biblical anomalies

[Alaric]

The reason we trust in gravity is experience, not faith. Likewise, people don't obey the law unless they a) understand why the laws are good, b) trust in those that say its good, c) think that society seems to be working well with them, d) are afraid of the consequences of breaking the law, or e) find that the laws benefit them directly. Or a mix. Faith may have a little bit to do with b), but its not real faith because if those people in whom we trust turn out to be not quite as wise as we once thought, we would start questioning the laws themselves.

a) is always preferable, because if we don't understand why the laws are there, we can't change them when they're wrong. Same with peace.

 

[Jotbathah]

1. Re " I'm just pointing out how a lot of things don't make sense in the bible. Nobody really stops and asks questions."

Excellent point Mario!!

Thinking, reflecting, questioning is what sets us apart from all other life on earth: Aristotle is said to have written:"The life which is unexamined is not worth living."

Have a go at this one: 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chrionicles 4:2 read: "He made the sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure round it."

Dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter gives that special value called pi (p), 3.1415926?, usually rounded to 3.14. However, in the above, 30 (cubits to measure round it) divided by 10 (cubits from rim to rim) results in an answer of 3.

Even though pi wasn't called "pi" until William Jones, an English mathematician, started referring to the ratio with the Greek letter pi in 1706, the Egyptians and the Babylonians had this value as 3.16 (Egypt) or 3.125 (Babylon) at a time contemporary or earlier than when these passages were written. [Archimedes (287 - 211 BC) got serious and found that it was less than 22/7 but greater than 221/77.]

2. Re: "Daily activities are based on knowledge that was learned or determined by the laws of physics."

How certain can we be that the sun will 'rise' tomorrow morning? How certain can we be that when the tap/faucet is turned that water will flow from it? And that that water will be clean and fit to drink? Turning the key in a car was a good example of a degree - however small - of uncertainty.

The Laws of Physics: which ones do you refer to? Pre-Newtonian, Newtonian, or Post-Einstein's Relativity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and the 80 year understanduing of quantum mechanics?

Einstein's Relativity demonstrates that each event is relative to other events and do change under different circumstances: no certainty here.

Hesienberg's Uncertainty Principle (or the Principle of Indeterminancy): at the quantum (sub atomic level) the position and momentum of any particle cannot be predicted with any certainty at any moment in time. What affect here on our daily lives?

Yes, daily activities based on past knowledge, and the resultant probability that past knowledge will hold true at any moment, is a valid way of approaching life. However, faith in that past knowledge is still evident and necessary. An atheist, for example, has faith as much as anyone else, and, like these other people, that faith is expressed in the atheist's interaction with the world.

At a profound level, nothing in this universe is certain.

3. Re " Likewise, people don't obey the law unless they a) understand why the laws are good".

A bold statement indeed! Totalitarian regimes come to mind in response to this and the following points made by Alaric, where obedience to laws are forced at the point of privation, torture and death.

And what of, "c) think that society seems to be working well with them" and, "e) find that the laws benefit them directly": an exceptionally selfish definition of community because there will be without any doubt those in any society who believe that certain laws are not good and that society does not work well with them enforced. Ask a minority group what they think of the society in which they live.

4. PS. It was the RED SEA (or Sea of Reeds) that was said to have been parted, not the Dead Sea. Perhaps the questions are not as informed as they set out to be?

 

[Jotbathah]

Re: Re: "Daily activities are based on knowledge that was learned or determined by the laws of physics."

An old woman had observed how every day from the time she was a young girl, with scientific precision, the rooster she had in her yard would begin to crow just before the sun rose each day. She therefore came to the conclusion that the crowing of her rooster caused the sun to rise.
So whenever the rooster she had died she hastened to replace it with another the same day lest the sun fail to rise the following morning.
One day she fell out with her neighbors and decided to move out of the village to live with her sister several miles away.
When her rooster started,to crow the next day and, a little later, the sun began to rise serenely above the horizon, she was confirmed in what she had known all along: the sun was now rising here and her village was in darkness. Well, they asked for it!
It did cause her to wonder, though, that her former neighbors never came to beg her to return to the village with her rooster. She just put it down to their stubbornness and stupidity.

Consider that this person was old and so had many many years of daily activities and experiences on which she based her knowledge: she postulated a law of physics and it was validated on a daily basis.

 

[mario]

Dead...Red...you say tomato...I say tomatoe. Besides, I thought the Red sea was in Russia. (haha)

Well that old lady would never make a good scientist. She should have tried putting that rooster in a box just out of curiousity to see if the sun would come up if it didn't crow. But then you have to take into account the placebo effect.

Sure quantum physics can get pretty weird. But we're talking about everyday "macro" physics that doesn't seem to change.

Here's one more point to ponder. The jews were under roman rule (if I'm not mistaken) when christ was around. And the romans were not well liked. I wonder why god, who delivered the jews and moses from egyptian bondage, couldn't do the same to the romans. Like force them to leave or something.

 

[Jenyar]

Here's one more point to ponder. The jews were under roman rule (if I'm not mistaken) when christ was around. And the romans were not well liked. I wonder why god, who delivered the jews and moses from egyptian bondage, couldn't do the same to the romans. Like force them to leave or something.

