Why do Christians claim to get their morals from the bible?

[Dyakovo]

"What is the meaning of life?"

Now... go!

A great movie starring John Cleese.

[New Azura]

That's why "interpretation" is a dangerous word, my friend.

I wasn't talking about interpretation - I was talking about what is actually in the scripture.

An atheist would read the Bible, study it for use against a believer, and would say, "there are no explicit references to Jesus of Nazareth in the Old Testament. There are references to a coming Messiah, but did it ever say that Jesus of Nazareth would be the Christ? No. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ."

A Christian would read the Bible, study it for use against a non-believer, and would say,

I'm a little saddened that you think to use the scripture as a weapon..

..."there are explicit references to a forthcoming Messiah in the Old Testament. The man, Jesus of Nazareth fulfills every measurable facet of who the Messiah was to be.

Jesus didn't fulfill any of the requirements of Messiah - and actually is excluded from any possibility of being messiah on many points - which I detailed earlier.

The Old Testament is the background to the New Testament, and "prepares the ground" for Christ's arrival. You cannot have one without the other, for the Old Testament without the New Testament is incomplete,

Rubbish.

The Old Testament is complete.

...and the New Testament without the Old Testament is baseless.

The New Testament is baseless WITH the Old Testament.

Messiah, as promised by the Hebrew scripture, has yet to come. The Greek scripture doesn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, and, in fact, argues with the actual prophecies of messiah.

Arguing with the very prophecy it's supposed to fulfill... means the text is baseless.

You and I can go round and around on this issue, because you will use the Bible to make your points, and I will use the Bible to make my points. The most critical element here would seem to be the Bible. Yet the Bible means nothing to a non-believer, and means much to a believer because of the most important element of all: God. If you do not believe, then the Bible can be a beautiful book of allegories, fairy-tales, or the delusional writings of a few whackos in the desert two thousand years ago. If you believe, then the Bible is the Sword by which we defend ourselves from spiritual attacks, for our fight is not with physical foes, but spiritual ones. Spiritual ones that can wield great influence on man, but are spiritual nonetheless.

We can go round and round on this issue because you've decided what you want to believe, and will not actually read what is in scripture - I think you have too much of a vested interest in it being true to actually evaluate it objectively.

You asked, earlier, why Jesus couldn't be messiah, and I took it for an honest question, and spent 30 minutes of my life giving you more than a dozen reasons, including some scriptural citations, explaining why it is so.

Did you even pay attention?

viewtopic.php?p=822376#p822376

10Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

That's Ephesians 6:10-18. The Word of God, Scripture is the only weapon we have against the principalities of evil, which is our true enemy. That's why we're to hide the Word in our heart, to help defend ourselves. The Armor of God, you know? And the Old Testament is complete only if the promised Messiah has arrived. The promise kept in the Old Testament must be fulfilled, and if Christ is not the Messiah, then he's yet to arrive for the Hebrew people. Thus, the Old Testament is NOT complete.

God Bless, and have a wonderful day, all!

[Grave_n_idle]

That's Ephesians 6:10-18.

I'm well aware.

The Word of God, Scripture is the only weapon we have against the principalities of evil, which is our true enemy.

That's not what it said.

That's why we're to hide the Word in our heart, to help defend ourselves. The Armor of God, you know? And the Old Testament is complete only if the promised Messiah has arrived. The promise kept in the Old Testament must be fulfilled, and if Christ is not the Messiah, then he's yet to arrive for the Hebrew people.

This is true.

And, according to the actual prophecy, Messiah hasn't arrived yet - which makes me wonder why you cling to a lie.

Thus, the Old Testament is NOT complete.

Of course it is.

The text is complete, the prophecy is just not fulfilled. The fulfillment of messiah wouldn't be in the scripture, because the word of god will have been made manifest if messiah had actually arrived.

One more piece of evidence for Jesus not being messiah, really.

God Bless, and have a wonderful day, all!

If you're not going to even address the responses to the things you asked, don't waste my time by posting anything to me. I can't stand intellectual dishonesty.

[Farnhamia]

That's why "interpretation" is a dangerous word, my friend.

I wasn't talking about interpretation - I was talking about what is actually in the scripture.

An atheist would read the Bible, study it for use against a believer, and would say, "there are no explicit references to Jesus of Nazareth in the Old Testament. There are references to a coming Messiah, but did it ever say that Jesus of Nazareth would be the Christ? No. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ."

A Christian would read the Bible, study it for use against a non-believer, and would say,

I'm a little saddened that you think to use the scripture as a weapon..

..."there are explicit references to a forthcoming Messiah in the Old Testament. The man, Jesus of Nazareth fulfills every measurable facet of who the Messiah was to be.

Jesus didn't fulfill any of the requirements of Messiah - and actually is excluded from any possibility of being messiah on many points - which I detailed earlier.

The Old Testament is the background to the New Testament, and "prepares the ground" for Christ's arrival. You cannot have one without the other, for the Old Testament without the New Testament is incomplete,

Rubbish.

The Old Testament is complete.

...and the New Testament without the Old Testament is baseless.

The New Testament is baseless WITH the Old Testament.

Messiah, as promised by the Hebrew scripture, has yet to come. The Greek scripture doesn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, and, in fact, argues with the actual prophecies of messiah.

Arguing with the very prophecy it's supposed to fulfill... means the text is baseless.

