ChristiansUnite Forums

Jesus was a Jew.

Deal with it.

DITTO  ;D

 ;D Symphony........that's what I love about ya. You get to the point!

But did he wear a Red hat or a Blue Hat?  

 Actually, He wore a crown...of thorns.
The real question for you is, do you wear a red turbin or a blue one?

Ahh I see where this is going.  You took offence to My posts about the War.  That's a shame.  It may surprise you but I'm not an Arab or a Muslim. I'm white (not that it makes any difference) and I do actually agree with the teachings of Christ.  Dont Hindus wear Turbins?

I was making a joke about the hats.  and I know he is Jewish.  

DITTO  ;D

  *bump*


       ;D

Actually Jesus was conceived by GOD into the womb of a Jewish woman so that it would fulfill the prophesy of His lineage. I take issue with the fact that He was Jewish.

Why?

Because He is not a product (offsrping) of Jewish blood. His conception was immaculate. He received no DNA from His Jewish lineage. He grew up among the Jews and was carried in the womb of  a Jewish woman. To the world He was considered a Jew, especially to the ones who don't believe He was immaculately conceived. "There is no place for the son of man to lay His head." He was not of this world.

Wait a second, Heidi, are you saying you support immaculate conception?

Why, oh why, was this post even bumped?

Ah...you don't?

I fine Immaculate Conception to a pretty hard pill to shallow. The apologetics of it are shaky at BEST! It is an idea formed out of Inductive logic (something I can't stand).

What she has said has nothing todo with the RCC doctrine of Immaculate Conceptions (which, for the benefit of those who don't know, concerns the conception of Mary, not the conception of Christ).

On the other hand, what she said sounds remarkably close to one of the ancient heresies - that Christ is fully God, but not fully Human.  If He got nothing of himself from Mary, and she was just some sort of host, then He isn't truly human, and the incarnation (and hence the rest of it) is worth nothing.

That is what I'm trying to find out, she seems to imply that she does believe in IC.

Monophycitism, I think is the name. Seriously, though, I doubt Heidi dabbles in Ancient Heresy.

heidi,

It is clear to me you do not understand who or what this Catholic doctrine refers to.

But thats OK, most Christians, sadly and actually are ignorant of what this church teaches, but if they familiarized themselves with scripture they would see, the differnces between what the bible teaches and what man teaches for doctrines of God.

The troubling point you make to me, is wher you said;


This is clearly error, since Jesus is fully man because He was born of a woman, and fully God because His Father is the Holy Spirit, this is why the scripture says that, "that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Lk 1:35)

Jesus is refered to as Son of Man when reffering to His human attribute, and Son of God when refering to His diety and both are what make Him, the perfect intermediary between Man and God.

No Bible believing Christian should even concern themselves with the imaculate conception, it is not even mentioned in the bible.

Blessings,  

Petro

 

So, Tibby and Ebia, do you believe that Mary and Joseph conceived Christ? If so, where does it say that in the bible?

Heidi,

Petro's amusing musings aside, I think you might be confusing incarnation with immaculate conception.

Maybe. I just know that the term "immaculate comception" was brought up when I said that Christ was conceived by God so I'm assuming that's what it refers to. I know that the bible does say that the angel, Gabriel, told Mary she was "with child" and I do definitely believe that Christ was conceived by God, not of two humans.

Yeah, easy things to confuse. Being up on the lingo isn’t a prerequisite for being a Christian. ;D

Then what does the term "immaculate conception" mean?

It means Mary is immune to original sin

By that, do you mean she was sinless or that she was a virgin?

Sinnless from the time she was formed in the womb.

She was a virgin when she had Christ, that is not up for debate.

heidi,


The dogma of immaculate conception refers, to Mary not Jesus, and it does not mean hers was a virgin birth.

