To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:28 am

trevorw2539 wrote:Interesting if you can accept that a lot of our science/medicine derives from the ancients. Particularly the Egyptians 4000 years ago. Minor surgery, probably using opium as pain relief, setting of bones, remedies for illnesses (some effective, some not). Basic understanding that the body contained a circulatory system, pulse etc. allowing air, food and blood round the body.
The Greeks were adept at many procedures. Islam also had certain procedures.
Astronomy was a 'science' and some understanding of the universe is evident in ancient writings.

Too many people forget what we owe to these civilisations.

Yes.

We owe them quite a bit. They were the unfortunate Guiney pigs for much of what we know today and from what engineers are saying of their construction methods, even today we could not keep up with them and still cannot do some of the things they did.

Curches were even involved but more for the people drawing power and $$$$$ that invention would bring in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2HcjanNWFM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrI1FsH4UH8&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:13 pm

Greatest. Thanks for the above websites. Interesting. I'l let you know what I think about all of the associated ones when I have seen them ALL. Sometime at the end of the year. Very Happy

by Greatest I am Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:35 am

trevorw2539 wrote:Greatest. Thanks for the above websites. Interesting. I'l let you know what I think about all of the associated ones when I have seen them ALL. Sometime at the end of the year.

They were given for you to peruse but I am pleased you will enjoy them.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:32 pm

Greatest I am wrote:No argument my friend.

I look to things like the mindset shown here to decide which is better. Religion or science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Regards
DL

I would have agreed with the above a few decades ago. I do think that nowadays more people are thinking for themselves. There are some churches that are dogmatic. The RC above all. But even there among thinking Catholics there are questionings. Of course you will always be able to lead the ranks of the poor, illiterate and needy.
We always need to be careful with new discoveries, as I said before.

Take the 'Jesus wife' papyrus. Is it true? Is it authentic? Does it matter?

Of course it matters to those who have built up false doctrines through their power and authority.
To many others it doesn't really matter. They don't follow his married status, they follow his teachings.

Personally it makes no odds to me if Jesus was married or not. The only question would be the cost of supporting of a wife. How?

Taken that Jesus existed, what was he? A 'carpenters' son who worked in his fathers business till the age of thirty?
OR
Was he a scribe or Rabbi?

The Jewish education system was made of:

Beit Safar - 5-10 year olds learning by heart the Torah.
Beit Talmud - 10-14 year olds learning the Oral Torah (OT)
Beit Midrash - 14+ studying the Mishnah, writings on Jewish scriptures, practising halahkha (Jewish rules and practises) and other studies.

Beit Midrash only applied to those who were adjuged bright enough to pursue these studies by examination by a Rabbi. And boy, did they have to be bright. This led eventually to becoming a scribe or Rabbi.
The rest learnt a trade from the age of 12, though often they had already watched and helped their father in his trade. They probably still studied, but just for knowledge.

All this leaves us with a quandary.

Was Jesus a carpenter in the silent years (12-30) or was he learning to be a Rabbi. He had the potential, as he proved in the Temple at the age of 12, to become a Rabbi. And he was called such by many because of his teaching.

Another interesting point. Jewish belief was that, at the age of 30 you had reached 'full vigour'. (Prime of Life).
Was that why Jesus appeared at the age of 30 - as a recognised Rabbi?

Note Numbers chapter 4. Those chosen to serve the Tabernacle had to be between 30 and 50. None outside those years.

Ooops sorry. I do ramble on!!!!!!

by Greatest I am Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:27 pm

No Problem.

Fact is, I do not believe that Jesus ever existed. If he did, the Roman's made a fool of him by turning him into a pacifist with a lot of unworkable rhetoric.

If there would have been a Mrs. Jesus, then I do not think she would have allowed him to endorse the man will rule over you garbage or his no divorce for women position.

My Gnostic Christian view is that we all have a Jesus/God within so if he was real, his history is irrelevant.