You and I can go round and around on this issue, because you will use the Bible to make your points, and I will use the Bible to make my points. The most critical element here would seem to be the Bible. Yet the Bible means nothing to a non-believer, and means much to a believer because of the most important element of all: God. If you do not believe, then the Bible can be a beautiful book of allegories, fairy-tales, or the delusional writings of a few whackos in the desert two thousand years ago. If you believe, then the Bible is the Sword by which we defend ourselves from spiritual attacks, for our fight is not with physical foes, but spiritual ones. Spiritual ones that can wield great influence on man, but are spiritual nonetheless.

We can go round and round on this issue because you've decided what you want to believe, and will not actually read what is in scripture - I think you have too much of a vested interest in it being true to actually evaluate it objectively.

You asked, earlier, why Jesus couldn't be messiah, and I took it for an honest question, and spent 30 minutes of my life giving you more than a dozen reasons, including some scriptural citations, explaining why it is so.

Did you even pay attention?

viewtopic.php?p=822376#p822376

10Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

That's Ephesians 6:10-18. The Word of God, Scripture is the only weapon we have against the principalities of evil, which is our true enemy. That's why we're to hide the Word in our heart, to help defend ourselves. The Armor of God, you know? And the Old Testament is complete only if the promised Messiah has arrived. The promise kept in the Old Testament must be fulfilled, and if Christ is not the Messiah, then he's yet to arrive for the Hebrew people. Thus, the Old Testament is NOT complete.

God Bless, and have a wonderful day, all!

And this is just what Muryavets was decrying over in the "Genesis" thread, the cheery defense of belief in the face of evidence. Or was it here? I got so confused by mid-week.

[New Azura]

Here are my responses to your reasons for Christ's illegitimate claim as the Messiah. My answers are in bold to help denote them easier.

---

There are a number of reasons.

First - Jesus was not anointed, seems most obvious - since that's what Messiah (Mashiach) means. (Exodus 29:7, First Kings 1:39, Second Kings 9:3)
- Mark 14:3; John 12:1-8. Christ was anointed in Bethany by Mary. He was also baptized by John the Baptist, preceding the descending of the Spirit of God in dove-form in Matthew's Gospel account.

Second - Jesus was neither a prophet, nor a king. Herod was the King, and anointed as such. Jesus spoke to change the laws, which immediately identifies him as a false prophet. Being neither prophet nor king explains why he was not anointed - and is evidence that he was not mashiach.

- Christ was the fulfillment of the Law, not a detractor of the law. The Law was fulfilled through Christ, as the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of sin.

Third - Jesus did not reign (at all) in an age of universal peace and recognition of Jehovah as God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, Isaiah 60:15-18, Micah 4:1-4, Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

- Christ foretells of his Millennium reign, whereby all the Saints of old are to be resurrected and to reign during a thousand years of peace, where he rules from Jerusalem and God is known by all.

Fourth - Jesus is not 'of David' by lineage, a requirement of mashiach (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, Jeremiah 30:7-10, Jeremiah 33:14-16, Ezekiel 34:11-31, Ezekiel 37:21-28, Hosea 3:4-5)

- Christ's earthly mother AND father both share lineage with David, as recounted in the New Testament. Matthew and Luke's genealogies are for two different people: Matthew's is for Joseph, Luke's is for Mary.

Fifth - Jesus did not build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)

- Christ IS the Third Temple. The Messiah is the final temple, for it is only through the bodily sacrifice of Christ do we, humanity, come before the Father. Notice he says that "His Tabernacle" will dwell in the midst of them forevermore. Christ sets up his Earthly kingdom in Israel during the millennium reign.

Sixth - Jesus did not bring all the Jews back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6)

- Christ foretells of this during the Millennium reign.

Seventh - Jesus did not bring in an age of peace (Isaiah 2:4)

- Again, Christ foretells of this during the Millennium reign.

Eighth - Jesus did not make 'God... King over all the world' (Zechariah 14:9)

- Yet again, Christ foretells of this during the Millennium reign.

Ninth - Jesus cannot have been a prophet (ignoring not being anointed, and his changing the law marking him as a False Prophet) because he did not come in an age of prophecy. Prophecy can only exist in the land of Israel when most of the world's Jews are found there - which means there has been no age of prophecy since Ezra (about 300 BC). So - Jesus simply cannot have been a prophet.

- The dispersal of the Jewish sect from Palestine did not begin until the Romans marched through and destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D., almost forty years AFTER Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. Thus, your conclusion is in error.

Tenth - Jesus did not have a human father. Mashiach will be born of human parents, and is not suggested to have supernatural powers. The human father must be able to trace legitimate ancestry back to David. Jesus lacks a father, and his mother (who would be ineligible, anyway) does not have a legitimate ancestry to David (blame Jeconiah).

- Christ had human parents: David and Mary. Not suggested to have supernatural powers is false, for Daniel speaks clearly that the coming Messiah would indeed be the "Son of Man", a name of Christ.

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

Eleventh - Jesus was not an observant Jew. Mashiach will be Torah observant, and the Torah says that all mitzvot will be binding forever, but Jesus repeatedly broke commandments. Not only was Jesus not observant, he actually preached away from following the Torah.

- Christ could not preach away from that which he was the fulfillment on. Re-read the Sermon on the Mount, and the Olivet Discourse, and his appraisal of the most important Commandments.

