I don't believe in the god of the old testament

Why not? Do you believe in the God of the NT?

Most people would rather leave the fire and brimstone for them that want it.

There's quite a bit of fire and brimstone in the NT. Read Revelation sometime.

I would consider it extremely ironic if it turns out that only the Amish and the poorest 3rd worlders make it to heaven (them being the only ones ignorant of astronomy and geology).

me too!! God gave us brains and he intended we use them. It's not supposed to be "check your brains" at the door type of thing. He said he wants us to love him with our whole "heart", "mind" and "soul."

When they take it a step further and start imposing their will on the law, the government, etc., based upon those beliefs, though, I have a say since it is my country too.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you. After all, when you vote, you're trying to force your own politics on others. Otherwise, you wouldn't vote to have certain things done in government, because not everybody agrees with you, and it's their country as well. Same with anybody else who tries to be represented by their representatives.

Sure, new galaxies and star systems are being generated all the time from the centrepoint of the universe (apparently every galaxy is moving away from that point at a roughly even speed) but with the increasing in computing speeds there's no good reason we won't eventually be able to map everything we can see in the heavens.

Didn't people also say we'd have flying cars by now?

I would consider it extremely ironic if it turns out that only the Amish and the poorest 3rd worlders make it to heaven (them being the only ones ignorant of astronomy and geology).

I don't understand why it'd be ironic or even surprising. I'm a bit of a pragmatist, so I think if they can live their lives well without such knowledge, then such knowledge would be pointless for them (unless it's just a hobby).

"Why not? Do you believe in the God of the NT?"

Nothing new about that. There have been people like the Albigenses who believed that the God of the old testament was really satan, who defied God by making himself a world full of people to be God to. The real God supposedly took pity on us and sent Jesus to set us straight and give us a way to redeem ourselves.

People think the beliefs of today have always been the main beliefs, but I think if the average Christian hopped around in time they'd be shocked at what they'd find. The subject of this blog, i.e. revelations and such, has only been in vogue for a little over a hundred years since the big surge of interest in mysticism and prophetic religion in the mid-late 1800's. If you read about the time, you find that a LOT of our modern beliefs are not much older than that.

"I don't understand why it'd be ironic or even surprising. I'm a bit of a pragmatist, so I think if they can live their lives well without such knowledge, then such knowledge would be pointless for them (unless it's just a hobby)."

I think his point is it would be ironic if they'd be the only ones that go to heaven BECAUSE they don't know those things...

Nothing new about that. There have been people like the Albigenses who believed that the God of the old testament was really satan, who defied God by making himself a world full of people to be God to. The real God supposedly took pity on us and sent Jesus to set us straight and give us a way to redeem ourselves.

It reminds me of the many different ideas of evolution people have. Many interpretations of the same data, but not all interpretations are equal.

I think his point is it would be ironic if they'd be the only ones that go to heaven BECAUSE they don't know those things...

Personally, I think it'd be just as ironic (and make as much sense) to consider the idea that only big-breasted redheaded babes that I find hot go to Heaven (and me and my family and friends of course).

big-breasted redheaded babes

Well with that criteria....I'm out.

"It reminds me of the many different ideas of evolution people have. Many interpretations of the same data, but not all interpretations are equal."

Eh, it's hard to make relative decisions about people's interpretations of the infinitely interpretable Bible. I think even mainstream beliefs are quite a stretch.

Nothing new about that. There have been people like the Albigenses who believed that the God of the old testament was really satan, who defied God by making himself a world full of people to be God to. The real God supposedly took pity on us and sent Jesus to set us straight and give us a way to redeem ourselves.

This is true and not much different even today. I'm sure people still think that to some degree. But that's only because of lack of understanding of what the scriptures say. It's easy to see the God of the OT is the same God of the NT. Jesus is Jehovah God in the flesh, a fact that severed my ties with the JW's a long time ago.

The subject of this blog, i.e. revelations and such, has only been in vogue for a little over a hundred years since the big surge of interest in mysticism and prophetic religion in the mid-late 1800's. If you read about the time, you find that a LOT of our modern beliefs are not much older than that.

Well not really. I go back and read it right from Paul's writings and the OT writings and can see it. I also read many writers from the 15th-18th century who also bring up much of this stuff although hazy to them because it hadn't happened yet...ie Israel coming into thier homeland once again. Granted alot of stuff has hit the mix during the 19th Century onward....most of it not good. I attribute it to Satan knowing his time is near and is throwing all kinds of stuff out there. It's working. God is not the author of confusion....Satan is.