Bottom line is that I don't think we can ever know for sure.

Regards
DL

by boatlady Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:59 pm

Do you know what I think?
I think to hate anyone is to hate 'god' - whatever we may mean by that - and I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:14 pm

Greatest I am wrote:No Problem.

Fact is, I do not believe that Jesus ever existed. If he did, the Roman's made a fool of him by turning him into a pacifist with a lot of unworkable rhetoric.

If there would have been a Mrs. Jesus, then I do not think she would have allowed him to endorse the man will rule over you garbage or his no divorce for women position.

My Gnostic Christian view is that we all have a Jesus/God within so if he was real, his history is irrelevant.

Bottom line is that I don't think we can ever know for sure.

Regards
DL

I believe that Jesus existed, but as what. If a Rabbi he would have been aware of the debate between two famous Rabbis a few decades before he was born. They debated divorce in Deuteronomy 24.
It's complicated because Jewish marriage of the time was different to our idea of marriage. Marriages were arranged often by parents when the children were young. No marriage ceremony. Just the giving of one to the other when old enough, and a 'party'.

Simply. Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai disagreed on the way to interpret Deut. 24. What constituted a reason for refusing and 'divorcing' a woman. Hillel thought it was for any cause related in any sense to infidelity. Shammai thought it was only for adultery/infidelity specifically. Of course Hillel's interpretation was more popular.

Jesus would have been aware of this debate, and so would his hearers. When he talks about divorce he is refering to the Hillel/Shammai debate. He is not talking in general about whether divorce is legitimate. He is on the side of Shammai, but would have also had sympathy with those whose marriage had broken down because vows of love, provision under Jewish law and other requirements had broken down.

No Rabbi would ever ask the question of Jesus 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause'. That would be tantmount to questioning the Law of Moses. But they knew the background to the debate, and when we do we understand it a little better.

Mrs Jesus would have accepted what she had been taught as a child. That man was the head of the house. The consequences of not accepting that could have been severe.

Those are my thoughts and I don't intend getting bogged down in Jewish 'terms and conditions' of marriage. scratch

It really all depends on how you look at the 'authority' of the Torah. And you know my views on that.

by Greatest I am Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:40 pm

boatlady wrote:Do you know what I think?
I think to hate anyone is to hate 'god' - whatever we may mean by that - and I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As a Gnostic Christian I more or less agree on that ideal as we believe that God is within each of us and to hate anyone is to hate a God or Goddess. Having said that, scriptures say that God himself hates many of us. I am not sure if I could live my thinking though if a Hitler or Dalmer or even a pedophile protecting Pope was living next door to me. I cannot see how a God could live within such and admit I am not close enough to my own God within to not hate such.

God is said to have unconditional love for all of us yet scriptures show him killing many and having many killed and raped so one has to wonder just what is meant by unconditional love when it comes with conditions.

Can you love some like those I mentioned?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:54 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:No Problem.

Fact is, I do not believe that Jesus ever existed. If he did, the Roman's made a fool of him by turning him into a pacifist with a lot of unworkable rhetoric.

If there would have been a Mrs. Jesus, then I do not think she would have allowed him to endorse the man will rule over you garbage or his no divorce for women position.

My Gnostic Christian view is that we all have a Jesus/God within so if he was real, his history is irrelevant.

Bottom line is that I don't think we can ever know for sure.

Regards
DL

I believe that Jesus existed, but as what. If a Rabbi he would have been aware of the debate between two famous Rabbis a few decades before he was born. They debated divorce in Deuteronomy 24.
It's complicated because Jewish marriage of the time was different to our idea of marriage. Marriages were arranged often by parents when the children were young. No marriage ceremony. Just the giving of one to the other when old enough, and a 'party'.

Simply. Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai disagreed on the way to interpret Deut. 24. What constituted a reason for refusing and 'divorcing' a woman. Hillel thought it was for any cause related in any sense to infidelity. Shammai thought it was only for adultery/infidelity specifically. Of course Hillel's interpretation was more popular.