Twelfth - Judaism is based on national, no personal, revelation. The Revelation at Mount Sinai is not important because it is miraculous, but because the law was handed down to ALL of Israel. Jesus' personal revelation is contrary to the plan of national revelation.

- The law was handed down to Moses, to be propagated amongst the people. Christ's revelation is to all men, not just the Hebrews. We are grafted in, and all revelations are for the betterment of the Body of Christ.

Thirteenth - Trinity theology is blasphemy. The 'son' is an idol, according to Judaism (Deuteronomy 6:4) Jesus claiming to be the son means he is a blapshemer and an idolator, not mashiach.

- You are in error, sir. Deuteronomy 6:4, along with verses 5-9 and Numbers 15:37-41 refers to the Lord Our God being the one true God. Not many, but one True God. This refers to the multiple Gods of Greece, Babylon, etc. (understanding that Babylon was yet to rise at the time of Moses). The verse has no weight or bearing on the manifestations of God. Jesus Christ, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are the same God, in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But they are all one in the same, indivisible and unconquerable.

Fourteenth - God is not mortal. Explicitly. (Numbers 23:19). Again, Jesus' claims paint him as an idolator and blasphemer. Not mashiach.

Jesus Christ became flesh, then circumvented death by raising himself three days later. The Christ is immortal and eternal, and is the only one to have defeated death. Therefore, your conclusion again is in error, sir.

Edit #1: If I miss a point, overlook something in the forty pages of posts, or misunderstand your question, I apologize. But to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty (if I remember correctly) is out and out absurd. And for the record, who are atheists or agnostics, or people of other faiths to ever accuse Christians of intellectual dishonesty, Mr. "I'm going to take one sentence out of a context to make a point". You sir, are a hypocrite, and a bloody big one.

But I still loves ya, matey! ARGH!

[Grave_n_idle]

And this is just what Muryavets was decrying over in the "Genesis" thread, the cheery defense of belief in the face of evidence. Or was it here? I got so confused by mid-week.

And worse, he/she actually asked for the information that I spent time collecting my thoughts for, and putting into a easily readable and coherent form. And then the whole lot was just blown off, twice.

I'm okay with people having different beliefs, but if someone wants to argue with me about something I know so well, they should at least do the courtesy of reading the responses, and maybe responding to them - and not just wave it all away with something as intellectually dishonest as claiming it's my bias, or a matter of interpretation.

[Flameswroth]

- Christ had human parents: David and Mary. Not suggested to have supernatural powers is false, for Daniel speaks clearly that the coming Messiah would indeed be the "Son of Man", a name of Christ.

Odd, I always pictured God as more of a "Greg" or "Victor" or something.

[Farnhamia]

- Christ had human parents: David and Mary. Not suggested to have supernatural powers is false, for Daniel speaks clearly that the coming Messiah would indeed be the "Son of Man", a name of Christ.

Odd, I always pictured God as more of a "Greg" or "Victor" or something.

Oh dear, oh dear, did poor Joseph get the short end of the stick again? One feels for the poor guy, descendant of kings and it's all about the wife and the kid. Tsk.

[New Azura]

And this is just what Muryavets was decrying over in the "Genesis" thread, the cheery defense of belief in the face of evidence. Or was it here? I got so confused by mid-week.

And worse, he/she actually asked for the information that I spent time collecting my thoughts for, and putting into a easily readable and coherent form. And then the whole lot was just blown off, twice.

I'm okay with people having different beliefs, but if someone wants to argue with me about something I know so well, they should at least do the courtesy of reading the responses, and maybe responding to them - and not just wave it all away with something as intellectually dishonest as claiming it's my bias, or a matter of interpretation.

I, uh, answered your information. Again, if I missed it in the 40+ pages of posts, I'm sorry. But pointing out the flaws of others while not addressing your own biases and flaws does not make you my intellectual superior, it makes you a hypocrite.

[Grave_n_idle]

- Mark 14:3; John 12:1-8. Christ was anointed in Bethany by Mary. He was also baptized by John the Baptist, preceding the descending of the Spirit of God in dove-form in Matthew's Gospel account.

Mary doesn't have the authority to anoint. John was a baptist, he also lacks the authority to anoint. Baptism in water is not anointing.

Jesus was not anointed. False.

- Christ was the fulfillment of the Law, not a detractor of the law. The Law was fulfilled through Christ, as the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of sin.

Jesus preached to change the law - it doesn't matter how you try to weasel out of it, that makes hima false prophet, according to the Hebrew scripture/

- Christ foretells of his Millennium reign, whereby all the Saints of old are to be resurrected and to reign during a thousand years of peace, where he rules from Jerusalem and God is known by all.

What 'Jesus foretells' is irrelevant. If he hasn't done it, he isn't messiah.

- Christ's earthly mother AND father both share lineage with David, as recounted in the New Testament. Matthew and Luke's genealogies are for two different people: Matthew's is for Joseph, Luke's is for Mary.

Jesus has no earthly father, unless you believe the virgin birth is a lie. And hereditary link to David is traced through the father. Even if she was eligible - which she's not - Mary's lineage goes through Jeconiah, who can never have his descendents sit on the throne of David - unless you're calling Jehovah a liar.