I can show you scripture that shows Damascus will be destroyed, wiped off the map. This has not happened yet. Maybe soon. This has nothing to do with the current beliefs popping up a century or two at all being written centuries ago.

I think even mainstream beliefs are quite a stretch.

like....???? I'm actually wondering what the definition of mainstream is anymore. Normally I would consider myself mainstream but it's becoming increasingly confusing as to what that really means.

Didn't people also say we'd have flying cars by now?

brings the "The Jetsons to Mind." One of my favorites when I was a kid.

Eh, it's hard to make relative decisions about people's interpretations of the infinitely interpretable Bible. I think even mainstream beliefs are quite a stretch.

I guess one can argue that everything is infinitely interpretable (after all, everybody has a different idea about everything, and it's not as if one side is full of super geniuses while the other is full of bumbling morons as there's a mix among all beliefs). Still, when people tell me that Christianity lacks Jewish roots (as Marcion would claim), I can't help but think their interpretation inaccurate.

"Well not really. I go back and read it right from Paul's writings and the OT writings and can see it. "

Again, you look at scripture and say 'duh' because that is how you were taught to interpret it. Do you think, though, that you could take ten people who have never read it and get a single one of them that would come up with your interpretation of Revelations on their own? Hardly.

The modern view of Revelations was born from the same era as the mormon church, and the seventh day adventist church, etc. It was a period when everyone was interested in prophesy and what was going to happen. People were going out and staring up at the sky wearing white robes just KNOWING Jesus was coming any day. Coincidentally there was also a huge surge in interest in Atlantis and non-religious sprituality, etc.

If you look at how the apocalypse was dealt with in the Middle Ages and other eras, you'll see that it isn't very similar to what you believe at all. For the majority of the last 2000 years your religion didn't even exist, KFC. You really think the RC Church and its early forms believed as you do?

Do you realize how many people throughout history were thought to be the anti-christ, and how often people declared that the anti-christ was already walking the earth? Those people didn't have the same beliefs about it as you, they wouldn't have believed it if you told them the world was going to last another 20 years then. You'll have a hard time finding a single account before the 1800's that had the same interpretation of Revelations as you.

Nope, moder Christianity gets their ideas of Revelations from the pulpit, or Hal Lindsey, or the Left Behind books. They most certainly don't read the book and get the ideas you espouse on their own. St. Augustine framed your idea of "Jesus is coming soon" and not even he believed in literally interpreting Revelations.

Out of curiosity, who do you think the whore of Babylon is? Is the Soviet Union still Magog (or was it Gog?), or has the prophesy changed? I remember people being pretty darn sure about all the major players.

I've been following the course of this blog for quite some time now, and it appears to me some of you JU's (Baker, specifically), are straying further and further away from KFCs appearant initial purpose. While I'm not certain, I certainly have not personally asked the author, I believe KFC was simply reinforcing a question on the minds of many Americans in lue of the oft injurious influence of the Nightly News: Why don't we simply pull out of this conflict?

Although KFC did not unequivocally pose this question, I believe it can be deduced by his concluding paragraph, "This is exciting times for the Jews and all those that are believers in the promises he made not only to the Jews but those that are supporting them. Whoever blesses Israel God will bless. He said so, and we here in the US are a testimony of that. God has indeed blessed us beyond measure. I am very thankful that others are trying to get into this country not out of it. What do they see? I believe they see God's blessing and hand upon us."

The answer is blatantly revealed to us over and over again in God's word, should we chose simply not to ignore such an ageless text.

Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed."

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee." (Psalm 122:6)

Paul recorded in Romans 15:27 "For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things."

Genesis 12:1-3, 13:14-18, 15:1-21, 17:4-8, 22:15-18, 26:1-5 and Psalm 89:28-37 all teach that while every other nation on earth was created through an act of man, Isreal was created through an act of God Himself! Modern America, in her increasingly liberal indoctrination, may have many religious opponents but lest we not forget what this great country was founded on - God! His hand was in everything to have allowed us to succeed and prosper given the undeniable odds we were up against in those early times for us. God MUST have had a purpose for us. We would not be here otherwise, and we certainly would not be the great nation we have become in such short time.