The docrine of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary (the mother of Christ) was invented by Rome in 1854 by Pope Pius IX , proclaimed and defined this dogma, here is what he said:
"In the frist instance of her conception, by a singular privilige and grace granted by God, in view of the human race, the Virign Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."  (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854)
Pius XI (Enclclical Lux veritatis, Christmas Day, 1931) decreed that every good Catholic must believe in the Virign Mary as a mediator and intercessor with God.  At the same time the Pope appealed to Protestants to join in worshipping Mary)


In November 1,  1950 AD, Pope Pius XII proclaimed a new dogma of the Assumption of Mary.
This new dogma, teaches Mary was "assumed (taken up) body and soul" into hesaven, an article of faith, to be believed on pain of eternal damnation. (Roamn Catholic theologians differ  on the time and place of this event)

All this is foreign to scripture, and has no place in Christian worship, nor theology.

This teaching was an invention by this pope, and a teaching of men taught as though it be a doctrine of God.

Blessings,
Petro



corpuss,


Perhaps you can tell us about the incarnation............

Petro

Oh...Duh, Heidi. I'd never heard that before. No, I do not believe Mary's birht was virginal. Thanks, Petro.

??? Sorry, that threw me for a loop. Please explain

I don't think you've quite got it.

It's not that Mary's birth was virginal.  Its that when Mary was concieved by her parents by perfectly normal means, God arranged that she would be uncontaiminated by original sin , so that she would be completely free of sin and thereby a suitable vessel for Christ.

I hope I got that right - its not a bit of Roman doctrine I subscribe to, so I may be off slightly, but thats the jist of it.

On the other point, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Christ's was concieved by Joseph and Mary, but rather by God and Mary  (... concieved by Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary...) and that Mary's role in that is as a full parent, not just a carrier of the embryo Christ.  Therefore Christ inherits Mary's jewishness.

Sorry...I obviously meant Mary's birth was not conceived by God. Possibly a Freudian slip? Nor do i believe Mary was sinless.

Okay.  Backup a minute here.  Are you still unbelieving of Jesus' Jewish heritage Heidi?  Because if you are, you are heretical.  If Christ were not man (and a Jewish man according the very promise God made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David), then He would not have been the "seed of the woman" referred to in Genesis 3:15.  He would not be the acceptable sacrifice God demanded - a sinlessly perfect human, the second Adam (Hebrew for "man).  Just a little clarification, but is this what you are saying?

Nice soap box but how about Last Adam instead of second Adam.  It's not like there's going to be another one.

I stand abashedly corrected!   :-[    Not to imply yet another.   The point being that to be the last Adam, He'd have to be human.  Forgive me all?

Whats more, Jesus is the "only begotten Son of God", born of  the seed of a woman.

While everone else is born of the seed of the serpent, with the exception of Adam and Eve.

Here it is;

Gen 3
14  And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is why, it is clear, all born of women are dead in sin and tresspass to the things of God.

There is no enmity between the serpent and his own seed, but there is enmity between the adoptd sons of God and the god of this world.

Jamers 4
4  ..............................., know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Blessings,

Petro

Amen Petro!  100% completely God, and 100% completely man.  The Son of God and the Son of Man.

I wonder if we're not just quibbling over semantics here. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. In the beginning He was with God and reincarnated into the womb of a woman whose heritage was Jewish. Since Jesus was one of a kind, I don't see why we can compare Him to us.  His heritage is definitely different than the rest of us. I see Him as a separate entity and not subject to the rules of mere ordinary men. I can see the viewpoint of people who say He's Jewish and I can see the viewpoint of people who say He's the son of God. I prefer to believe that He is the son of God born into the womb of a Jewish woman since he is not subject to the DNA of either of His parents. I do not believe that is heretical in any way.

"Fish slaps heidi* Sorry, I have to do it! ;D

Anyway, Jesus is fully man, and fully God, what are you questioning? This isn't semantics, we are just trying to understnad if you are telling us he IS NOT fully man!

So, do you beleive Jesus was fully Man, and fully God?