- Christ IS the Third Temple. The Messiah is the final temple, for it is only through the bodily sacrifice of Christ do we, humanity, come before the Father. Notice he says that "His Tabernacle" will dwell in the midst of them forevermore. Christ sets up his Earthly kingdom in Israel during the millennium reign.

Rubbish. The temple is a temple. Trying to pretend it's a person is twisting the Hebrew scripture to meet your own revisionist needs. If Christians have to lie about the hebrew scripture to make it meet their needs, then their claims are lies.

- Christ foretells of this during the Millennium reign.

What 'Jesus foretells' (not Christ - not anointed) is irrelevant. If it hasn't happened, he isn't messiah.

- Again, Christ foretells of this during the Millennium reign.

And again, what is 'foretold' is irrelevant. The prophecies of messiah do not have a big gap in them for stuff that is allowed to happen later. If it hasn't happened, he isn't messiah.

- Yet again, Christ foretells of this during the Millennium reign.

And again, it's irrelevant. If it hasn't happened - he isn't messiah - andd you're ADMITTING it hasn't happened, so YOU are waiting for messiah, too.

- The dispersal of the Jewish sect from Palestine did not begin until the Romans marched through and destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D., almost forty years AFTER Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. Thus, your conclusion is in error.

Actually read your scripture - Jewry were already not all living in Israel, since the division after Babylon.

- Christ had human parents: David and Mary. Not suggested to have supernatural powers is false, for Daniel speaks clearly that the coming Messiah would indeed be the "Son of Man", a name of Christ.

Jesus is claimed to have had one human parent, and one 'god'. If we're talking abotu Greek mythology, that is fine - but it doesn't fit with the prophecies of Messiah.

[b]- Christ could not preach away from that which he was the fulfillment on. Re-read the Sermon on the Mount, and the Olivet Discourse, and his appraisal of the most important Commandments.

More revisionist rubbish. You keep claiming that Jesus was allowed to break the commandments because he 'fulfilled' them - but there's no allowance for 'fulfilling' the law. Even Jesus himself is supposed to have said that the law will not ever change or pass away.

I'm well aware of the scripture - and you've cited nothing that excuses Jesus working on the Sabbath, for example - or preaching a different law.

- The law was handed down to Moses, to be propagated amongst the people. Christ's revelation is to all men, not just the Hebrews. We are grafted in, and all revelations are for the betterment of the Body of Christ.

More revisionist rubbish. Jesus revelation was only to Jews. Read your scripture - he expressly forbids his followers from preaching to anyone outside. Not to mention - the Tribes of Israel are to be the priests to the Gentiles - there is no scriptural basis for accepting a revisionist revelation to all peoples.

- You are in error, sir. Deuteronomy 6:4, along with verses 5-9 and Numbers 15:37-41 refers to the Lord Our God being the one true God. Not many, but one True God. This refers to the multiple Gods of Greece, Babylon, etc. (understanding that Babylon was yet to rise at the time of Moses). The verse has no weight or bearing on the manifestations of God. Jesus Christ, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are the same God, in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But they are all one in the same, indivisible and unconquerable.

Ask Jews if the trinity is consistent with the commandments. You know they'll tell you it's not. You place extra gods alongside Jehovah, and pretend it's somehow not breaking the commandments against idolatry - but it's just pretend.

Jesus Christ became flesh, then circumvented death by raising himself three days later. The Christ is immortal and eternal, and is the only one to have defeated death. Therefore, your conclusion again is in error, sir.

Jesus was not Christ. Also - Jesus was mortal, so he can't be god. Your zombie stories don't impress anyone who actually knows what the prophecies for messiah are.


So, basically - you made a lot of blasphemous claims, based on the Greek scripture and directly contradicting the hebrew scripture... Nonsensical claims about 'defeating death', circular logic, and appeals to things that haven't even happened.

As such, you are evidence of the fact that Christians ignore the actual prophecies of messiah.

What I really don't understand, is WHY you want Jesus to be 'messiah' if you don't believe in the messianic prophecy?

EDIT: fixed broken quote-nesting.

[Grave_n_idle]

And this is just what Muryavets was decrying over in the "Genesis" thread, the cheery defense of belief in the face of evidence. Or was it here? I got so confused by mid-week.

And worse, he/she actually asked for the information that I spent time collecting my thoughts for, and putting into a easily readable and coherent form. And then the whole lot was just blown off, twice.

I'm okay with people having different beliefs, but if someone wants to argue with me about something I know so well, they should at least do the courtesy of reading the responses, and maybe responding to them - and not just wave it all away with something as intellectually dishonest as claiming it's my bias, or a matter of interpretation.

I, uh, answered your information. Again, if I missed it in the 40+ pages of posts, I'm sorry. But pointing out the flaws of others while not addressing your own biases and flaws does not make you my intellectual superior, it makes you a hypocrite.

What is my bias supposed to be?

[Flameswroth]

- Christ had human parents: David and Mary. Not suggested to have supernatural powers is false, for Daniel speaks clearly that the coming Messiah would indeed be the "Son of Man", a name of Christ.

Odd, I always pictured God as more of a "Greg" or "Victor" or something.

Oh dear, oh dear, did poor Joseph get the short end of the stick again? One feels for the poor guy, descendant of kings and it's all about the wife and the kid. Tsk.

Joseph was the original man with a cuckold fetish. :3

Or at least one of the most famous.