Jesus would have been aware of this debate, and so would his hearers. When he talks about divorce he is refering to the Hillel/Shammai debate. He is not talking in general about whether divorce is legitimate. He is on the side of Shammai, but would have also had sympathy with those whose marriage had broken down because vows of love, provision under Jewish law and other requirements had broken down.

No Rabbi would ever ask the question of Jesus 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause'. That would be tantmount to questioning the Law of Moses. But they knew the background to the debate, and when we do we understand it a little better.

Mrs Jesus would have accepted what she had been taught as a child. That man was the head of the house. The consequences of not accepting that could have been severe.

Those are my thoughts and I don't intend getting bogged down in Jewish 'terms and conditions' of marriage.

It really all depends on how you look at the 'authority' of the Torah. And you know my views on that.

Thanks for this.

I do not agree with you on what Jesus thought was to be the law. I offer the following.

Matthew 9;6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

That is Jesus speaking and he does not seem to agree with Moses yet does not revoke Moses law.

We can easily see that he ignores women's right to divorce and penalizes divorced women and their new husbands.

That is definitely anti-love.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:05 pm

Greatest.

Thanks for this.

I do not agree with you on what Jesus thought was to be the law. I offer the following.

Matthew 9;6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

That is Jesus speaking and he does not seem to agree with Moses yet does not revoke Moses law.

We can easily see that he ignores women's right to divorce and penalizes divorced women and their new husbands.

That is definitely anti-love.

Regards
DL

I have just copied your quote to save space.

As an intelligent person can I ask you to do 3 things.

Forget you're of the 21st century. You are now 1st century.
Forget you're of western culture. You are now Eastern.
Forget love and marriage. Marriage was for procreation, not love.

You live in a society whose religion governs your life. You live in a society where the Torah/Pentateuch was the Word given/written by God. The Rabbis teach you what you need to know from an early age.

However.

What so many do not understand is that by the time of Jesus 1000+ years in the future, the 'Laws of Moses' had become relaxed, and 'up-dated' to fit changing circumstances. So, in fact, you live, and are taught, in a world ruled by a watered down religion from the 'original'. Apart from the Saduccees who stuck strictly to the original teachings.

Your life and culture are completely different to that you live now.

Jesus, as a Rabbi, agrees with Shammai on the hard line approach. (He adds the final sentence himself.)
However, as a Rabbi he cannot revoke the 'Law of Moses' as you call it.
And then Jesus also shows that he knows all about man's weaknesses and is sympathetic often.
To the woman taken in adultery 'neither do I condemn thee, go thy way and sin no more'. To another 'Thy sins are forgiven thee'. Just 2 examples.

Matt. 19:6

Hebrew version of Gen. 2

16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.
17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
18. And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him."
19. And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.
20. And man named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him.
21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place.
22. And the Lord God built the side that He had taken from man into a woman, and He brought her to man.
23. And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."
24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25. Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.:
18. And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him."
19. And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.
20. And man named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him.
21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place.
22. And the Lord God built the side that He had taken from man into a woman, and He brought her to man.
23. And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."
24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25. Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.

Note that we have 3 different 'correspondents'. God speaks. Man (Adam) speaks. The writer 'speaks'. Now that's fair enough as the Torah was originally accepted as 'holy'. But by Jesus time it had been 'watered down' to suit man and times.

Note too that the Hebrew tells us that God took the man's 'side' and made woman.

The Hillel/Shammai situation repeated often.

Jesus came into a world vastly different to that of a 1000 years before.
Just as original Christians would not recognise todays 'Christianity'.

We can easily see that he ignores women's right to divorce and penalizes divorced women and their new husbands.

That is definitely anti-love.

As I have said, Love does not figure in it. Marriage was for procreation, the survival of the family and nation. Women had little rights. It's wrong to say they had no rights for they did in certain circumstances.