While this can easily become a heated "end of times" debate, lets try to stick to the point - Israel is a hot topic because God WANTS it to be; this is HIS chosen nation. Christians owe a lot to that! Jesus Christ being the most obvious. Rather than parading around what we think we know regarding the end of times, let us instead celebrate that God has given us such an amazing view, and role, in some truly breathtaking history in the making! While it's true that we could indeed be partaking in what will be the worlds' final hours, it's too easy to run down a path of destruction by following the loose footholdings of the past in this regard: it's too easy to stray from the truth. While I believe that we are nearing the end, friends, we need to keep our eyes and hearts on what is truly important here: if that time comes, will you be ready? Stop worrying about the ifs, buts and whens - they are irrelevant. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 24:36 " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only". Start focusing on what is important: winning souls for Christ. If you haven't accepted Him into your heart, it won't matter when the end comes, for God Himself will not recognize you (Matt 7:15-23) ! If you're a Christian and you're surrounding yourself in debate - STOP! - there are far too many lost to be concentrating on such ridiculousness. God is giving us a wonderful oppurtunity to reach people by allowing so much media hype over His Nation. Use this as a teaching tool, and start reaching those around you whenever you can.

who do you think the whore of Babylon is?

jazzmine al-shtupmi?

In the scope of religious faith I can see that point, but she is posting this in current events. She's claiming that the current events in Israel are part of God's plan, and that because of what a book says any nation that supports Israel will be blessed. Call it 'ridiculousness' if you like, but when you shift to politics you're going to have to come up with something more than scripture.

You guys like to harp on satan a lot. What is satan? A deceiver. What better trick for a deceiver than to trick people into blindly following a man-made book as if it were God, and blindly agreeing with anything a nation of debatable values does? Pervert the book and the nation and you're suddenly the pied piper of evangelicals.

Let's not forget what Israel has done in the past, you have very vivid records of it, and how many hundreds of times everyone just KNEW these were the 'end times' and were wrong. The most golden of golden ages of Israel had leaders who did really awful things and were punished by God with political and military downfalls. Follow Israel blindly and who knows, you might be following them into yet another captivity to be punished alongside them.

Anyone that looks at the old testament and thinks that following Israel is a safe bet hasn't looked closely enough. And that is just playing to your belief that any of it will happen at all. God put a brain between your ears and gave you two knees if you need to consult him. I see no reason to follow paper and ink, or worse, a country that may or may not be on God's good side at this moment.

"jazzmine al-shtupmi?"

Shhh... don't spoil the fun. I'm hunting wabbits.

Out of curiosity, who do you think the whore of Babylon is? Is the Soviet Union still Magog (or was it Gog?), or has the prophesy changed?

The Whore of Babylon is found in Revelation 17. Gog of Magog is found in Ezek. Two differnt things. And since this is not a thread on biblical prophecy we won't go there now......but I'll give you a hint on the whore...ok just to get you a thinking. A whore is someone unfaithful, a direct opposite of the bride of Christ in scripture. The church (faithful to Christ) is called the Bride of Christ. The False Religions are called the harlots because they are unfaithful to God. So the WHORE is the mother of all the Harlots. The Whore gives birth to the Harlots. For the exact scripture go to Rev 17. Maybe later we'll discuss this on another thread.

Oh and it's Revelation not RevelationS. It's the unveiling....of the end times.

God is giving us a wonderful oppurtunity to reach people by allowing so much media hype over His Nation. Use this as a teaching tool, and start reaching those around you whenever you can.

Thanks Anon....I'd like you to stop by more often.......This quote above sounds an awful lot like the sermon I heard today on Romans 11. You've said some good things here and I appreciate all you said. I agree with you. I think debate is ok as long as it doesn't get ugly tho. I came into the faith under the umbrella of debate myself. I picked up alot of truths engaged in debate as well digging thru scriptures to see if what the other person said was true or not. So while arguing in circles isn't profitable sometimes debate can be ok if handled correctly and if there's progress. Sometimes I find that those that are not involved in the debate, but only watching are the ones that walk away with some new understanding as well.

For the majority of the last 2000 years your religion didn't even exist, KFC. You really think the RC Church and its early forms believed as you do?