There weren't just Romans apart from Jews. Everybody that wasn't part of God's original covenant were called "uncircumcised", i.e. gentiles. It was for these that He he suffered and died. Forcing them to leave would mean He rejected them. Through Him gentiles could have part in God's covenant, "become part of spiritual Israel", and be delivered from the bondage of sin. That's why Jesus said His kingdom wasn't an earthly one.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

How come God has rejected his original covenant, the Jews, in favour of the gentiles?
He knew the outcome, right? And you know very well Jesus did not die. His suffering, indeed if he is god, is also questionable. There is no way around that quandary.

Allcare.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

4) who did adam and eve's son, cain, marry? According to the bible he went over a hill and found a village and took a wife. I thought it was just adam and eve that god created.

Nope, that's one of the things that Catholics screwed up. Just because Adam and Eve were the FIRST ppl god made doesn't mean they were the ONLY ones does it? And so Rachael was simply a later creation/daughter of creation.

9) how come after jesus performed all kinds of miracles like walking on water, raising the dead, curing the blind and leperous, turning water into wine at weddings, feeding multitudes of people with just a few loaves of bread and some fish, and finally rising from the dead himself...the jews STILL didn't believe that he was the son of god?

This one is so incredibly obvious. Let's just pretend for now that everyone in the Middle-east was a Jew when Jesus arrived. Just because he stands up and says "lookee me I can heal ppl!" doesn't mean that everyone will hear about it. No doubt only the people who lived in the nearby cities where Jesus travelled would even have heard of him, without modern communication news doesn't spread. Right?

 

[Jenyar]

Yo Jenyar,

How come God has rejected his original covenant, the Jews, in favour of the gentiles?

A good question. But it wasn't God who rejected it, it was those He had made it with (2 Kings 17:15)! They were supposed to be God's favour ("a blessing to the nations"), but instead they perverted it, until it lead to the point where they could even presume to judge over God himself! One example of this is their expectance of the messiah: he was someone promised by God to restore Israel as a kingdom and save them from their enemies - but they assumed it meant their earthly kingdom and their earthly enemies, not God's! Even though the intention of every covenant God had made with them was to establish faith and deliver from sin, they rejected Jesus when He came to fulfil those promises. So in effect they rejected God himself.

You can read about this in Romans 9 if you're really interested.

He knew the outcome, right? And you know very well Jesus did not die. His suffering, indeed if he is god, is also questionable. There is no way around that quandary.

Allcare.

He had faith in the outcome. As you know, there's one crucial ingredient neccesary for faith: God. What Jesus knew, was God.

Jesus did die (as everybody who was ever crucified did). He died a horrible, painful and completely unjust death. His suffering was as real and humiliating as it can be. Watch The Passion before you disagree with me about this. There are two reasons why He died: because He chose death by his own free will, and because he was as human as you and me. And there were two reasons why He didn't stay dead: God (the One He had faith in, of course), and justice: He was without sin.

That leaves you with two options, a "quandary" of your own: if faith made his suffering more bearable and his death somehow less lethal, as you say, then surely you could have it too? I mean, "know the outcome"? Or, you actually don't believe faith makes a difference - but then why do you think it did for him?

Because if God became flesh, but just enough not to be as susceptible to temptation, as sensitive to suffering, or as prone to death as we - then what was the point?

 

[stretched]

Cool Jenyar,

J - "but they assumed it meant their earthly kingdom and their earthly enemies, not God's!"

Why should/would they assume differently? Why did god confuse them?

J - "Even though the intention of every covenant God had made with them was to establish faith and deliver from sin, they rejected Jesus when He came to fulfil those promises. So in effect they rejected God himself."

Jesus was rejected by the Jews because he did not (and still does not) fulfill the Jewish (read OT) scriptural criteria for the Christ.

J - "He had faith in the outcome. As you know, there's one crucial ingredient neccesary for faith: God. What Jesus knew, was God."

So Jesus was not God.

J - "Jesus did die (as everybody who was ever crucified did). He died a horrible, painful and completely unjust death."

So now he is not God.

J - "His suffering was as real and humiliating as it can be. Watch The Passion before you disagree with me about this. There are two reasons why He died: because He chose death by his own free will, and because he was as human as you and me. And there were two reasons why He didn't stay dead: God (the One He had faith in, of course), and justice: He was without sin."

He is still not God. Neither is Mel Gibson God.

J - "That leaves you with two options, a "quandary" of your own: if faith made his suffering more bearable and his death somehow less lethal, as you say, then surely you could have it too? I mean, "know the outcome"? Or, you actually don't believe faith makes a difference - but then why do you think it did for him?"

So Jesus had faith in God. Jesus is/was not God he was a man. O.K. I dig.

J - "Because if God became flesh, but just enough not to be as susceptible to temptation, as sensitive to suffering, or as prone to death as we - then what was the point?"

I am not quite with jou here Jenyar? Are you saying he was or was not a man?
Not that it is for me to judge, but the whole mythological scenario of the cruxifiction reeks of man made mythos. Much like the movie.

All care.

 

[Jenyar]

J - "but they assumed it meant their earthly kingdom and their earthly enemies, not God's!"

Why should/would they assume differently? Why did god confuse them?

Why do you assume God confused them? Paul refers to a veil that was over their eyes (@ Cor. 3), referring to the veil Moses had to put over his face to shield the Israelites from God's glory (Ex.34). In 2 Kings 17:15 you can see what obscured it: they turned away from God. You can't see something when you look away from it. That was their veil, and "... whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." (2 Cor. 3:16).