Jesus actions were in accordance with the culture and society of the day. Not those of a different culture 2000 years in the future.

Hope you understand and I've not been condescending. I can talk better than I write Embarassed

by polyglide Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:18 pm

The point is that to hate anyone is not acceptable, you should love everyone but as humans we will abviously love some more than others.

Hate is self destructive in any form, you can disagree with others but also be reasonable in dealing with that to which you do not agree.

by Greatest I am Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:30 pm

Trevor

I cannot put my mind set in your non-loving Jewish scenario as it never existed unless you think Jews to be sub human.
It is not what the Jewish view is of love for one's wife.
If you think it is then that says quite a bit.

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:32 pm

polyglide wrote:The point is that to hate anyone is not acceptable, you should love everyone but as humans we will abviously love some more than others.

Hate is self destructive in any form, you can disagree with others but also be reasonable in dealing with that to which you do not agree.

Would Jesus love Hitler and others of that ilk?

How would he justify it?

Or would he just put it under his general rule? Yuk.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:42 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Trevor

I cannot put my mind set in your non-loving Jewish scenario as it never existed unless you think Jews to be sub human.
It is not what the Jewish view is of love for one's wife.
If you think it is then that says quite a bit.

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

Regards
DL

I've read the above site and it is concerned chiefly with today, not 2000 years ago. Again it talks about Midrash, the Talmud and traditional Jewish thinking, not necessarily what the OT actually says.

The idea that Jewish women took no part in the 'Golden Calf' I reject. It is not the way I interpret it. But , of course, both views are down to Midrash Wink

That women were important in Jewish history is obvious and I can give you a few more names of Jewish women who were important in the Biblical history of Israel. Rachel, Miriam (as quoted) Deborah, Rahab, Ruth, Esther.

I didn't say that Jews were unloving. I'm sure they make as good couples and parents as others. What I said was that in the days we are talking about quite often children would be pledged by their parents to each other. Sometimes never seeing each other till they were 'wedded'. Where was the love, as we know it? Sometimes it blossomed later, often not.
Why do you think there was a 'get out clause'. Deut. 24.

Isaac never saw Rebecca until she was brought to him from Nahor, hundreds of miles away.

Did you know that a man could divorce his wife after 10 years of a barren marriage because 'she had failed in her duty to give him a 'son' or child.
Elkanah could have divorced Hannah but he loved her. So he took a second wife who bore him sons. Eventually Hannah gave birth to Samuel.

You cannot compare today with 2000 years ago. Even Judaism has schisms in which some are Orthodox, some Traditional, some Modern and many others.

If you translate OT Judaism with a modern thinking you miss the point.

If you want to 'understand' the reality of WWII get into the mindset of someone who experienced its horrors by taking yourself back with them down memory lane. Leave today behind.

If you want to understand the OT think like Jews of Jesus time.

Oooops. I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude. It's just that I have this thing about, not necessarily you, but people who know nothing of OT times and the time of Jesus, and yet comment on things as though it was today.

Sorry.

by Greatest I am Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:21 pm

Human nature has always been based on these moral/survival tenets.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Sure there would be local customs and fashions but nothing that would stray too far from this norm .

Regards
DL

by Jsmythe Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:41 pm

Did you know that the first saints were related to Caesar?

I didn't. And, with respect, I don't think anyone does.

In the days of the early church any Bishop could call a worthy person a 'Saint'.
How many bishops there were in the early church I doubt anyone knows. Consequently who their 'saints' were, and to whom they were related is again a matter in doubt.
The Early Church was so divided into different groups and sects.

The First council Nicea brought some agreement between 4 main branches of the Early Church, but there were others outside this.

If you take 'True' or 'considered' Canonisation - ie that given much time, thought and investigation into the person and their lives - that came into being around 1000AD in the Catholic church.
Personally I don't believe in Canonisation. I believe there are millions of ordinary 'good' people in the world who are just as worthy.

I would say it is quite understandable your position on this idea. Yes indeed I would agree that perhaps not many would know or understand this position as in my original quote.