What religion? Christianity? That's what I am. A Christian. That started in the first century and that's what I pattern myself after, not the modern religions of our day. The RCC still to this day does not have a commentary on Revelation. For years and years they stayed away from it even. In my mother's day she was forbidden to read it. Recently a book was written by a Catholic apologist on the Rapture. The book was called "The Rapture." and given to me by my Catholic friend. It is a refutation on the Rapture blessed by the CC because they have yet had anyone that has given any strong doctrine on the subject matter written in that book.

Shhh... don't spoil the fun. I'm hunting wabbits.

wow Baker, I do get to see a lighter side of you. I was beginning to wonder. ....

"The Whore of Babylon is found in Revelation 17. Gog of Magog is found in Ezek. Two differnt things."

Yep, but they are all things that people try to apply in a one-to-one way with current events and seem to be wrong constantly. I grew up being taught that gog and magog were the US and the Soviet Union. Guess not. The people who taught me that were "Christians" too, and yet they had a different interpretation of revelations than you. Odd, that.

I really want to know if you think the Roman Catholic Church is the great whore. If you do is it something to be ashamed of?

"Oh and it's Revelation not RevelationS. It's the unveiling....of the end times.

If you are going to be picky about it, it isn't even revelation, it is The Apocalypse, or Apokalupsis, or however far you want to go back. If you're going to be snobby about the vernacular while embracing the KJV or more recent books which are nothing BUT vernacular, come on...

"What religion? Christianity? That's what I am. A Christian. That started in the first century and that's what I pattern myself after, not the modern religions of our day."

That's odd, given that most of the ones you are talking about call themselves Christianity, and are counted as Christianity, and all the historical versions between the first century and you thought themselves to be Christianity.

(Or do you believe that only your VERY RECENT flavor of Christianity is the only one that is really Christianity? That Roman Catholics aren't "saved", etc. Again, shades of the westboro baptist church.)

It seems odd that you can believe that you have the same religion as people in the first century when the main concepts of your religion and the book it is based on wasn't formalized until later.

"The RCC still to this day does not have a commentary on Revelation..."

The RCC is the roots of your theology, and you can deny it until you are blue in the face and it won't change it. The words on the page aren't doctrine. The doctrine you espouse EVOLVED ( ) over the last 2000 years. Your doctrine concerning the apocalypse has matured in the last 200 years.

The Roman Catholic church has most certainly given the apocalypse lots of thought. They have just come to a different conclusion than you.

Yep, but they are all things that people try to apply in a one-to-one way with current events and seem to be wrong constantly. I grew up being taught that gog and magog were the US and the Soviet Union

the same people that told you the 144,00 were the only saved ones during the tribulation?..... ....

ok you really wanna know? I'll tell you. Gog means ruler but the derivation of the word is uncertain. It probably refers to the ruler of the people who live in Magog. Magog was identified by Josephus (1st Century-not modern days) as the land of the Scythians, the region N. and NE of the Black Sea and E of the Aral Sea, now occupied by Russia. Magog I read somewhere means head which in Hebrew is Rosh.....you've heard of Rosh Hashannah? Well that means Head of the Year. So it sounds not too far off from what you were taught. I've heard Syria or Russia because both are northern, with Russia being the utter North, but I don't think it's far fetched to think both will be involved with Iran to boot also mentioned under the name of Persia.....

it is The Apocalypse, or Apokalupsis

very good, you get an A here.

Or do you believe that only your VERY RECENT flavor of Christianity is the only one that is really Christianity? That Roman Catholics aren't "saved", etc. Again, shades of the westboro baptist church.)

are you always this uppidity? Why do you feel the need to put a label on me? At least come up with something new and exciting....geeeesh.

Do I never make sense to you at all? Or is it that you just like to debate? I've told you repeatedly I've been involved in many denominations (including birth and first communion in the RCC). Maybe you may want to talk to the 70 year old man in our church that was just baptized by immersion two weeks ago after being a very dedicated Catholic for that many years. His wife said he's a new man and is amazed at the changes going on in him in the one year he's been coming to our local body. It's not about religion Baker, it's about relationship. For a while he was going to both churches. He realized how much growth he was receiving by having the word of God expounded to him week after week. He was no easy sell....believe me. I see this all the time....

now back to Israel. You may be interested to read this in Ezek 38:15-16 the same chapter where Gog of Magog is mentioned.