Do you believe that Jesus was conceived by God or 2 humans? Jesus does not fit into the category that the rest of us humans do who are fully human. How can we compare Him to us?I told you exactly what I blieve, that He was conceived by God into the womb of a Jewish woman. I think that is more truthful than saying He was conceived the way the rest of us were. I don't think this question is an "either or" one. Happy face.

Yes or No: do you beleive Jesus was fully Man, and fully God?

First and foremost I must apologize to Petro for my earlier comment. It was flippant and downright rude. You are undeserving of such remarks and I ask your forgiveness for my insult.



The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined (not invented) by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

Doctrines are only formally defined when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed.


As we've been over before, what is foreign to scripture is entirely dependant upon how one defines what IS scripture and what is or is not proper interpretation. The Bible according to Larry, Steve, Susan or whomever is a subjective enterprise at best with the Holy Spirit proclaimed as the inspiration for a variety of contradictory interpretations. That in itself demands a temporal authority. One might dispute it being the Catholic Church, but one cannot logically dispute the necessity of an authority if consistency in interpretation is to be maintained.

And the incarnation is of course what was defined by the Council of Nicea. It is the eternal Sonship of Christ, that He was eternally begotten of the Father. This is clearly manifested in 1 John 4:9 and John 1:1,14.

UUMm Heidi if you don't believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God we have a big problem.  No one is saying anything about Jesus being concieved by two humans.  I guarantee you would find some of Mary's DNA in Jesus if we could.  Sin comes from the man not the woman.  Regardless of all of that, Jesus was fully man and fully God else he could not have been our saviour.  For if He was not man then His life and death would be useless to us.

heidi,

Jesus never existed in the flesh, so it can hardly be said, he was reincarnated.

That he took on the form of sinful flesh, without being born in sin, as every other human, and He never sinned, the scriptures tell us, this so that we might believe it.

Note;

Phil2
5  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And again;

Rom 8
8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Or,

Heb 2
14  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15  And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
3:1  Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2  Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3  For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4  For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

You have heard that God is building Himself a building, (Eph 2:13-22) of which His children are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone, and it was set by God himself. No man laid it, and no man can lay another. (1 Cor 3:11)

If Jesus was not found to be of the same flesh in His human nature, then He never could have died the death, because the life of the flesh in in the blood, and God said

"I have given it to you upon the alter as an atonement for youy souls" "for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."    (Lev 17:11)

So if you don't believe Jesus came in human flesh, then you are not of God, according to scripture.

1 Jhn 4
2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


I trust you believe Gods word.


Petro

Of course Jesus was fully man AND fully God which is why i don't think of Him as a descendant in the same manner as the rest of us. All of us humans were conceived by the egg and sperm of two  human beings. The DNA is found in the merging of the egg and sperm. The egg and sperm is what gives us our DNA. The notion that God planted a fully fertiized egg in someone is so miraculous and foreign to to the birth of every other person that there is nothing "normal" about it. In that respect, i do not see how we can compare Him to a typical human being, do you?

heidi,

You do wrest the scriptures.

Where do you pretend to get the idea "that God planted a fully fertiized egg in someone", the scripture tells us;

Lk 1
35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary wasn't just artifically inseminated, her blood ran in the veins of Jesus, this is the only way, the prophecy could be fulfilled that God made to Abraham, when promised to him, that from his own loins He would raise up unto Him a Son which would fulfill the promise (Gen 17:5-8), and to King David that the Christ would come from his seed (Jhn 7:42, Rom 1:3) of the tribe of Judah.

Both Mary and Joseph were cousins, descendants of Judah, and of Nathan the son of King David.

I am afraid you do errorr on this point..

Petro

So, whose sperm was it?

heidi,

You just presume God is able only to procreate within the bounds of the creation.

Your question is exactly the type of question which we need to avoid asking or even contending about because they lead to strife and are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9)

Because it is just your opinion, that there was sperm., it is understood that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit, and therefore to imply He must be as a man, is not sound theology.