And when you look forward to an earthly king, of course you would expect an earthly kingdom.

J - "Even though the intention of every covenant God had made with them was to establish faith and deliver from sin, they rejected Jesus when He came to fulfil those promises. So in effect they rejected God himself."

Jesus was rejected by the Jews because he did not (and still does not) fulfill the Jewish (read OT) scriptural criteria for the Christ.

That's no argument, because if the Old Testament could predict a messiah, then it could predict Jesus. There were two groups: those who believed Jesus was the messiah based on what He did, and those who didn't believe He was the messiah based on what He didn't do. He healed the sick, made the blind see, the cripple walk, and teached the law as it was meant to be taught: with love. But why did they reject Him? Because He didn't become the next king of Israel (and yet He did); He didn't herald God's new world of universal peace [Isaiah 2:4] (and yet He did); He didn't bring knowledge of God to the world [Isaiah 11:9] (and yet He did), and He didn't rebuild the temple [Amos 9:11] (and yet He did). But worst of all, He didn't accomplish all these tasks before his death (and yet he did).

And if you were wondering why some Jewish prophecies seem a little less inclined to support Jesus than they seemed to in the NT, it's because then the Jews were using the Septuagint - not the Hebrew Bible we know today.

J - "He had faith in the outcome. As you know, there's one crucial ingredient neccesary for faith: God. What Jesus knew, was God."

So Jesus was not God.

So Jesus was not the Father. But he knew his Father as well as he knew himself. But He and the Father is one God, as He said in John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."

J - "Jesus did die (as everybody who was ever crucified did). He died a horrible, painful and completely unjust death."

So now he is not God.

He died a human death. Who ever said God cannot die a human death and still live? As a matter of fact, that was the whole point.

J - "His suffering was as real and humiliating as it can be. Watch The Passion before you disagree with me about this. There are two reasons why He died: because He chose death by his own free will, and because he was as human as you and me. And there were two reasons why He didn't stay dead: God (the One He had faith in, of course), and justice: He was without sin."

He is still not God. Neither is Mel Gibson God.

Mel Gibson certainly gave us a very vivid picture of his suffering. But if you think he overdid it, then do the research yourself.

J - "That leaves you with two options, a "quandary" of your own: if faith made his suffering more bearable and his death somehow less lethal, as you say, then surely you could have it too? I mean, "know the outcome"? Or, you actually don't believe faith makes a difference - but then why do you think it did for him?"

So Jesus had faith in God. Jesus is/was not God he was a man. O.K. I dig.

The faith that was available to Jesus is also available to us. That doesn't make us more divine, or him less human. If Jesus had only faith in himself, He would have stayed dead, same as we. But faith in God translates into faith in yourself, only justified. Just like faith in Jesus results in faith in God, justified.

But denying that God was involved won't get you anywhere.

J - "Because if God became flesh, but just enough not to be as susceptible to temptation, as sensitive to suffering, or as prone to death as we - then what was the point?"

I am not quite with jou here Jenyar? Are you saying he was or was not a man?

As the phrase goes: He was both man and God. God did what He did: As a Father He gave up his Son, as a Son He gave up his Spirit. What "one" did, did not add or detract from what the "other" did - He did this all as our one and only Lord God.

Maybe the phrase "it was done in one form or another" expresses what I'm trying to say.

Not that it is for me to judge, but the whole mythological scenario of the cruxifiction reeks of man made mythos. Much like the movie.

All care.

What makes you believe that Jesus' crucifixion was any more mythical than that of thousands of others?

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar Dude,

Thanks for your response.

J - "Why do you assume God confused them? Paul refers to a veil that was over their eyes (@ Cor. 3), referring to the veil Moses had to put over his face to shield the Israelites from God's glory (Ex.34). In 2 Kings 17:15 you can see what obscured it: they turned away from God. You can't see something when you look away from it. That was their veil, and "... whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." (2 Cor. 3:16)."

The OT prophecy regarding the messiah, indicates an earthly kingdom. Why did god then persue a heavenly kingdom. I would be confused too if my god chenged direction in mid stream.

Excerpt from: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

"What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

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

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

Know what I mean Jenyar? Difficult to resolve that one without apologetic gymnastics.

J - "And when you look forward to an earthly king, of course you would expect an earthly kingdom."

That is what was prophecied - an earthly kingdom. Meaning any other kingdom is deceptive. Or confusing. Or both.

J - "That's no argument, because if the Old Testament could predict a messiah, then it could predict Jesus. There were two groups: those who believed Jesus was the messiah based on what He did, and those who didn't believe He was the messiah based on what He didn't do. He healed the sick, made the blind see, the cripple walk, and teached the law as it was meant to be taught: with love."

The OT does predict a messiah. Seems he has not arrived yet. Yes maybe Jesus was in the running, but he failed the test.

J - "But why did they reject Him? Because He didn't become the next king of Israel (and yet He did); He didn't herald God's new world of universal peace [Isaiah 2:4] (and yet He did); He didn't bring knowledge of God to the world [Isaiah 11:9] (and yet He did), and He didn't rebuild the temple [Amos 9:11] (and yet He did). But worst of all, He didn't accomplish all these tasks before his death (and yet he did)."