"And you shall come from your place out of the north parts, you and many people with you, all of them riding upon horses, a great compny and a mighty army. And you shall come up against my people of Israel as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days and I will bring you against my land that the heatheen may know me when I shall be sanctified in you O Gog before their eyes."

The people who taught me that were "Christians" too, and yet they had a different interpretation of revelations than you.

and how would you know this? I've said very little about Revelation and what I just showed you is not far off from what you were taught. The discussion here on Israel has nothing to do with Revelation. The 144,00 we talked earlier did but that was one small discussion. So how do you know the difference from what you were taught as a youngster and what I believe are two different things? Hmmmmm? Inquiring minds wanna know.

So you're a Catholic now Baker? That could make some sense here.

"the same people that told you the 144,00 were the only saved ones during the tribulation?..."

Laughing about me not knowing that is like me laughing at you for not knowing some wacko conspiracy theory about the Illuminati. Why WOULD either of us study mythology we aren't interested in, and which its adherents make up off the top of their heads? Every time you people go out on a mountaintop to find that Jesus isn't coming back on a particular date I'd need to study up again.

"are you always this uppidity? Why do you feel the need to put a label on me? At least come up with something new and exciting....geeeesh."

Feel free to correct my wrong assumption, if it was wrong. I'm openly assuming that you believe that Catholicism is the great whore of Babylon, and that you believe that Roman Catholics are going to hell unless they deviate from from RC belief.

Now, if that was unfair, explain your beliefs about it to me. I figure that's the only way I'll get a yea or nay.

...

You'll probably ask why it is important in this discussion, and here's why. You are under the assumption that your beliefs about revelations are the 'true' ones, and you've stated that there's nothing new about them. They are basically "Christian" beliefs. You act as though Christianity has always held them.

"What religion? Christianity? That's what I am. A Christian. That started in the first century and that's what I pattern myself after, not the modern religions of our day."

Oddly, then, you openly state that the Catholic church never took the same stand as you on the book. SO, we have a teeny slice of time where people supposedly believed as you, and the vast majority Christianity's history wherein they didn't. So, unless you believe that the Roman Catholic church wasn't Christian, I don't see how you can say there's nothing newer or more specific to your beliefs than general Christianity.

As far as I am concerned you and Roman Catholics are both Christian, unless you want to explain your definition to me. You don't seem to want to. I wonder why?

I'm not trying to really make anyone squirm... well, much.

KFC just tries in one breath to portray her highly interpreted, Protestant beliefs about the Apocalypse as being obvious to Christianity since its beginnings. At the same time she admits that most of "Christianity" didn't interpret it in the same way.

When I point out that she isn't espousing what has generally been believed throughout history, she denies it, stating her beliefs are just "Christian". If she's got "real" Christianity that they had in the first century, what were all the people who differed with her for the last 2000 years?

I just want to pin down the fact that these supposedly obvious interpretations about Israel are quite modern and not something people would just come up with without help. According to her though, there's nothing more than vanilla, first century Christianity at work in her beliefs. I'm left to wonder how to classify people over the last 2000 years who claimed to be Christians and yet didn't see things as she does.

I don't believe in the god of the old testament Why not? Do you believe in the God of the NT?

KFC, I'm not so sure you can agree with this statement. You separate the two making by making sunday the new sabbath. But have YET to show me in the OT where that was prophesied. Even in the ten commandments say that the sabbath will be a sign of the covenant. You disregard and say that changed. Do you not?

only the message has changed.

but if the message changed wouldn't that disagree with the omnicience of the unity (oneness) of G-D?

I dont worry myself about these things anymore, AD, I havent been a Christian for over a decade now.

LW, I know you don't worry about such things. I haven't been a 'Christian' either for over a decade either. Oddly, the christians don't consider me a christian and the jews don't consider me a jew. But I don't care I am who I am.

I don't think cacto believes in either, so your entire argument is moot to him

I do have faith in a creator, I'm just undecided as to whether it's worthy of worship. I think the god of the old testament is an unmitigated bastard who arbitrarily screws with his own people. The new testament seems almost totally different, barring the eccentricities of the acts, letters and revelation. Intellectually I consider them two conceptualisations of god as kind of like in the Hindu pantheon. Each is an aspect of the same being (in modern Hinduism all gods are considered aspects of the one creator god, Vishnu) but formulated to be worshipped by different people.