The inner workings of all this is a mystery to us, known only unto God, which unless revealed by God, we can only speculate on.

So there you have it, I trust you can see, how irrevelant it is to assert the Creator of everything has to conform to our notions, when producing His own sacrificial Lemb.



Blessings,



Petro

But that's the point I was making, Petro. The very fact that Jesus was a product of God is such a unique and awesome miracle that his birht can't be compared to that of man! By the way, it is NOT my opinion that there was sperm involved. I simply asked what you thought about it. As a matter of fact, my question led me to agree with more  of what you were saying because it is very possible that it was Mary's egg that GOD fertilized which makes your statement about Jesus carrying Mary's DNA correct. I had never thought of it that way before.  So please, do not jump to conclusions about someone's motives in asking a question. It isn't a question that causes strife, it's jumping to flase conclusions that causes strife.

I didn't jump to any conclusions, your question was matter of fact, implying there was sprem involved.

But anyhow, since you put it the way you have now, I don't have a problem with your answer.

Yes His brtrh is unique, that is why He is reffered to as;

The Only Begotten Son of God

All the rest of Gods children are adopted...........

Blessings,  
Petro

I was asking as a matter of curiosity because it is a fascinating concept and so unique! But i had previously assumed that the whole fertilized egg was an act of God but it must have been Mary's egg that God had touched. That is the only way she could have passed on Abraham's genes. Thanks, Petro.

Don't tell me we've actually got agreement on something.   :D

Acts 13:21.  And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.
 22.  And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
 23.  Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:25.  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Acts 3:25.  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Romans 1:3.  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
 4.  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Ollie,

I commend you, excellent verses,

That reminds me, that this same Jesus, will rebuild the fallen ruins of the house of David.

When God told David one of His sons would build Him a house, and that of His seed there would never lack a Son to sit on the throne, David assumed it would Solomon, but the curse on Jeconiah, ended that reign, and no one from Solomons lineage ever has nor will ascend the throne again, but Jesus who is a descendant thru avids Son Nathan, is the Son whom God spoke of.  He will sit on Davids throne forever in the coming Kingdom.

God Bless,

Petro

The prophecy you are quoting in Isaiah 7:14 is a part of christian mistranslation of the hebrew word "Almah"  is the word for A young woman who is married or of marrying age. the hebrew word for Virgin is "Betulah" plus the sign in Isaiah was for King Ahaz and it was more than likely Isaiah's wife that was pregnant and if you read in Isaiah chapter 8 Immanuel is alive and well. ;D

so no there is no virgin birth story in the Hebrew scriptures and the fact that jesus was born of a "virgin"  disproves him as the Jewish messiah

So do you beleive Jesus is the Son of GOD?

By the very nature and composition of my post do you honestly think I do. ???
to answer your question there is little evidence beyond Christian doctrine that proves the guy existed. so the answer to your question is "NO".  Oh yeah and if you want to know know who the first-born son of G-d is check out Exodus 4:22

How does the information that the virgin birth of Jesus is not in the Hebrew scriptures and that Jesus was born of a virgin disprove Him as the Jewish messiah?

So you can not say "Jesus is the Son of GOD" or "Jesus is Lord"

read john 4:1-6

The doctrine is not "Christian", but God's through His Son Jesus the Christ.

Jesus Christ is refered to in scripture as the firstborn of Mary.

Jesus Christ is not refered to as the firstborn son of God, except in Psalms, but as the only begotten son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin in the flesh.

 Psalm 89:27.  Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
 28.  My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

Jesus Christ is however the firstborn to resurrection from death to eternal life and firstborn in many other areas as mentioned in scripture.

All the faithful from the beginning of creation through to the end are sons of God.