However,when a little light of logical realization falls on the hazy memories of this part of biblical origin, then perhaps my original quote would make sense.
One example is; Constantine is one of the family Caesars and as an emperor himself. It is also under-mentioned considerably,that this ruler was also the first Pope. The Catholic church you could say is the House of Caesar. There is a great relationship with this church and fascism. The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the fasces,which is depicted by a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. Oddly enough this symbol is seen today representing together we are strong.

by trevorw2539 Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:36 pm

The term 'Pope' means father. This term was used for hundreds of years for any respected bishop, and the Roman Bishop was only one among other respected Bishops.
Only when Constantine gave Christianity its privileged place did the Roman Bishop start to become more important that the others.

It was another 900 years before a Pope Boniface (VIII ?)claimed full religious authority over all men. I believe that included secular authority. So claims for any Bishop to be considered 'Pope' before this are retrospective.

by Jsmythe Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:52 pm

The term 'Pope' means father. This term was used for hundreds of years for any respected bishop, and the Roman Bishop was only one among other respected Bishops.
Only when Constantine gave Christianity its privileged place did the Roman Bishop start to become more important that the others.

It was another 900 years before a Pope Boniface (VIII ?)claimed full religious authority over all men. I believe that included secular authority. So claims for any Bishop to be considered 'Pope' before this are retrospective.

Sounds very plausible and does sound reasonably right. The importance of Roman bishops above bishops sounds so familiar with a very similar Caesar and Christianity concept you may have come across.

Jesus by this idea is the Son or a creation of Caesar if you will,depending which variation. It is the phrase "King of Kings" that is believed to mean the overall Empirical Roman King over others. There are variations of this idea but all relate to the very same phrase.
Shocked

by polyglide Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:06 pm

To hate anyone is self destructive and it is an unfortunate fact that there is far too much hate in the world today and the Jews are a lot less hated than many others at the presen time, however, a sign of the times of the end is when the majority of people turn against the Jews.

To hate the Jews is no more offensive than to hate anyone else, to hate is just offensive.

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:30 pm

polyglide wrote:To hate anyone is self destructive and it is an unfortunate fact that there is far too much hate in the world today and the Jews are a lot less hated than many others at the presen time, however, a sign of the times of the end is when the majority of people turn against the Jews.

To hate the Jews is no more offensive than to hate anyone else, to hate is just offensive.

What do you find offensive with my hate of rapists, murderers and pedophile priests?

Please be specific.

I recognize that one should not fixate on that hate but I see it as well directed when it does come to mind.

Do you love those I mentioned?

Regards
DL

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:56 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
What do you find offensive with my hate of rapists, murderers and pedophile priests?

Nothing. To overcome righteous hate of the rasha, persons evil beyond comprehension such as the cowards you mention, is for me a lifelong struggle. The psalmist speaks of this:

Hebrew Bible

Horror (hot rage) has taken hold upon me because of the wicked (the rasha) that forsake your law. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage. I have remembered your name, O Lord, in the night, and have kept your law.

Psalm 119:53-55

Greatest I am wrote:
Do you love those I mentioned?

No. Perhaps one day, but not today.

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:05 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
What do you find offensive with my hate of rapists, murderers and pedophile priests?

Nothing. To overcome righteous hate of the rasha, persons evil beyond comprehension such as the cowards you mention, is for me a lifelong struggle. The psalmist speaks of this:

Hebrew Bible

Horror (hot rage) has taken hold upon me because of the wicked (the rasha) that forsake your law. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage. I have remembered your name, O Lord, in the night, and have kept your law.

Psalm 119:53-55
Greatest I am wrote:
Do you love those I mentioned?

No. Perhaps one day, but not today.

Why would you look forward to loving such when God himself hates them?

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.

God would not curse those he loves to such as it would be purposeless torture punishment.
The moral thing to do would be to destroy those souls.
Right?