[New Azura]

*SNIP*

If the Jewry were already dispersed as of the captivity in Babylon, then how was Ezra to fit into your mode, since he was a part of the leading BACK to Israel, having been commissioned to do so by Artaxerxes I. He led about 5,000 back, if I recall?

And one last point, on something you yourself said: "Ask Jews if the trinity is consistent with the commandments. You know they'll tell you it's not. You place extra gods alongside Jehovah, and pretend it's somehow not breaking the commandments against idolatry - but it's just pretend." Of course Jews would argue that, for the same reasons you do. You base your understanding on passages that are easily misunderstood to placate your own views, but Heaven help if someone with more than two cells actually uses those verses in a way that may point to Christ as the Messiah. News flash: the Old Testament sets up perfectly why the New Testament was needed: because it was a broken system in NEED of a Messiah. Just because Judaism doesn't believe doesn't make it so, man. And if YOU had bothered to read Scripture, you'd know Daniel 9:24-27...

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

The Messiah has to come 483 years after the commissioning of the rebuilding of the Temple. We're well past four hundred and eighty three years, no? And to
fulfill Messianic prophecy, the Messiah must be cut off for a period, which Christians view as the Dispensation of Grace. Upon the conclusion of this Dispensation, and only when the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians is removed, can the end times begin, and Christ will fulfill his Messianic Prophecy. Even if Christ was not the Messiah, the future Messiah must be cut off, or removed from the Jewry before he can fulfill prophecy. Thus, your saying this:

"What 'Jesus foretells' is irrelevant. If he hasn't done it, he isn't messiah."

Is irrelevant in itself, for the Messiah cannot fulfill all prophecy until after a second coming, be it through a resurrection or other means. Thus, and I state again, your conclusion is in error.

Edit #1: Just to clarify for all who didn't catch the 483 years bit. The writer speaks here of seventy weeks, in the connotation of a shabua, or grouping of seven. Seven years, times the 70 weeks or shabua equates to 490 years. After 69 weeks (shabua), or 483 years, the Messiah must be cut off from the people. This occurs when Christ weeps over Jerusalem, is later taken prisoner and crucified on the cross. Upon this, the Messiah has been cut off from the Jewish people, and the Age of the Gentiles has begun. This is called the Dispensation of Grace, where the Holy Spirit has come upon believers in the Messiah, Christ Jesus, to act as the Comforter spoken of by Christ to his apostles, and confirmed upon the Day of Pentecost described in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. This Dispensation lasts until the restrainer (the Holy Spirit) is removed, whereby the final week (seven years) begins. Notice how in the Book of Revelation, the period of Tribulation lasts for, survey says! Seven years. The period between Christ's crucifixion and the final seven years, which will be marked by a peace treaty encompassing Israel for seven years, is the "cutting off" period that prophecy foretells of, and has to come to pass before the Messiah can be fulfilled.

[Laos Refugees]

All this stuff about Christ not being the messiah, or, whatever you guys are arguing about..:3
It sounds like the bibles version of "Old Trek vs New Trek?" or "Who did that random guy at the polls vote for? Obama Or McCain?

[Grave_n_idle]

*SNIP*

If the Jewry were already dispersed as of the captivity in Babylon, then how was Ezra to fit into your mode, since he was a part of the leading BACK to Israel, having been commissioned to do so by Artaxerxes I. He led about 5,000 back, if I recall?

And one last point, on something you yourself said: "Ask Jews if the trinity is consistent with the commandments. You know they'll tell you it's not. You place extra gods alongside Jehovah, and pretend it's somehow not breaking the commandments against idolatry - but it's just pretend." Of course Jews would argue that, for the same reasons you do. You base your understanding on passages that are easily misunderstood to placate your own views, but Heaven help if someone with more than two cells actually uses those verses in a way that may point to Christ as the Messiah. News flash: the Old Testament sets up perfectly why the New Testament was needed: because it was a broken system in NEED of a Messiah. Just because Judaism doesn't believe doesn't make it so, man. And if YOU had bothered to read Scripture, you'd know Daniel 9:24-27...

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

The Messiah has to come 483 years after the commissioning of the rebuilding of the Temple. We're well past four hundred and eighty three years, no? And to
fulfill Messianic prophecy, the Messiah must be cut off for a period, which Christians view as the Dispensation of Grace. Upon the conclusion of this Dispensation, and only when the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians is removed, can the end times begin, and Christ will fulfill his Messianic Prophecy. Even if Christ was not the Messiah, the future Messiah must be cut off, or removed from the Jewry before he can fulfill prophecy. Thus, your saying this:

"What 'Jesus foretells' is irrelevant. If he hasn't done it, he isn't messiah."

Is irrelevant in itself, for the Messiah cannot fulfill all prophecy until after a second coming, be it through a resurrection or other means. Thus, and I state again, your conclusion is in error.

