorous way to die, AND many more people have died worse ways than crucifixion since then.

Are we to believe that Hitler was saved?

The entire story is incoherent.

God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?

But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God (whatever that means), so mankind could go to heaven instead.

So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...asons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense-2/

Do you find yourself slipping in and out of your dementia more often than once or twice a day now? If you wish, I can have my office staff set up an appointment. We have some marvelous new drugs available now that I believe would help you tremendously. Payment is required prior to treatment.

 

[Dhara]

Thanks for letting me know it's best to ignore you

Have a nice day!

 

[PK1]

That doesn't make sense to me. We make our own "sins", we have to take responsibility for them. We can't expect someone else to purify them.

How much sense does it make that one man died over two thousand years ago from crucifixion and somehow that purifies anyone's sin now?

Surely, crucifixion is a tortorous way to die, AND many more people have died worse ways than crucifixion since then.

Are we to believe that Hitler was saved?

The entire story is incoherent.

God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?

But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God (whatever that means), so mankind could go to heaven instead.

So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...asons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense-2/

Do you find yourself slipping in and out of your dementia more often than once or twice a day now? If you wish, I can have my office staff set up an appointment. We have some marvelous new drugs available now that I believe would help you tremendously. Payment is required prior to treatment.

---
Looks like you have been in a dream world since childhood, then took a "position" in a mental institution.
.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[PK1]

View attachment 56761

---
Do you also believe the myth that Jesus of Nazareth was born on December 25? And that ...

Santa Claus (aka Kris Kringle, etc) delivers presents to "good" children all over the world on one night - the night before "Christmas".
.

 

[Mudda]

View attachment 56761

Jesus way gay.

 

[guno]

View attachment 56761

your man god was just one in a long line of failed messiahs

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew wordMashiach, which means "anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, 1-Kings 1:39, 2-Kings 9:3)

(1) Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

So the goyim to claim he was a messiah is laughable and totally ignorant

 

[hobelim]

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

So he answered me, saying, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord." Then he said, "These are the two anointed ones who stand in attendance of the Lord of the whole earth." Zechariah 4:14


"Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill and from the clefts of the rocks." Jeremiah 16:16

 

[guno]

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

"Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill and from the clefts of the rocks." Jeremiah 16:16

Jeremiah is a prophetic book that reports the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah to the people of Israel , the problem is when the goyim get hold of it they think its talking about the goyim man god

 

[guno]

Jewish passages contained in the Hebrew Bible have strong relevance in their original context, they are often arbitrarily ascribed in the "New" Testament to people and happenings to which they have little or no connection.

The "New" Testament writers, including Paul, are guilty of the same mishandling and abuse of Jewish Scripture to create a new religion. Let me give you again the mechanics involved in textual manipulation whereby we end up with something different in meaning that the original author intended.


How many Greek scriptures in the "New" Testament, written as if they were a quotation of the Jewish Scriptures, have you looked up in the Hebrew scriptures in a Jewish Bible (Tanakh) and compared for accuracy in translation?

looking at how paul misused the jewish old testament in his writings

 

[guno]

Christ staines Misuse Of Isaiah 9:6-7

Christers see the above verses from Isaiah 9 to be speaking of Jesus, who came into the world as a child. However, after having read the above quotation, a few questions should come to mind.

When did Jesus ever run any government?

When was Jesus ever called a Wonderful Counselor, or a Mighty Gd, or an Everlasting Father, or a Prince of Peace? Jesus was never called by any of these names anywhere in the Christians' New Testament and not at all in his own lifetime.

Christians always seem to misunderstand this quotation. This is because they do not understand Hebrew, nor do they understand names, nor do they understand Hebrew names.

First, let us understand names. In most languages, every name has a meaning. The name 'Anthony' means 'priceless' and the name 'Alexander' means 'protector.' If we were to give a child the first and middle names of Anthony Alexander, would that mean that we are saying that this child is a 'priceless protector?' Would we call out to them, 'Hey, Priceless Protector, how are you?' Of course not.
Hebrew names sometimes say something about Gd. The name Michael means 'who is like Gd.' The name Elihu means 'my Gd is He,' or 'He is my Gd.' The name Immanuel means 'Gd is with us,' just to give a few examples. If someone has the name, Elihu, (again, meaning 'He is my Gd') would that mean that the human being known as Elihu is Gd? These names say something about Gd, even though they are the names of ordinary human beings. A better translation to the verse in question might be:
...and his name will be called, 'A wonderful counselor is the mighty Gd, an everlasting father is the ruler of peace.'

This means that there are really only two Hebrew names in the verse, which are given to a human being and not to a divine being, even though the names make a statement about Gd. Those names, like Anthony Alexander in our example above, would be 'Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom.' The way it is written in the original Hebrew, the names would be hyphenated as 'Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibor' and 'Avi-Ad-Sar-Shalom.' Lengthy names like these were not uncommon in the Bible, and in Isaiah specifically. For example, in Isaiah 8:3, we find the name, 'Maher-shalal-chash-baz,' which means 'the spoil speeds, the prey hastens.'