Ollie

ok the virgin birth of jesus disproves him because 1. the idea of "virgin birth" is foreign to Jewish thought(i.e. greek mythology) the hebrew word "Almah" does not mean virgin it means "young woman"  the Hebrew word "Betulah"  means "Virgin"  the latter(Almah) was used in Isaiah 7:14 and second of all the lineage of Jesus fail him because no messiah can go throught he cursed King Jeconiah   (i.e. Jeremiah 22:28-30)   where it says that no one of his seed will sit on the throne of David nor rule in Judah.  even so if you use the Line in luke there is one problem with that the line is not of legitimate messianic lineage it goes through David's son Nathan not Solomon. The line must go from David to Solomon and on down after Solomon it doesnt matter who it comes from it must be a descendant of Solomon, but in Jeconiah's case he cannot be an ancestor of the messiah because of His curse. The messiah must have a direct line to David in order to be the messiah and it must go through ones father because Jewish lineage is patrilineal (i.e. the book of Numbers chapter 1). So with the Virgin birth he has no line to David. His mother's line doesnt count because of the Torah prohibition..  With the "Virgin birth" no line to King David even if he did he is caught by the curse of Jeconiah.  all in all Jesus was a good candidate for Deuteronomy 13. :) but he was certainly not the messiah because he failed to mee the most basic criteria.
When it all boils down the Jewish messiah is a mortla man with earthly parent a direct line to King David who will bring to the earth an era of Peace and prosperity ( something that is greatly missing in this world) :)

A lot of things are foreign to Jewish thought including God. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies in the Torah down to the casting of lots for His clothing. The rationale that Mary's lineage doesn't count is strectching it to its seams. Her ancestors were from the House of David whether the Jews want to admit it or not. To deny that I don't have ancestors because i'm a woman is delusional. The Jews ignore much reality in order to perpetuate their beliefs, including that fact that women don't have ancestors.

****eliyosef****

So you can not say "Jesus is the Son of GOD" or "Jesus is Lord"

read john 4:1-6

Jesus' father is God. Very good lineage in that it is God and He gave the law to the Israelites as a schoolmaster to Christ and a shadow of things to come, THE TRUE.

If you'd done your homework, you would have noticed that virgin is not a Christian mistranslation of anything.   Matthew (like all the New Testament authors) quotes from the LXX (the Jewish Greek translation of the scriptures), which does have virgin (or rather, a greek word that translates accurately as virgin).

Actually if you did your homework you would find out that in fact you are reading from a Christian mistranslation the LXX came about in 300 C.E. which was a translation of many prophetic books and writings by christians many by the church father Origen.  The original Septuagint was written much earlier around 2 century B.C.E. and included only the Torah(or the first five books), the Torah was translated by the 72 translators in Alexandria. I can cite Josephus and the book antiquities for the reference and The Talmud on the accuracy note of when and where and what was translated. so yes you are reading a mistranslation and yes i did and still do my homework on this stuff ;D

****eliyosef****

So you can not say "Jesus is the Son of GOD" or "Jesus is Lord"

read john 4:1-6


Didnt think so....

the truth of the matter Jabez is that christian doctrine is not Jewish doctrine.  christian doctrine is a greek doctrine. So no, only G-d is G-d    and we are all children of G-d  John4:1-6 is christian not Jewish   Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9, Job 9:32, and Deuteronomy 4:15; God is not a man nor is he a son of man by the citing of all these verses of the Tanakh(bible) The Torah and the rest of Tanakh disprove not only the claim of his godhood but of his son of godhood. So no, I will not say jesus is anything more than a first century Jew, that is if he existed because verylittle beyond the christian doctrine mentions him not even Josephus mentions him in his writings. actually I will say he was something the false prophet and or diviner of Deuteronomy 13

Jesus' father is God. Very good lineage in that it is God and He gave the law to the Israelites as a schoolmaster to Christ and a shadow of things to come, THE TRUE.



quoting you just proves him not to be messiah claiming no link to david as messiah just shoots his messianic claim in the foot :(.  He reminds me of Hercules who had no mortal father but his father was one of the gods "Zeus" so hercules also had a very good lineage in greek mythology as well a son of god(Zeus) ;D. odd the similarities of Greek mythology and christianity but no similarities of Judaism and greek mythology I wonder what happened ???