Edit #1: Just to clarify for all who didn't catch the 483 years bit. The writer speaks here of seventy weeks, in the connotation of a shabua, or grouping of seven. Seven years, times the 70 weeks or shabua equates to 490 years. After 69 weeks (shabua), or 483 years, the Messiah must be cut off from the people. This occurs when Christ weeps over Jerusalem, is later taken prisoner and crucified on the cross. Upon this, the Messiah has been cut off from the Jewish people, and the Age of the Gentiles has begun. This is called the Dispensation of Grace, where the Holy Spirit has come upon believers in the Messiah, Christ Jesus, to act as the Comforter spoken of by Christ to his apostles, and confirmed upon the Day of Pentecost described in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. This Dispensation lasts until the restrainer (the Holy Spirit) is removed, whereby the final week (seven years) begins. Notice how in the Book of Revelation, the period of Tribulation lasts for, survey says! Seven years. The period between Christ's crucifixion and the final seven years, which will be marked by a peace treaty encompassing Israel for seven years, is the "cutting off" period that prophecy foretells of, and has to come to pass before the Messiah can be fulfilled.

Daniel isn't a prophet. He was never spoken to directly by Jehovah god, he didn't prophecy to his own generation, and his words were not disseminated to the nation of Israel. He fails on practically every marker of an actual Prophet, according to the Hebrew scripture.

It's just another example of how 'christians' are willing to lie about the prophecies of messiah to try to fit Jesus into them.

The insult about 'sanyone with two cells' was a weak attack, which just proves how weak your argument is - the prophecy of messiah is pretty explicit.

[New Azura]

*SNIP*

If the Jewry were already dispersed as of the captivity in Babylon, then how was Ezra to fit into your mode, since he was a part of the leading BACK to Israel, having been commissioned to do so by Artaxerxes I. He led about 5,000 back, if I recall?

And one last point, on something you yourself said: "Ask Jews if the trinity is consistent with the commandments. You know they'll tell you it's not. You place extra gods alongside Jehovah, and pretend it's somehow not breaking the commandments against idolatry - but it's just pretend." Of course Jews would argue that, for the same reasons you do. You base your understanding on passages that are easily misunderstood to placate your own views, but Heaven help if someone with more than two cells actually uses those verses in a way that may point to Christ as the Messiah. News flash: the Old Testament sets up perfectly why the New Testament was needed: because it was a broken system in NEED of a Messiah. Just because Judaism doesn't believe doesn't make it so, man. And if YOU had bothered to read Scripture, you'd know Daniel 9:24-27...

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

The Messiah has to come 483 years after the commissioning of the rebuilding of the Temple. We're well past four hundred and eighty three years, no? And to
fulfill Messianic prophecy, the Messiah must be cut off for a period, which Christians view as the Dispensation of Grace. Upon the conclusion of this Dispensation, and only when the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians is removed, can the end times begin, and Christ will fulfill his Messianic Prophecy. Even if Christ was not the Messiah, the future Messiah must be cut off, or removed from the Jewry before he can fulfill prophecy. Thus, your saying this:

"What 'Jesus foretells' is irrelevant. If he hasn't done it, he isn't messiah."

Is irrelevant in itself, for the Messiah cannot fulfill all prophecy until after a second coming, be it through a resurrection or other means. Thus, and I state again, your conclusion is in error.

Edit #1: Just to clarify for all who didn't catch the 483 years bit. The writer speaks here of seventy weeks, in the connotation of a shabua, or grouping of seven. Seven years, times the 70 weeks or shabua equates to 490 years. After 69 weeks (shabua), or 483 years, the Messiah must be cut off from the people. This occurs when Christ weeps over Jerusalem, is later taken prisoner and crucified on the cross. Upon this, the Messiah has been cut off from the Jewish people, and the Age of the Gentiles has begun. This is called the Dispensation of Grace, where the Holy Spirit has come upon believers in the Messiah, Christ Jesus, to act as the Comforter spoken of by Christ to his apostles, and confirmed upon the Day of Pentecost described in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. This Dispensation lasts until the restrainer (the Holy Spirit) is removed, whereby the final week (seven years) begins. Notice how in the Book of Revelation, the period of Tribulation lasts for, survey says! Seven years. The period between Christ's crucifixion and the final seven years, which will be marked by a peace treaty encompassing Israel for seven years, is the "cutting off" period that prophecy foretells of, and has to come to pass before the Messiah can be fulfilled.

Daniel isn't a prophet. He was never spoken to directly by Jehovah god, he didn't prophecy to his own generation, and his words were not disseminated to the nation of Israel. He fails on practically every marker of an actual Prophet, according to the Hebrew scripture.

It's just another example of how 'christians' are willing to lie about the prophecies of messiah to try to fit Jesus into them.

The insult about 'sanyone with two cells' was a weak attack, which just proves how weak your argument is - the prophecy of messiah is pretty explicit.

Upon final examination, the only weakness here is our inability to keep this debate civil. But to counter your point, why is Daniel included in the Ketuvim if his prophecies, or "visions" are to be ignored or written off? I say that in order to lead to my main point: If you say anything that can boil down to "It's the Jewish Way", then I reassert that the Old Testament represents a broken system that required the Messiah, who I believe is Christ Jesus.

[Grave_n_idle]

Upon final examination, the only weakness here is our inability to keep this debate civil. But to counter your point, why is Daniel included in the Ketuvim if his prophecies, or "visions" are to be ignored or written off? I say that in order to lead to my main point: If you say anything that can boil down to "It's the Jewish Way", then I reassert that the Old Testament represents a broken system that required the Messiah, who I believe is Christ Jesus.

It's kind of funny that you say "why is Daniel included in the Ketuvim if his prophecies, or "visions" are to be ignored or written off?" when, of course, the Ketuvim are not prophecy.