All the above were not fulfilled Jenyar.
He did not become the King of Israel, nor is he now.
There was no peace nor is there now.
He did not bring knowledge of god then, nor does he now. (except to Christians)
The temple was not rebuilt.
These tasks were certainly not accomplished in his lifetime, we only know he did not return as he said, in the lifetime of his diciples.

J - "And if you were wondering why some Jewish prophecies seem a little less inclined to support Jesus than they seemed to in the NT, it's because then the Jews were using the Septuagint - not the Hebrew Bible we know today."

The Torah remains unchanged. The rejected him then, and they reject him now.

J - "So Jesus was not the Father. But he knew his Father as well as he knew himself. But He and the Father is one God, as He said in John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."

Jesus was not the father (I take it the father is God), but he and the Father were one, but not the same person/being. O.K. So Jesus is not God, but maybe part of God? But a big enough part of God to know all God knows? So what is the difference. For example, were it possible, would they sleep in different beds?

J - "He died a human death. Who ever said God cannot die a human death and still live? As a matter of fact, that was the whole point."

Who are we to presume whether or how God could die? Potentially God could redeem mankind just with a thought. The manner in which man is redeemed in the Christian mythos is very bloody and typically human. Almost as if it was authored by humans. God, by humans, for humans.

J - "Mel Gibson certainly gave us a very vivid picture of his suffering. But if you think he overdid it, then do the research yourself."

Don`t start me on this one -

Excerpt from: Gibson`s Blood Libel
http://64.29.194.158/societyWork/society/Gibsons_Blood_Libel.asp

"When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central and give it the most offensive, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

Excerpt from: The Passion. The Movie and the Aftermath.
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/society/The_Passion_The_Movie_and_the_Aftermath.asp

"The answer is yes -- and no. I went to a showing of "The Passion of the Christ," I watched for as long as I could bear it, and then, when the scenes of sadistic torture began to make me feel physically ill, I closed my eyes. True, I had been duly warned by reviewers that this is no less than "The Goriest Story Ever Told," a Marquis de Sade version of the Gospels; in the words of Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, "a repulsive, masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film." And still I was not prepared for what appeared on the screen."

and:

"But to my mind the most important truth that has to be publicized is that the movie isn't the New Testament, Gibson isn't the voice of God, and the Jews of the film aren't the Jews of church doctrine."

I have done plenty of research, and made up my mind. If the story of Jesus is one of love, why does Mel Gibson concentrate on the gore? It seems gore and Christianity are synonomous.

J - "The faith that was available to Jesus is also available to us. That doesn't make us more divine, or him less human. If Jesus had only faith in himself, He would have stayed dead, same as we. But faith in God translates into faith in yourself, only justified. Just like faith in Jesus results in faith in God, justified.

But denying that God was involved won't get you anywhere."

Cool, so Jesus the man, had faith in God. I too have faith in God. If I was God, would I have faith in myself.

J - "As the phrase goes: He was both man and God. God did what He did: As a Father He gave up his Son, as a Son He gave up his Spirit. What "one" did, did not add or detract from what the "other" did - He did this all as our one and only Lord God.

Maybe the phrase "it was done in one form or another" expresses what I'm trying to say."

Cool, I understand. But when Jesus was God made in the flesh, suffering on the cross for example, where was God when Jesus prayed and had faith in God? On the cross, or in heaven?

J - "What makes you believe that Jesus' crucifixion was any more mythical than that of thousands of others?"

I am aware of the gruesome history of crucifixion, but none of those poor dudes claimed to be God. Humans respond to gory visuals, Tarentino knows what makes the cash register sing. Violence and gore do not equate to a God of love.

I admire your faith dude.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

The OT prophecy regarding the messiah, indicates an earthly kingdom. Why did god then persue a heavenly kingdom. I would be confused too if my god chenged direction in mid stream.

Excerpt from: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

I quote:

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God.​

They believe that a normal, earthly king will be able to convert the world. Is this possible without a miracle from God himself? A world who believes in God without reserve is hardly "earthly" - at least not in the traditional sense. They refrained from mentioning that the prophecy also states that gentiles will come into the covenant, and that "lambs will lie with lions" - i.e. nature itself will be at peace. These are all things that only God himself can do. I don't disagree that He would use a man to accomplish this, but I also believe only Jesus' claims fit the bill in any form that makes sense.

"What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple:
26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.' (Ezekiel 37:26-28).​

2 Corinthians 5:1
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

Acts 15
15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things' (Amos 9:11-12)

Rev.7:15b
"...they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them."

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel:
Since you are precious and honored in my sight,
and because I love you,
I will give men in exchange for you,
and people in exchange for your life.
5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
I will bring your children from the east
and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!'
and to the south, 'Do not hold them back.'
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth-
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made." (Isaiah 43:4-7)​

.
God will bring all His sons to Him. At that time it was Israel. But since Israel was only chosen for the benefit of the nations, what exclusive right does this give them to be called "sons", and God now resides in the rebuilt temple (PS. The Jews have no temple at the moment).

Romans 9
25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[Hosea 2:23] 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.' [Hosea 1:10]"

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.(Isaiah 2:4)​

But verse 2 says:
In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it."
The "mountain" is God's kingdom (Dan.2:35,44).

And verse 3 ends with: "The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."

Put the two together: "all the nations that will have peace" are the ones who have become part of God's kingdom by accepting his law and his word, who will judge and mediate, respectively. The goal of God's laws are to bring peace on earth, a peace that is only available with Him.

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one.
As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).​

But how will that come about?