So naturally I identify with the vision of god who doesn't seem like a vicious control-freak with anger management problems. Forgiveness, peace and love for all, self-sacrifice - those are all qualities that I admire. Blind obedience, capriciousness and sundry smitings are not.

The difference I think in the OT and NT view of God is pretty apparent, I think. The OT God is anthropomorphic; vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty, and capable of intending "evil" by the Bible's own admission. If you looked at the view of any culture's God at that time, they probably wouldn't have been much different at the time. Coincidentally, the people had the same values as their gods. Now God reflects our values more. Did God change?

I doubt any of the other cultures believed they were worshiping weak, false gods with no power. No doubt when they won it was because they did good, and when they lost it was punishment, too. We reflect ourselves on God. The Westboro church folks are basically vermin, so they describe God as the same sort of vermin. I think what you have to do is look at the whole of what we have historically, and what we know personally, and build our definitions as carefully as we can as to not build what we are onto God.

Every time you people

there ya go again....."you people?" Let me tell ya, I've never sold all my possessions and waited on the top of any mountain for the second coming. Do I say such things to you Baker? Do I put a label on you? Why do you me? You seem to need to do so for some reason. Will it make you feel better if you can put me in some sort of box?

I'm openly assuming that you believe that Catholicism is the great whore of Babylon, and that you believe that Roman Catholics are going to hell unless they deviate from from RC belief.

As far as I am concerned you and Roman Catholics are both Christian, unless you want to explain your definition to me. You don't seem to want to. I wonder why?

Where do you get this idea? Did I not say, that this is not a thread on Revelation? Did I not say maybe later I would do something on it? Are you just pushy.....or do we call you assertive? Just to jiggle your memory I said this:

So the WHORE is the mother of all the Harlots. The Whore gives birth to the Harlots. For the exact scripture go to Rev 17. Maybe later we'll discuss this on another thread.

you believe that Roman Catholics are going to hell unless they deviate from from RC belief.

I believe my own children are going to hell if they don't accept the finished work on the Cross. I've already told you it's not about RELIGION but all about RELATIONSHIP. Remember those in scripture that said,.....Lord, Lord didn't we do all this for you? and Jesus replied.....Get away, I do not KNOW you? There will be many that are religious yet lost. There will be a great many church goers from all religions that will not enter the pearly gates. It's not about going to church. You know the saying.....being in the garage does not make one a car? Same with church. Being involved in a church does not make one a Christian either.

Now let me ask you some questions. What is your definition of a Christian? You say that you consider me as well as the RCC Christians. Are all RCC Christians?

Most of my family as well as my husband's family are RCC. Many go only on special occasions maybe once, twice a year and have never lifted a bible. Are they Christians? My husband, an altar boy for years almost went into the priesthood. He did not consider himself a Christian at that time. Do you think he was? How does one become a Christian?

When I point out that she isn't espousing what has generally been believed throughout history, she denies it, stating her beliefs are just "Christian". If she's got "real" Christianity that they had in the first century, what were all the people who differed with her for the last 2000 years?

This is a lie. You are trying to say that the RCC is the same church as the first century Apostles and I will be the first one to stand up and say that is not true. I've also told you elswhere that God has given more light to every generation...things that didn't make sense before the printing press and modern technology makes a heck of alot of sense now.

Besides, unless everyting I've ever been taught about the Bible is wrong, they are the same God, only the message has changed

I agree with the first half LW but not the second. I don't believe the message has changed. What was the message?

You disregard and say that changed. Do you not?

Hi Dude, glad to talk to you again!! We've been over this many times and you just don't accept my answer. I did show you things at the time. The 7th day was part of the Old Covenant that celebrated creation. The first day of the week celebrated by the new Christians celebrated the New Covenant. It really goes back to Lev 23 when you look at all those feasts....they dovetail beautfifully. I suggest you study the Feast of Firstfruits. Christ was the firstfruit...was he not?

I haven't been a 'Christian' either for over a decade either. Oddly, the christians don't consider me a christian and the jews don't consider me a jew.

well then what are you? If you're not a Christian (follower of Christ) and not a Jew (follower of the OT) then what do you beleive? You don't seem like an agnostic or an atheist either.

but if the message changed wouldn't that disagree with the omnicience of the unity (oneness) of G-D?

yes, I think so.