Regards
DL

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:34 pm

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:00 pm

Jesus may say it here but he as God says to hate elsewhere as shown.
He hated Esau even in the womb before he could do good or evil.

Which contradictory verse should you follow and which should you ignore and how do you choose?

Regards
DL

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:48 pm

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:46 pm

I do not speak to those without ears.

•Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
•Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
•Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."
•Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
•Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

Regards
DL

by Guest Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:12 am

by snowyflake Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:05 pm

Rock, is Jesus the son of God? If Jesus is the son of God, a claim made by many Christians, then how can you ignore the previous texts of the bible that God claims to 'hate' certain things and accept what Jesus says as 'truth'? Did God change his mind? Did Jesus change God's mind? Is the old testament therefore irrelevant to Christians and only the new testament relevant when it is referring to Jesus?

How can you be free when the 'truth' isn't even verifiable. You are bound heart and soul to God and Jesus. You are not free at all.

Take care, Rock. Smile

by Guest Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:57 pm

by Greatest I am Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:37 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:[color=black]
Snowy,

I’m sure that you are aware that, after John, James, and Peter witnessed Jesus conferring with Moses and Elijah, Peter said, ]

Did they all live at the same time?

As to what they said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5beZSE8gxo

Regards
DL

by Guest Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:04 pm

by trevorw2539 Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:07 pm

Jsmythe wrote:
The term 'Pope' means father. This term was used for hundreds of years for any respected bishop, and the Roman Bishop was only one among other respected Bishops.
Only when Constantine gave Christianity its privileged place did the Roman Bishop start to become more important that the others.

It was another 900 years before a Pope Boniface (VIII ?)claimed full religious authority over all men. I believe that included secular authority. So claims for any Bishop to be considered 'Pope' before this are retrospective.

Sounds very plausible and does sound reasonably right. The importance of Roman bishops above bishops sounds so familiar with a very similar Caesar and Christianity concept you may have come across.

Jesus by this idea is the Son or a creation of Caesar if you will,depending which variation. It is the phrase "King of Kings" that is believed to mean the overall Empirical Roman King over others. There are variations of this idea but all relate to the very same phrase.

The real problem we have is the term 'Christianity'. I doubt Christ himself would recognise the travesty that we have today that goes under the term 'Christianity'. Look at his own attitude to the practises of his own faith advocated by the Jewish spiritual leaders of his day. They had turned the original Covenant of Sinai into a religion of petty rules and regulations. Matthew 23.
His message was a simple one. Man has turned it into a ritual to be followed and added rituals and ceremonies that mean nothing. This all started long before Constantine. Man took over and left God on the periphery.

King of Kings. This was a title in use by kings of another civilisation before Constantine.

If you mean writers like Joseph Atwill and so on I quite enjoy their ideas. The problems I have with the idea of Romans 'creating' Christianity is the mess they made of it. You would think that they would have thought things through and 'guided' people down one channel. For three hundred years many 'sects' had grown up, including Christian Gnosticism. There are many different ideas all interesting, all questionable.

Not only that but before the Council of Nicea, Christians had been persecuted by the Romans, ended by the Edict of Milan signed by Constantine. Therefore we know that Christians were 'around' for centuries before.

by Guest Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:44 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
The real problem we have is the term 'Christianity'. I doubt Christ himself would recognise the travesty that we have today that goes under the term 'Christianity'.

Ya think?

trevorw2539 wrote:
His message was a simple one. Man has turned it into a ritual to be followed and added rituals and ceremonies that mean nothing. This all started long before Constantine. Man took over and left God on the periphery.

Unfortunate but true. It is of interest to me (for personal reasons) that, by the definition of the word as first spoken at Antioch, many who deny Jesus are far better Christians than those who self-label themselves as such while propagating “sacred tenets” and engaging in actions that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus’ teachings. From time to time, I am humbled by such folks, at least one of whom posts hereon.