But let us suppose that this verse really did contain four names. How well would they apply to Jesus? Is this a case where at first the description of the person described in Isaiah 9:6-7 sounds like the story of Jesus, but, on closer examination, it isn't?

'Wonderful Counselor'

In the Christian's New Testament we find two stories about Jesus that certainly do not describe him as a Wonderful Counselor:

Another of the disciples said to him, 'Lord, let me first go and bury my father.' But Jesus said to him, 'Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.' [Matthew 8:21]

What kind of 'Wonderful Counselor' would tell a man who had recently lost his beloved father not to see to his father's funeral?

When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, 'Is that how you answer the high priest?' Jesus answered him, 'If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?' [John 18:22-23]
Everyone is familiar with the quotation from Jesus, 'Do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.' [Matthew 5:39] In the quotation above from John 18, Jesus does not turn his other cheek to the one who struck him, but rebukes him instead. One who says one thing but does another is called a hypocrite, and how can a hypocrite be a 'Wonderful Counselor?'

'Mighty Gd.'

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My Gd, My Gd, why hast thou forsaken me?' [Matthew 27:46]
If Jesus were the 'Mighty Gd,' why would he have to call upon another as Gd in order to save him? How can Gd forsake himself? This also denies the very idea of a trinity, and shows how Jesus does not fit the description of the Isaiah 9 quotation.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, Gd: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [Matthew 19:16-17]

In the above verses, Jesus distinguishes between himself and Gd. How could he have been the 'Mighty Gd,' if he himself made a distinction between himself and Gd? If Jesus knew that only Gd is good, and that he should not be called good, then Jesus knew that Jesus was not Gd.
'Everlasting Father'

In the trinity, Jesus is the son, and not the Father. He cannot be both at the same time. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself showed that he was not the Father, and claimed not to have the same will, or the same knowledge as the Father.

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.' [Matthew 26:39]
Jesus calls the One to whom he prayed his Father, so how can Jesus be 'the Everlasting Father,' if he called another his Father? How could Jesus be the Father if the will of Jesus is not the same as the will of the Father? This denies the very idea of the trinity.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. [Mark 13:32]

In the above verse, Jesus claims there is something that he does not know, but that only the Father knows. So how can Jesus, 'the son,' also be the Father if their knowledge is not the same?
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my Gd, and your Gd. [John 20:17]

How can the Father ascend to Himself? In the above verse, Jesus not only distinguishes between himself and his Father, but he also makes it sound as though the relationship that he has with Gd, 'The Father,' is exactly the same relationship that all people have with Gd, who is, in fact, the Father of all.
'Prince of Peace'

First of all, this is a mistranslation. The words in the original Hebrew are, 'sar shalom.' The word 'sar' does not mean 'prince,' it means 'ruler.' Now, one might say that a 'prince' is a 'ruler.' However, the reason why the Christians choose the word 'prince' instead of the word 'ruler' in Christian translations is that the word 'prince' makes one think that the original verse is speaking of a 'son of the king,' which in the Christian mind alludes to Jesus whom they believe to have been the son of Gd, the King. However, the word is 'ruler,' and not 'prince.' 'Prince' in Hebrew is 'nasee' and not 'sar.' The Christian translators intentionally chose the English word 'prince' to lead the reader into thinking about Jesus.
In the Christian's New Testament, we also find a quotation which certainly does not show Jesus to have been a 'ruler' or even a 'prince of peace.'

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Matthew 10:34-36]

How could anyone who said such a thing be considered a prince or ruler of peace? How could anyone who said such a thing have been the Messiah? We know that the true Messiah will bring an everlasting peace and, along with Elijah the Prophet, will bring families closer to each other and not further apart (see Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:1-4, and Malachi 4:5).

I have already stated that Christians rarely include verse 7 when they quote Isaiah chapter 9. The reason is that in verse 7 it states, 'Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.' Perhaps they do not quote verse 7 because Jesus never brought peace to the world, nor did he ever intend to, as the above quotation from Matthew 10:34-36 shows.

Jesus was also a violent man, and neither a 'Prince of Peace,' nor even a 'Ruler of Peace.' There are other verses in the Christian's New Testament that indicate this. Here are two more:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. [Luke 19:27]

The verse above comes at the end of a parable that Jesus told, of a man that leaves his land to go to be anointed as the King. When he comes back to his land, he says the above verse. Every single Christian commentator claims that Jesus was referring to himself as the man who left his land to be anointed King, and so in his own parable, Jesus is saying the above, asking that those who do not wish to have him reign over them be murdered in front of him.

In the verse, below, Jesus tells his followers to go and buy a sword.

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Luke 22:35]
We have shown from quotations from the Christian's New Testament that Jesus was not a 'Wonderful Counselor, Jesus was not a 'Mighty Gd,' Jesus was not an 'Everlasting Father,' nor was Jesus a 'Prince of Peace' or even a 'Ruler of Peace,' in spite of how Christians wish to interpret the original verses from Isaiah 9:6-7.