If Daniel (or Ezra, as you mentioned earlier) were prophets, they'd be in the Nevi'im.

So - there are still no prophecies of Messiah that Jesus honestly fulfills. The only 'prophecies' he can be fitted into, aren't real prophecies of messiah.

I'm not boiling everything down to 'It's the Jewish way' - I'm saying that the Hebrew scripture is specific about messiah, and Jesus isn't it. If you don't value the Hebrew scripture prophecy... what justification do you have for calling Jesus 'messiah' - indeed, why would you even want to?

You say that the Hebrew scripture is broken - you're wrong. The book is complete. When Messiah finally does turn up, there will not be any need to add texts - as clearly described in the prophecies of messiah - we'll all already be living under God's rule, and in perfect peace.


It's interesting that you think the Hebrew scripture 'broken' because the prophecies aren't finished... but you don't consider the Jesus myth broken, even though you clearly admit that the Greek scripture prophecies haven't been completed yet, either.

[New Azura]

Upon final examination, the only weakness here is our inability to keep this debate civil. But to counter your point, why is Daniel included in the Ketuvim if his prophecies, or "visions" are to be ignored or written off? I say that in order to lead to my main point: If you say anything that can boil down to "It's the Jewish Way", then I reassert that the Old Testament represents a broken system that required the Messiah, who I believe is Christ Jesus.

It's kind of funny that you say "why is Daniel included in the Ketuvim if his prophecies, or "visions" are to be ignored or written off?" when, of course, the Ketuvim are not prophecy.

If Daniel (or Ezra, as you mentioned earlier) were prophets, they'd be in the Nevi'im.

So - there are still no prophecies of Messiah that Jesus honestly fulfills. The only 'prophecies' he can be fitted into, aren't real prophecies of messiah.

I'm not boiling everything down to 'It's the Jewish way' - I'm saying that the Hebrew scripture is specific about messiah, and Jesus isn't it. If you don't value the Hebrew scripture prophecy... what justification do you have for calling Jesus 'messiah' - indeed, why would you even want to?

You say that the Hebrew scripture is broken - you're wrong. The book is complete. When Messiah finally does turn up, there will not be any need to add texts - as clearly described in the prophecies of messiah - we'll all already be living under God's rule, and in perfect peace.


It's interesting that you think the Hebrew scripture 'broken' because the prophecies aren't finished... but you don't consider the Jesus myth broken, even though you clearly admit that the Greek scripture prophecies haven't been completed yet, either.

If I made that error, let me correct myself: the Hebrew system was broken, not Hebrew Scripture. The fulfillment of the Hebrew Scripture may be incomplete, but then, so is the Greek Scripture obviously (since several events have yet to unfold). If I made that error previously, I apologize. I'd also like to apologize if anything I've said has been taken personally, character-wise. I got a little agitated earlier, and may have spoken things that should not have been spoken, so I do want to apologize.

By system, I mean the Mosaic Law by which the Jewry found themselves under by the time of Jesus's lifetime. Even a Jewish scholar living today would acknowledge the need for a Messiah figure, for the same reason that Christians need Jesus Christ as the Messiah figure: for the final atonement of our sins. We disagree primarily that Jesus is or is not the Messiah, but the heart of the matter is still the same. Mankind cannot achieve final salvation under the Mosaic Law without a Messiah. Through Christ Jesus, the Gentiles are grafted into the Jewish Family, but are not bound to follow the Jewish customs. We are, however, bound to honor God, as Christ himself states:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."

As Christians, we're most certainly obligated to honor the Ten Commandments handed down by God to Moses. There's no habitual disregard for God's Law, in the sense that Jesus taught that it was null in void because of corruption. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant: the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in the flesh, and the perfect sacrifice.

In regards to the Book of Daniel, what I meant was, if the visions or the "prophecies" were not to be taken seriously, then why consider Daniel's writings canon at all? That's what I was stretching for there was the necessity of Daniel's inclusion into canon? I can understand if it was to document a narrative of the Hebrew condition during Babylonian captivity, and it's obviously been accepted into Jewish Law. Why accept a book that has so many supposed undocumented or unreliable facets is my question. I cannot foresee this problem occurring with the inclusion of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, but I may be mistaken on this issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

By system, I mean the Mosaic Law by which the Jewry found themselves under by the time of Jesus's lifetime. Even a Jewish scholar living today would acknowledge the need for a Messiah figure,

Opinions differ. Some say there are potential messiahs born in each generation, and we've yet to reach all the requirements for THE Messiah to be revealed, for example.

...for the same reason that Christians need Jesus Christ as the Messiah figure: for the final atonement of our sins.

There is no 'final atonement of our sins' - that's a purely Greek Scripture creation. It simply isn't needed in the hebrew scripture.

We disagree primarily that Jesus is or is not the Messiah, but the heart of the matter is still the same. Mankind cannot achieve final salvation under the Mosaic Law without a Messiah.

This 'final salvation' argument is Christian revisionism. Messiah is not a method of salvation or absolution of sin - messiah is the anointed ruler over Israel when all the prophecies come to fruition.

You keep trying to apply Christian salvation mythology to the hebrew scripture - but it's not a Hebrew scripture idea.

Through Christ Jesus, the Gentiles are grafted into the Jewish Family, but are not bound to follow the Jewish customs.

Gentiles are not supposed to be grafted on to the Jewish family - the Hebrew scripture is quite clear about that.