You are, of course, aware of the two sons that were directed by their father to tend the father’s garden; one promised to tend his father’s garden and then “went to town for wine, women, and song” (my words), while the other told his father “off of which bridge and into what river to jump” (my words again) and then went and tended his father’s garden as directed. After relating this parable, Jesus asked “Which one was a son to his father?”

Answer? “The daily double”, the one who was about doing his father’s will.

The sad fact is that determining what the Father wants us to do is simple: Hear (heed, sch’ma) his Son, Jesus, who teaches in summation that to love one’s neighbor as oneself is one of two inseparable commandments upon which all the Law and the Prophets hang and that treating others as one wishes others to treat oneself is the Law and the Prophets.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:54 am

The semantics of Judaeism are being cleverly employed to conflate Religion with Racism, and to criticise either is non-PC.

Theft of neighbours' land is apparently condoned because of events which took place seventy years ago in a totally different part of the world.

What might the reaction be to e.g. Italy suddenly deciding to repossess Monte Carlo?

by trevorw2539 Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:41 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The semantics of Judaeism are being cleverly employed to conflate Religion with Racism, and to criticise either is non-PC.

Theft of neighbours' land is apparently condoned because of events which took place seventy years ago in a totally different part of the world.

What might the reaction be to e.g. Italy suddenly deciding to repossess Monte Carlo?

Displacement of all the millionaires? Nationalisation of all the casinos by the Vatican, or the Casa Nostre?

Actually whose land is it that was stolen? It is a land that has for millenia 'belonged' to one nation after another. It has changed hands more times than a car changes gear on a trip from London to Leeds. Of course, if you're driving an automatic that's easy.

Zionists began buying up land in Palestine in the 19th century.

Jewish National Fund bought up many acres from absent Turkish landlords. Moshe Dayan says on his memoirs 'this didn't worry Arab tenant farmers because the Jews re-hired them'.

Rothschild used his resources for the purchase of land.

By 1948 when Israel became a State the JNF owned around 13 % of the land of Israel. Around 4/5s of Israels population live in these areas.

So whose was the land.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs. Just the facts.
Both peoples have a right to their own land.

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:31 pm

Just the facts.

OK. The fact is that the current area of land claimed to be Israeli Property is double the size of Israel as it was at Independence in 1948.

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:18 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Did they all live at the same time?

As to what they said.

Read.

Greek Bible

And behold, two men were talking with him, and they were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and were speaking of his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

But Peter and they that were with him were overcome with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. And as they departed from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah”, not realizing what he was saying.

While he was saying this, a cloud formed and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my beloved Son, my Chosen One, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

Luke 9:30-35, Matthew 17:5

Done.

IOW. A dream.
You build a fantasy on someone else's fantasy.
No wonder you cannot communicate properly.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:[
The sad fact is that determining what the Father wants us to do is simple: Hear (heed, sch’ma) his Son, Jesus, who teaches in summation that to love one’s neighbor as oneself is one of two inseparable commandments upon which all the Law and the Prophets hang and that treating others as one wishes others to treat oneself is the Law and the Prophets.
[/color]

Yes. A good ideal and unworkable rhetoric but not as a command.
It is impossible to command someone to love another.

Further, could you love someone who is raping your wife or daughter?

If Jesus and God think that such a good ideal, why do they not practice it?

Or do you think sending someone to eternal burning torture or death is a good way of showing love?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:27 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The semantics of Judaeism are being cleverly employed to conflate Religion with Racism, and to criticise either is non-PC.

Theft of neighbours' land is apparently condoned because of events which took place seventy years ago in a totally different part of the world.

What might the reaction be to e.g. Italy suddenly deciding to repossess Monte Carlo?

Not the same at all.

You forget the U. N. involment.

Regards
DL

by Guest Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:41 pm

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:47 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
....
You forget the U. N. involment.

Regards
DL

Do you refer to some dramatically decisive UN involment that has been overlooked, or to the reality of a World Body hoping that the problem will somehow go away?

by Sponsored content