So, according to the Jewish interpretation, who is Isaiah 9:6-7 speaking about?
According to Judaism, the answer is in the names chosen. The name 'Hezekiah' which in Hebrew is 'Chizkiyah' comes from the words 'chazak' and 'Ya.' 'Chazak' means 'strong' or 'mighty' and 'Ya' is the shortened name for Gd used as a suffix. Many might recognize the Ya' in the word, 'halleluyah' which means,'praise Gd.' Judaism believes that Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, who reigned for almost 30 years. The name Hezekiah, Chizkiyah, is the same name in meaning, as one finds in the verses from Isaiah 9:6-7, a 'Mighty Gd.' - What Jews Believe: Prooftext #6: Is. 9:6-7

 

[guno]

Interestingly, the 20th century Christian New English Bible – Oxford Study Edition (annotation on Isaiah 52:13-53:12) clearly identifies the Suffering Servant as the nation of Israel which “has suffered as a humiliated individual." not the christian man god

If the context of Isaiah 53 so clearly refers to the Jewish people, how could so many Christian leaders have mistranslated the Bible? History shows that – for whatever motivation – many did so knowingly:

• Lucius Coelius Firmianes Lactantius, 3rd century Church leader: "Among those who seek power and gain from their religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it."
  
• St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated."
  
• Dr. Herbert Marsh, 19th century English Bishop: "It is a certain fact that several readings in our common printed text are nothing more than alterations made by Origen..."

• walter Brueggemann Ph.D., an ordained minister and author of 60 books on the Bible, writes: "[A]lthough it is clear that this poetry does not have Jesus in any first instance on its horizon, it is equally clear that the church, from the outset, has found the poetry a poignant and generative way to consider Jesus, wherein humiliation equals crucifixion and exaltation equals resurrection and ascension."

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant

 

[guno]

The theological gap between Judaism and Christianity is not limited to the question: "Who is the Messiah," or a debate over the translation of a few biblical verses. Judaism and Christianity are two different belief systems, differing over core issues such as the existential nature of man, the role of our relationship with God, and the path to genuine spiritual fulfillment.

Jews have held steadfast to their beliefs for thousands of years, amidst all forms of persecution and hardship. They have done so in the belief that the Jewish people – as bearers of God’s message of morality and justice – have a unique and crucial role to play in human history.

 

[Davros]

The whole concept of God sacrificing his incarnate self to appease his own blood lust doesn't seem likely. So I don't believe. Also I despise the Old Testament God, and the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. This could be because I am an evil rebel and a follower of evil and Satan. Or it could be that the Bible is the product of a primitive and brutal time.

Regardless, Christianity does not teach that you can believe in Jesus and then do whatever you want. No, the Bible makes pretty clear that to believe Jesus is to follow Jesus, and that is actually a difficult path, made easy only by the faith that you are truly following God. Works do not save, but those who have faith bear fruit through works.

 

[guno]

The whole concept of God sacrificing his incarnate self to appease his own blood lust doesn't seem likely. So I don't believe. Also I despise the Old Testament God, and the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. This could be because I am an evil rebel and a follower of evil and Satan. Or it could be that the Bible is the product of a primitive and brutal time.

Regardless, Christianity does not teach that you can believe in Jesus and then do whatever you want. No, the Bible makes pretty clear that to believe Jesus is to follow Jesus, and that is actually a difficult path, made easy by the faith that you are truly following God. Works do not save, but those who have faith bear fruit through works.

Crimes on credit

 

[Davros]

The whole concept of God sacrificing his incarnate self to appease his own blood lust doesn't seem likely. So I don't believe. Also I despise the Old Testament God, and the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. This could be because I am an evil rebel and a follower of evil and Satan. Or it could be that the Bible is the product of a primitive and brutal time.

Regardless, Christianity does not teach that you can believe in Jesus and then do whatever you want. No, the Bible makes pretty clear that to believe Jesus is to follow Jesus, and that is actually a difficult path, made easy by the faith that you are truly following God. Works do not save, but those who have faith bear fruit through works.

Crimes on credit

Anybody can be redeemed by becoming a follower of Jesus. It does not undo the harm you have done, but it starts from now. Paul was a killer of Christians before he became a follower of Jesus, and then died for Jesus.

 

[hobelim]

When was Jesus ever called a Wonderful Counselor, or a Mighty Gd, or an Everlasting Father, or a Prince of Peace? Jesus was never called by any of these names anywhere in the Christians' New Testament and not at all in his own lifetime.

Many scholars are in agreement that the prophecy is about the future king Hezekiah. Even so Hezekaiah was never called a wonderful counselor, everlasting father, emanuel, prince of peace, or a mighty God.

so what.

You may be right that there is no such thing as a mangod and that Christians misuse and misapply scripture in an attempt to prove that Jesus was God, (even though he never made that claim according to their own scriptures), and that the very notion that the OT supports such a belief is absurd but that does not make your own interpretations of scripture less absurd when you try and prove that Jesus was a false prophet by misusing and misapplying scripture yourself as a refutation of Christian claims and as a basis for creating false and irrational messianic expectations that no human being could ever possibly fulfill.