Zechariah 14
7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.
8 On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem...​

John 4
14"...whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 7
37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.

Revelation 7:17
For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

(By the way, the prophecy ends with a peculiar verse:
"And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite [merchant] in the house of the LORD Almighty."

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

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

Know what I mean Jenyar? Difficult to resolve that one without apologetic gymnastics.

Acts 1
6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Jews are waiting for the very thing that is busy happening. But it seems they will see their messiah for the first time when Jesus returns. I'm not sure what that means in terms of their salvation, but the question is: who will God call "His children" on that day? The Jews themselves believe that even believing gentiles will be called "sons", but how would this have been possible if things hadn't happened as they did?

All I know is that I have accepted the message the Isrealites carried through the desert, and it has lead me to where I am now: where I can spread the message that God has invited the whole world to become part of His Israel with confidence. I don't have to wait while the Jews wait. My salvation has been made possible not just because of them, it seems, but it in spite of them.

That is what was prophecied - an earthly kingdom. Meaning any other kingdom is deceptive. Or confusing. Or both.

The "kingdom" has always been God's kingdom. It was established on earth, through Israel, and it is renewed on earth, through David's descendants. This was God's promise to David:

1 Chronicles 17
13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.' "

The OT does predict a messiah. Seems he has not arrived yet. Yes maybe Jesus was in the running, but he failed the test.

Only if you fail to have faith in God. It is said that when God promises something, it is as if it had already happened. God never "fails the test" - it was pure mercy that God gave us gentiles a chance to repent before He judged finally between the nations. The Jews may think that they can afford to wait, but I'm not a Jew - I don't have Moses's laws to protect me. All I have is God's promise and Jesus.

All the above were not fulfilled Jenyar.
He did not become the King of Israel, nor is he now.
There was no peace nor is there now.
He did not bring knowledge of god then, nor does he now. (except to Christians)
The temple was not rebuilt.
These tasks were certainly not accomplished in his lifetime, we only know he did not return as he said, in the lifetime of his diciples.

He was crucified as the king of the Jews. It's more than just ironic that it was as a mockery of an earthly king. Besides, think back a moment: who was the real king of Israel in 1 Samuel - Saul, or God?

I also have to disagree with you about there being no peace. That peace is described in Acts 9:31, but that was not a peace that would last. There is a peace brewing, you might say - an unavoidable peace. One that people overlook at their own peril.

The knowledge God brought to Israel, He brought to us through Jesus - the knowledge of God's love. Even at this moment, you can be assured that wherever there is a BC/AD calendar, literacy or media coverage, this knowledge is spilling out. And where there isn't, miracles are happening.

The temple is rebuilt in Jesus body - from the Tent of Meeting, where God's Shekinah dwelt, to the temple of Solomon where we could atone for sins, to the body of believers fed by Christ's lifeblood, where God's presence makes our own lives an holy and acceptible sacrifice, so that He can reside in and change our hearts. We're experiencing the last few skirmishes of a war that has already been won, a peace that has already arrived, and a promise that has already been fulfilled.

The Torah remains unchanged. The rejected him then, and they reject him now.

You forget that there were no "Christians" in the time of Jesus. The first Christians were Jews. As for the Torah remaining unchanged...

For their part, Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila, in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint. In any case, in the second century Christian and Jewish leaders seemed to stake out and codify their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. By and large, Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of their Septuagint, while Jews rejected it.

In many cases, it seems the LXX is based on a version of the Hebrew different from the standard, Masoretic text (MT) of the 9th c. CE. ... Nevertheless, this much seems certain: the MT changed over time, and the LXX is a crucial witness to this process.

- The Septuagint Onlinehttp://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/LXX/​

Who are we to presume whether or how God could die? Potentially God could redeem mankind just with a thought. The manner in which man is redeemed in the Christian mythos is very bloody and typically human. Almost as if it was authored by humans. God, by humans, for humans.

It was just a thought, expressed in a Word that became flesh to effect redemption in mankind. That suffering and injustice is part and parcel to the human condition is the problem. What else would we need to be saved from? And if our sins was actually the cause of such suffering, then we need redemption all the more. It should shock us to see how cruel we were able to make our redemption - when God made it so easy for us.

I have done plenty of research, and made up my mind. If the story of Jesus is one of love, why does Mel Gibson concentrate on the gore? It seems gore and Christianity are synonomous.

What's the matter, are you insulted by violence that isn't supposed to be senseless? I wonder, when you saw Matrix, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, did you ask the same questions about Tarantino or the Waschowski brothers? Or do you just eat it up and forget about it? For once there is a movie that exposes just how senseless violence is... no, for once there is a movie about how God exposed just how senseless violence and injustice is. And it doesn't permit us to eat it up without choking on it. What it does to us, it also does to Him. We see a little of the love God has for us in the love Mary had for her Son. We see a tear from God cleave the whole world in two: straight through the temple. What was supposed to be holy was condemned, and it condemns us.

But what a dead building or a blind law couldn't do, Jesus could: He could forgive those who did that to Him. He showed us what love should really be able to do to have any meaning.

We do that to the person whom God called his Son. The perspective that should bother you is the one Jesus himself held: that whatever wrong we do to the least of people, we do to Him - the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus' judgment over us. Each sin is a lash of the flagellum.

 

[Jenyar]

I admire your faith dude.

Allcare.