Ok so what do you claim?

Eliyoseph, you seem to worship men more than you do God. If Josephus doesn't mention Jesus, then Jesus must not have existed because Josephus never lies. Never mind that the OT of the Bible prophesies Christ and the NT is all about Him. The bible doesn't count. In the Jewish religion only parts of the bible count, not the whole thing. They have to discount parts of the truth to perpetuate their beliefs. But Jesus said that their father is the father of lies so this only confirms His words.

God is God and His will be done.

Romans 1:3.  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4.  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

First of all im not the one who worship's man such as christains do, I worship the Eternal G-d of Israel.  Now i seriously doubt you know who Josephus is, He was a First century Historian who recorded the acts of the History of the Jewish peoplein teh first century he recorded such people as Pontius Pilate, King Herod just to name a few.  not only were Josephus recordings accurate but the detail many things that happened then that are verifiable by archaeology. it is very obvious that you know very little about Judaism the whole bible counts in Judaism (Genesis through Chronicles) the greek book you all call christian bible is just that greek and not Jewish. I never discopunt parts of any truth in the Tanakh in fact is a great part of the History of the people from which it came yes i mean the Jewish people. The message that was conveyed is for all time and the Rabbis and Sages are here to remind us of the message of Tanakh, G-d said all he needed to say to humanity in Tanakh and they(the Rabbis and Sages) are here to reminds us of that message. apparently that is incorrect jesus father who was ,more than likely not G-d, was a liar or more over a deceiver he was probably the son of Baal who was trying to get a foothold back on the world and stir the Israelites from the Worship of the G-d of Israel :D. and what you said only makes jesus easier to disprove ;)

Can you say or even spell the word GOD?Why always G-d?Even thought this is a forum i feel something is wrong with what you are saying.Little hints iam picking up on and your style is something else.To me it seems your heart is hardened not open to GOD and his word.I will pray for you that you will find what you are looking for.Iam nothing without him!

ok first of all my writing the title of the almighty as G-d goes back to the biblical commandment to not erase the name of G-d that also applies to G-d's titles( i.e. Deuteronomy 12:3-4)
Jabez my heart is more than open to the word of G-d which is  G-d's Torah, the words of the Prophets(Nevi'im) and G-d's inspired Writings(Ketuvim). The greek book you call the "NT" is not a part of the Word of G-d it is purely greek and foreign to Jewish scripture. though written by greek jews it is still greek with signets of greek mythology in it. We are all nothing without G-d, more so I will pray for your finding the truth in The L-RD G-d( HaShem Eloheynu)


Question answered

Now I'm beginning to understand where you are coming from, Eliyoseph. You put your faith in words and rules but you don't know God personally. You worship words and phrases. Your beliefs are contigent upon obeying the law. What happens if you die before the Day of Atonement? Also, what happens if you miss one of the sacrifices? Even if you obey everything, how can you become perfect enough to get into heaven?

Now your reaching Heidi and have not a bit of understanding I worship the Eternal G-d and Believe in His Torah as it was Given to Moses and His messages relayed by the Prophets.  I worship the G-d of my anscestors. the Torah of G-d is Eternal and Perfect(Psalms 19:8-9)  My beliefs are In G-d and obeying His Torah is the covenant that G-d told us to observe and such is rewarding by (Ecclesiastes 12:7) The day of Atonement is not the only day we have to attone for sins nor is it the only way, Living by the ways of G-d and helping those in need, an act of charity in good faith,are only a few.

to get inot heaven and be with G-d I will referr you to Ecclesiastes 12:7 to tell you what happens after I die. I hope you read the posted scriptures.  So no Heidi you do not understand, Reading and doing what G-d gave us and told us to do is to know G-d personally and observing the eternal Torah we are enriched by G-d as His people and He as our G-d

Actually I have read those scriptures. The conclusion of Ecclesiastes is that everything is meaningless because the wicked go to the same place as the "good." Soloman's conclusion was to do what God wants you to do for it is the duty of man. This was before Christ came and brought heaven to the earth. If the sole duty of the Jews is to live a "good" life, then why are they waiting for the Messiah?Why aren't their acts on this earth good enough?