What is supposed to happen, is that the tribes of Israel are supposed to become the PRIESTS to the gentiles - a plan that Jesus denies.

As Christians, we're most certainly obligated to honor the Ten Commandments handed down by God to Moses.

Not at all. Gentiles are bound by the seven Noahide laws only, not the Mosaic laws.

There's no habitual disregard for God's Law, in the sense that Jesus taught that it was null in void because of corruption. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant: the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in the flesh, and the perfect sacrifice.

There is no fulfillment of Mosaic Law. That's Christian revisionism. And all appropriate sacrifices are 'perfect', that's the point. That doesn't mean they can do anything more than what they are ritually intended for.

There is no Hebrew scripture ritual that can forgive transgressions in advance. It's a nonsense.

In regards to the Book of Daniel, what I meant was, if the visions or the "prophecies" were not to be taken seriously, then why consider Daniel's writings canon at all?

Daniel is considered a good man, and a wise man. He is not considered a prophet (for reasons I mentioned earlier), which is why he is not found in the books of the prophets.

[Laos Refugees]

whatever

Oh please, that does this have to do with morals?

[Straughn]

Gotta blame somebody. Might as well stick with a stellar track record.

[Kingdom Brittania]

But the Bible as well say that do things which is right in your own conscience.

[New Azura]

whatever

Oh please, that does this have to do with morals?

Alright, if this was a thread-jack of epic proportions, I apologize. Christians claim to get their morals from the Bible because the Bible itself has held great importance in formulating the basic moral code of the Western World throughout the last several hundred years, oddly following the Catholic Church's loss of secular power back in the seventeenth century. Several facets of the moral structure behind the Ten Commandments (don't lie, don't commit adultery) have been emulated by the secular culture at large, while the political apparatuses of many nations have also emulated Commandments (stealing, murdering) in the formulation of their moral coda. We can also display a facet of our moral coda, which has existed well before the Catholic loss of secular power, in a verse from the Gospel Account of John, Chapter 15, Verses 9 through 12:

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

Christ teaches us to always abide in love. We're to come at those who would hurt us, or disbelieve us, or mock us in love (one of the reasons why I apologize so much in these forums is to make sure that I always keep an open heart about me, since anger or irritation can easily seep in to my posts). Paul goes even further in 1 Corinthians 13:13...

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

In this passage, "charity" comes from the Greek word "Agape", which means love. Love should formulate the basis of our moral structure in all facets of life, for it is through love that Christians find the greatest joy and happiness in our experiences. That's the basis for our morality system, if that helps.

[F1-Insanity]

whatever

Oh please, that does this have to do with morals?

Alright, if this was a thread-jack of epic proportions, I apologize. Christians claim to get their morals from the Bible because the Bible itself has held great importance in formulating the basic moral code of the Western World throughout the last several hundred years, oddly following the Catholic Church's loss of secular power back in the seventeenth century. Several facets of the moral structure behind the Ten Commandments (don't lie, don't commit adultery) have been emulated by the secular culture at large, while the political apparatuses of many nations have also emulated Commandments (stealing, murdering) in the formulation of their moral coda. We can also display a facet of our moral coda, which has existed well before the Catholic loss of secular power, in a verse from the Gospel Account of John, Chapter 15, Verses 9 through 12:

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

Christ teaches us to always abide in love. We're to come at those who would hurt us, or disbelieve us, or mock us in love (one of the reasons why I apologize so much in these forums is to make sure that I always keep an open heart about me, since anger or irritation can easily seep in to my posts). Paul goes even further in 1 Corinthians 13:13...

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

In this passage, "charity" comes from the Greek word "Agape", which means love. Love should formulate the basis of our moral structure in all facets of life, for it is through love that Christians find the greatest joy and happiness in our experiences. That's the basis for our morality system, if that helps.

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

[New Azura]

whatever

Oh please, that does this have to do with morals?

Alright, if this was a thread-jack of epic proportions, I apologize. Christians claim to get their morals from the Bible because the Bible itself has held great importance in formulating the basic moral code of the Western World throughout the last several hundred years, oddly following the Catholic Church's loss of secular power back in the seventeenth century. Several facets of the moral structure behind the Ten Commandments (don't lie, don't commit adultery) have been emulated by the secular culture at large, while the political apparatuses of many nations have also emulated Commandments (stealing, murdering) in the formulation of their moral coda. We can also display a facet of our moral coda, which has existed well before the Catholic loss of secular power, in a verse from the Gospel Account of John, Chapter 15, Verses 9 through 12:

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

Christ teaches us to always abide in love. We're to come at those who would hurt us, or disbelieve us, or mock us in love (one of the reasons why I apologize so much in these forums is to make sure that I always keep an open heart about me, since anger or irritation can easily seep in to my posts). Paul goes even further in 1 Corinthians 13:13...

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

In this passage, "charity" comes from the Greek word "Agape", which means love. Love should formulate the basis of our moral structure in all facets of life, for it is through love that Christians find the greatest joy and happiness in our experiences. That's the basis for our morality system, if that helps.

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

That's fine, but what about the view of our Founding Fathers? Even so, large portions match from your source to mine. We believe that the Word is our guide, given to us by God, therefore that's why we draw our morals from the Bible. By all means, people of unbelief or non-beliefs can hold onto moral values, as such.