There really isn't anything to admire. I'm just reflecting the gospels and Jesus' message as best I can. When I watched The Passion, the thought that struck me first was: is this my hero? Why couldn't they portray him lasting a bit longer, putting up more of a fight - at least let him keep both eyes open until later in the film! But he was like a sheep to the slaughter, completely at the mercy of whatever anybody wished to do to him.

Seeing the Gospel in Hollywood format made the contrast between the popular measure of strength, power and success, and what Jesus supposed his strength, power and sucess was, very vivid. I came out of the movie feeling guilty - why did his mother look at me so accusingly? I would have put up a fight those Romans would have remembered! I wanted to help the Jews understand, reason with them... but I couldn't escape Mary's accusing look. She didn't admire my faith. God doesn't have much reason to, either. Jesus still died, despite my faith, despite the faith of his disciples.

The only person whose faith is worth admiring is Jesus.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Who does Jesus have faith in ?

J - "For once there is a movie that exposes just how senseless violence is... no, for once there is a movie about how God exposed just how senseless violence and injustice is. And it doesn't permit us to eat it up without choking on it. What it does to us, it also does to Him."

Nobody has first hand experience of what ocurred before, during or after the cruxifiction 2000 years ago. Mel Gibson`s version is only Mel Gibson`s version. It IS PURE HOLLYWOOD. You know that Jenyar. A fiction. His personal interpretation. Not an authorative statement. Although he flings statements around about the holy spirit guiding him, this is just ducking responsibility regarding the Jewish controversy and reaping the dollars from the faithfull. Billy Graham ain`t poor either. My faith could never be influenced positively or negatively by Hollywood or a movie. Just my personal view.

J- "We do that to the person whom God called his Son. The perspective that should bother you is the one Jesus himself held: that whatever wrong we do to the least of people, we do to Him"

Once again we have no idea what actually occured, if indeed anything occured at all.

I have never ever needed Jesus to understand and to know his wisdom.

What I admire about your faith, Jenyar, is despite the lack of evidence, the contradictions, and the confusion that permeates Christianity, you still can call your god Jesus.
Cool, whatever works for you dude.

If it`s O.K. I`ll continue the debate regarding the messiah later. I am enjoying.

In love,
Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Who does Jesus have faith in?

In God, maybe in a sense himself (his own innocense, righteousness), but simply because it was the truth, not out of pride, which is the only reason anybody but God could have to trust that they could conquer death. Faith in the knowledge that sin causes death, faith in what his sacrifice would achieve... it all amounts to faith in God. Jesus frequently told those he healed that their faith had healed them.

It's really not necessary to be able to define or even visualize what you put your faith in. As a matter of fact, that would amount to idolatry.

Nobody has first hand experience of what ocurred before, during or after the cruxifiction 2000 years ago. Mel Gibson`s version is only Mel Gibson`s version. It IS PURE HOLLYWOOD. You know that Jenyar. A fiction. His personal interpretation. Not an authorative statement. Although he flings statements around about the holy spirit guiding him, this is just ducking responsibility regarding the Jewish controversy and reaping the dollars from the faithfull. Billy Graham ain`t poor either. My faith could never be influenced positively or negatively by Hollywood or a movie. Just my personal view.

You're entitled to your view. I just think it's misguided to think Mel took $20 million out of his pocket to make money out of a movie that nobody would distribute. If people didn't go see it, it would still have cost him $20 million. It exploited nothing more than the world was willing to give, and made due with much less.

"Pure Hollywood" didn't want the movie. It's a dramatic version and it's very minimalist. It doesn't explain itself in the narrative. It presents the gospel that every Christian in the world is familiar with.

To be quite honest, I don't really know what your objection is about. Mel didn't write anything new. He didn't elaborate on the Gospel, although he did decorate it with symbolism - symbolism which by the way was very artfully and insightfully done. What, in your opinion, was interpreted?

Once again we have no idea what actually occured, if indeed anything occured at all.

I have never ever needed Jesus to understand and to know his wisdom.

If you close your eyes and ignore everything that describes what happened, of course you wouldn't have any idea!

If you didn't have Jesus, you also wouldn't have known his wisdom. There would have been nothing to know. That's just common sense. Besides, if you can call it wisdom you must admit there's some truth to what he said.

What I admire about your faith, Jenyar, is despite the lack of evidence, the contradictions, and the confusion that permeates Christianity, you still can call your god Jesus.
Cool, whatever works for you dude.

In other words, you admire my gullible stupidity? Permit me to correct you: I have faith depite people who don't accept the evidence, and let themselves be confused by what they see as contradictions. For instance, life and death are "contradictions" if you didn't believe they were in some way connected. You can either let that connection confuse you, try to explain it (what you would call "creative dancing") or ignore it and hope it goes away.

You just help me appreciate it how much sense it makes in spite of people's mockery of it, and I must thank you for that opportunity. I just wonder what makes the idea so repugnant to you.

PS. I call my God Father.

Galatians 4
3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

 

[mario]

Boy jenyar, you sure have a way with words. I think we need an interpreter just for your posts let alone the biblical passages.

Taken from galatians from your post...."7So you are no longer a slave,..." Who are we a slave to? Our passions? Our faults? Our sins? These things that god gave us when he created us in the first place? Can you see a bit of a contradiction there? He holds a carrot in front of us and then tells us to resist it by choosing him instead. Sounds like he's having fun with us.