The Jews wait on the Messiah to usher in a Messianic era of peace and prosperity, where Disease will end, and racial hatred will not exist and the third temple will be built on the temple mount in Jerusalem. The fact that we live a good life( turning to G-d and His Torah) is for our personal favor with G-d in hopes that the messiah or messianic age will come so that we can all live the good life together. the Messiah who will be a Davidic king who will be G-d's instrument to usher this era. In much like the prophets gave their message to the people G-d shows there that G-d helps His people. Christ did not bring Heaven to Earth in fact if he brought heaven to earth why is there still conflict and war, and disease, and racial hatred??  These things are what the messiah will do away with when he comes... It is not teh good acts of our lives that will bring the Messiah and the messianic age but the return to G-d and G-d's Torah that will bring the prophet Elijah, then Elijah will announce who the messiah(king) is and he will do all of those wonderful things in his lifetime..
The messiah will have a family, will be a normal human living in the world and die a very peaceful death at a ripe old age :)

You can have heaven on earth but the Jews don't want to change themselves, they want to change everybody else. So they hope for a king who will destroy their enemies instead of seeing that the enemy is in their own hearts just like it is in the hearts of everyone. Jesus said the only way to change your heart is to admit you sin and receive forgiveness but the Jews don't want to admit they sin so they have rejected Jesus. Unfortunately, what is not admitted cannot be changed. The answer is right under your noses but it destroys the illusion that you're righteous and so you have refused it. Because of that, you will not enter heaven.

How do the jewish sacrifices for sin take place today and since 70 A.D, with no temple? No levitical priests?
No record of lineage since Rome destroyed the temple and records? Much of it destroyed by the Jews of that day with inner strifes among themselves.
How does Judaism fulfill and obey the word of God today without the temple, the priesthood, the high priest, animal sacrifices?

Where has true Judaism disapeared to and why is it so adulterated by those who claim it to be still in effect? Judaism today resembles the provocation in the wilderness.

Is there any similarities between Judaism and Babylonian or Eygptian mythology?

Most false religions contain some bits and pieces of the truth.

Mithraism was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism who verenerated around Mithras the savior/god of humanity as it put. with a virgin birth, and sacrificial death and ressurection and came out of Persian Zoroastrianism.  "Judaism is a G-d in history religion"  Mithraism was influenced heavily by mythology obviously and this same concept can be found in Christianity as well as Greek mystery school religions, Hinduism, and other minor sects of religions in north and South America.  Judaism though it evolved throughout many ages resisted the mythology factor of semi-divine human beings and stayed with the G-d of our ancestors, the G-d of history. The other religion that doesnt do this is Islam they resisted the human/god savior mythology also and Stayed with Allah(G-d in arabic). So to say most all religions show patterns of similarity except two Judaism and Islam even these two are very similar in their beliefs but that is a whole different discussion that I would be more than happy to start. :)

Christ fullfilled the law of Moses so Christ is the fullfillment of Judaism. Judaism is no longer recognised or does it exist. Do you practice it? I think not. I have yet to find Judaism practiced today. Can the lineage of the tribe of Levi be traced in order to have priests today?  


You seem to ignore posts that prove you wrong and come up with opinionated thoughts about hellenism, Greek mythology, etc, etc.

If you knew the doctrine of Christ you could never compare Christ and His doctrine with any thing but God. To compare it with mythology is ignorant.


Keep Trolling!