So when the lion and the lamb exists peacefully in the 2nd coming of jesus does that mean that god made an imperfect world with the animals being violent and devouring eachother? That was how god created them initially. And how will they act peacefully as fortold in the 2nd coming? Will all the animals be vegetarians? I wonder why when god made elephants and hippos and gorillas and other large beasts to be vegetarians that he couldn't make ALL creatures to be vegetarians. That would save a lot of pain and hurt and death which nobody wants in the first place. It's awful to watch a lion or tiger tear apart a helpless creature. It shouldn't have been created that way in the first place.

If jesus had faith in god then why was he confused on the cross by saying "god, why has thou forsaken me?" Sounds like he didn't want to be crucified and wondered why god didn't come to his rescue.


BTW...Do you think it would have been possible for jesus to still be a saviour to the world if he did not get crucified and instead lived to a ripe old age like everybody else?

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Groovy dude, but stop making so many assumptions. We are all entitled to have a different approach to god. And we have our reasons to that approach. Regarding Hollywood and money, whatever. I’m in the business dude. The move grossed $300 million in the first week. That I don`t have a problem with. I have problem with the fact that the movie is inflaming religious division (surprise!) I have a problem with Gibson’s ego in that he knew full well how anti-Jewish the script is. I have a problem with Gibson claiming divine guidance (so f@#k the Jews and their views). I also have a problem with how faith can be strengthened by a movie? You are either connected to god or unconnected. How can the emotional kickback enhance your connection? Mel Gobson was not present at the crixifiction. It can NEVER be anything other than ONLY his interpretation. As you know the NT and its conflicting accounts of the crucifixion are also only belated non-eyewitness accounts. Together with a glaring lack of historical evidence, who knows what went down on that fateful day? If anything at all. This brings it all back to faith. That I can dig.

S – “Who does Jesus have faith in? “

J – “In God, maybe in a sense himself (his own innocence, righteousness), but simply because it was the truth, not out of pride, which is the only reason anybody but God could have to trust that they could conquer death. Faith in the knowledge that sin causes death, faith in what his sacrifice would achieve... it all amounts to faith in God. Jesus frequently told those he healed that their faith had healed them.”

So Jesus is not god. If Jesus were god, he would not need faith.

J – “It's really not necessary to be able to define or even visualise what you put your faith in. As a matter of fact, that would amount to idolatry.”

Do you put your faith in Jesus, as visualised in the movie? So you have defined Jesus as the receptor of your faith? Hmmm?

J – “"Pure Hollywood" didn't want the movie. It's a dramatic version and it's very minimalist. It doesn't explain itself in the narrative. It presents the gospel that every Christian in the world is familiar with.”

Don`t believe everything you read in the media. Better still, believe nothing. The media is more powerful in enslaving you than religion.

J – “To be quite honest, I don't really know what your objection is about. Mel didn't write anything new. He didn't elaborate on the Gospel, although he did decorate it with symbolism - symbolism which by the way was very artfully and insightfully done. What, in your opinion, was interpreted?”

His interpretation is pure idolatry. I have stated above, we know nothing.

J – “If you close your eyes and ignore everything that describes what happened, of course you wouldn't have any idea!

If you didn't have Jesus, you also wouldn't have known his wisdom. There would have been nothing to know. That's just common sense. Besides, if you can call it wisdom you must admit there's some truth to what he said.”

Eesh Jenyar…There are millions of wise dudes in the world alive today. Do they all have the truth?

J – “In other words, you admire my gullible stupidity? Permit me to correct you: I have faith despite people who don't accept the evidence, and let themselves be confused by what they see as contradictions. For instance, life and death are "contradictions" if you didn't believe they were in some way connected. You can either let that connection confuse you, try to explain it (what you would call "creative dancing") or ignore it and hope it goes away.”

Yes Jenyar, in my opinion you are gullible. I don`t think stupid. I would not judge you. I don`t choose for contradictions to confuse me. By their very nature they do. But by ignoring the questions the lead do, and with a bit of self honesty, they can NEVER go away.

J – “You just help me appreciate it how much sense it makes in spite of people's mockery of it, and I must thank you for that opportunity. I just wonder what makes the idea so repugnant to you.

PS. I call my God Father.”

Cool Jenyar, keep the faith. I think faith does make sense Jenyar. I just find organised religion gets in the way.

J – “Galatians 4
3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.”

So Jenyar, who is the slave here. Are you a slave to religion, blindly following a questionable path? Are you a slave to the media Jenyar. Blindly following Mel Gibson’s interpretation? Are you a slave Jenyar, giving Gibson your money? Do you tithe to your church Jenyar? Would God ask for money to save your soul dude? Eesh.

Quote Mario: (thanks Mario dude!)
If Jesus had faith in god then why was he confused on the cross by saying "god, why has thou forsaken me?" Sounds like he didn't want to be crucified and wondered why god didn't come to his rescue.”

Can you answer this question Jenyar. Who was Jesus talking to? Freedom from enslavement means not having to find difficult answers to hard questions.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Boy jenyar, you sure have a way with words. I think we need an interpreter just for your posts let alone the biblical passages.

Sorry about that English is a second language so I sometimes have trouble phrasing exactly what I'd like to say. Using words are like spinning a web in order to trap some meaning, but I don't always succeed! So I appreciate everybody's patience.

Taken from galatians from your post...."7So you are no longer a slave,..." Who are we a slave to? Our passions? Our faults? Our sins? These things that god gave us when he created us in the first place? Can you see a bit of a contradiction there? He holds a carrot in front of us and then tells us to resist it by choosing him instead. Sounds like he's having fun with us.

That's one of the basic messages of the NT. But once again, the contradiction only results if you ignore the reasoning. I think the bulk of the argument comes from Romans 6...

16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?​

That's regarding to sin, but since people are under the impression that sin is just as natural as anything God created us with, Paul elaborated further:

19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

(I hope you don't object to my posting the entire chapter - but since my argument depends on Paul's reasoning I have to. If you can assure me you'll read them yourself I won't have to! The punchline is in Romans 7.)

The bottom line is that God created is with free will - to choose for Him or against Him. Our knowledge of sin and distance from God makes us vulnerable ("weak") to it. That's why faith is considered our strength. By choosing what controls our desires, we choose what we are a "slave" to.

So the "contradiction" lies in the choices available to us. The "carrot" of sin is no more attractive than the "carrot" of eternal life. It just comes more natural to us because we like things we can see now and taste now - regardless of the consequences. We don't like our choices to be limited, even if those limits are there to protect us and maintain our lives.

So when the lion and the lamb exists peacefully in the 2nd coming of jesus does that mean that god made an imperfect world with the animals being violent and devouring each other? That was how god created them initially. And how will they act peacefully as fortold in the 2nd coming? Will all the animals be vegetarians? I wonder why when god made elephants and hippos and gorillas and other large beasts to be vegetarians that he couldn't make ALL creatures to be vegetarians. That would save a lot of pain and hurt and death which nobody wants in the first place. It's awful to watch a lion or tiger tear apart a helpless creature. It shouldn't have been created that way in the first place.

It means God will restore the world to the way it was supposed to be - without sin. Sin is as much God's enemy as it is ours, but God already defeated it. Once again the choice is: will you follow Him in victory, or follow sin in defeat?

There are some people who believe all animals have the potential to be vegetarian, but I think they miss the point somewhat. Evolutionary speaking, at some point animals had to live on natural substances, not each other. God might have ordered nature this way to be a living reminder, so to speak - that's how life and nature goes, and it will treat us no differently and indifferently. We can judge over animals, saying these are "cruel" and those are not, but we don't have the authority to call lions "evil" or antelope "good". Then why do we presume authority to be "carnivorous" in the sense of judging people with laws we don't even follow ourselves? We can separate, but we can't judge - not finally. God will judge over us, and as Creator he does have the authority to separate good and evil. Sure, physcial death might have existed before the fall - but not in a spiritual, eternal sense. It wasn't evil, but good. It fit into God's universe perfectly, but since the fall it doesn't fit into ours anymore.

Pain and suffering are symptoms of our situation. They call us to address them - they force us into action. What the Bible is telling us is that God will resolve the tension between life and death. He will heal what is wrong. The lion and the lamb are just symbols for that overruling of the natural order of death (or what we have come to accept as the natural order). God restores and renews the creation that was spoiled by sin.

I don't think that speculation over dietary needs quite does justice to the promise of that kind of peace

If jesus had faith in god then why was he confused on the cross by saying "god, why has thou forsaken me?" Sounds like he didn't want to be crucified and wondered why god didn't come to his rescue.

No, Jesus didn't want to be crucified (why should he have?) - but He knew it was necessary and inevitable that He be tried and judged falsely.

We know Jesus quotes from Psalm 22. We also know that a person was "hung on a tree" if he was considered guilty of a capital offense, and according to Deut.21:22-23, at the moment of his death Jesus was in fact cursed (forsaken) by God! Because

2 Corinthians 5
21God made him who had no sin to be sin on for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God​

But the nature of Jesus' faith, even as he said and felt what he did, is evident if you read the rest of Psalm 22. Maybe Jesus was explaining that he considered his faith, like his death, complete at that moment. That even when he was as far from God as it was possible for a man to be, his faith was in God completely.

BTW...Do you think it would have been possible for jesus to still be a saviour to the world if he did not get crucified and instead lived to a ripe old age like everybody else?

I don't think so. A world that would let Jesus live to die from old age, having made the claims that he made, would have to have accepted him, or otherwise have been completely apathetic. The only world in which Jesus would have made no difference is one that didn't need saving - a world where a Saviour was not needed in the first place.

The reason Jesus was crucified was because the world couldn't accept him or what he stood for. There are two variables that we can't ignore in this context: Jesus was a Jew, and he lived under Roman popular rule. Anyone who rejected Caesar as god was considered an atheist and a troublemaker (not to mention an idiot, because he forfeited the considerable luxuries afforded by being a Roman citizen) by the Romans, and anyone who equated himself with God was punishable by death under Jewish law. Two things would have saved him: a proper earthly kingship that could overthrow the Roman empire (what the Jews expected), or the just application of Roman law (supposed to be the epitome of justice).

But since the very things God expects from his creation: justice and sinlessness (righteousness) is not possible without Him, and therefore not native to the world - where human authority is preferred over God's authority - Jesus was condemned, and "truth" along with him.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

But since the very things God expects from his creation: justice and sinlessness (righteousness) ...

Imagine that, expectations from the omniscient!

 

[Jenyar]

Imagine that, expectations from the omniscient!

"Half of a creation's substance is the expectation with which it was created".