Sodaiho Sodaiho

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

▼

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

staging a messiahship

from JoeUser Forums

With palms together,

 

There is an interesting article in the N Y Times today about a stone tablet found amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Apparently it suggests that the notion of a suffering messiah who would rise in three days was a common belief in the century prior to the Christian Jesus.

 

The article suggests:

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

 

Hmmm. The death and resurrection myth prior to Jesus' birth?  It would seem this adds to the notion advance some decades ago by a Jewish scholar suggesting this whole Jesus script was a scheme to get Jesus recognized as the Messiah, that Jesus was aware of the things that needd to happen before they happened in order to meet the criteria.

 

And later:

 

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

 

Strange.

Link

Be well

 

 

 

 

religion
924,014 views 969 replies
Reply #151 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's impossible to impose Catholicism on anyone. Faith in Christ is offered and how can it be chosen if it's not offered? If someone has found the means to eternal salvation, why shouldn't he attempt to instruct his neighbor on how to achieve the same? Why be stingy with your love...that's the greatest demonstration of the deepest bonds of friendship and love. To love someone in the deepest sense of this term is to wish to be with him in Heaven adoring God in spirit and truth. Conversely, the perfect form of hatred is to say, Be damned. When someone approaches you with a message of Christ, give them credit that their intentionis a loving one for they are trying to be "their brother's keeper." True love for one another is partaking in Christ's love for all people. Christ's love commands us to have a burning concern about the eternal fate of all our brothers and sisters no matter what the race, their religion or lack of religion.
End of quote

 

Let's talk a little about this.  I agree completely that no one can impose Catholocism on another.  The Church, however, for millenia, had different ideas.  The Church, as well as protestant countries, often made it illegal to be anything other than a Christian.  You come to this with a modern take.  Great.  I support that. But don't think that a people who suffered under the tyranny of religious persecution will easily let go of that memory and say, OK, things have changed.

I think its one thing to offer your love, another to try to gain converts through that love. If a Christian must "testify" so be it.  I have a right welcome him in and offer to discuss it.  In the past this hasn't worked out to well.  Love is rather contingent, it seems, on accepting a point of view.

 

We Buddhists take a vow to not be greedy, especially with the Dharma.  I do not take this vow to mean that I should approach total strangers and teach them, unasked, the wisdom of the Buddhas.  Just so, as a Jew, I have an obligation to do acts of loving-kindness.  This does not give me permission to try to convert someone to monotheism If I truly love someone, I love them for who and what they are, human beings who share the universe with me.

 

Be well.

Reply #152 from Stardock Forums Top

I heard a commercial advertisement last night on tv that said a good reason to be Catholic is that you can go to Mass, have your sins expunged and sin all week and have fun and not have any worries. That has been my experience with most of the Catholics I've met including my family and my husband's.....but not Lula. Wrong!
End of quote

 

KFC, this isn't limited to the CC.  What about the likes of Jim Bakker and the rest of those true mega church evangelicals who fall from grace only to beg to be forgiven.  In South Carolina I witnessed the phenomonon of the eternally self rejuvenating virgin.  After an affair women would make themselves virgins again...all pretense, of course, but you take my point. Baptists do the bathtub thing or the river thing and all is clean again.  No, the Catholic Church just made a ritual element of the process.

See ya.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #153 from Stardock Forums Top

Hi All,

This morning at Talmud class we discussed a portion of Tractate Ketubot.  This tractate deals with women and marriage, and all sorts of related issues.  The rabbis, in the portion we were studying, were trying to figure out why a court had been lenient in a ruling regarding a divorce decree.  One rabbi says he thinks its because the rabbis of that court were part of a liberal group who said it was OK for Jews to use the oil of non-Jews, a big no-no.  It seems that much of the talk around non-Jews by Jews in the Talmud have to do with keeping Jews both separate and ritually clean. We were not to touch things that were unclean and since non-Jews did not keep kosher, big problem.  Well, the rabbinic courts tossed this ruling out as it impeded commerce between Jews and non-Jews and chose a more liberal interpretation. 

 

The point is, the Talmudic effort is an effort to do two things at once: keep Jews Jews and discover how we can adapt to changing cultural norms. I don't see how this is much different than today as we raise our children and send them out into the world.  We want to adapt, that is, be modern citizens, but at the same time, not surrender our values.

 

Be well.

Reply #154 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now while they were talking of these things,Jesus stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace to you! It is I, do not be afraid." But they were startled and panic-stricken, and thought that they saw a spirit.ok, look at what you wrote. First of all you said this:
None of them recognized him, not even when he presented himself to them, they still needed proof.You said NONE of them RECOGNIZED him. The only place where they didn't recognized HIM was, as you wrote about, on the road to Emmaus. Now that was TWO people. One was named Cleophas and we don't know the other. Neither was mentioned in scripture before this.Cleopas was one of two men who were trudging to Emmaeus when Christ joined them just newly risen. They did not recognize him until he broke bread with them that evening. These were not His close Apostles. When the Apostles saw him, you even wrote they were stricken. Why? Because they did recongize him and knowing he was dead, it must be his ghost. So you just proved yourself wrong with the scriptures going against your earlier statement.
it had to be proven to them that he was indeed not a spirit or ghost by touching him and viewing his wounds, even after they had been told that he had been seen and recognized, as a human body and not spirit by other apostles, and yes there were more than 12, there were in fact 72.Yes, they had to know that he was physically risen, not spirit risen. And this is very important. There are many today that say he was only a spirit when he rose. That's why this is in there. Christ was the first fruit which goes way back to Lev 23 and the Feast of First Fruits. The whole deal is that there would be more to follow. No there were not 72 here. Where are you getting that from? It says and I'm using your quote here:
And rising up that very hour, they returned to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven gathered together and those who were with them
Please note that the words they worshipped him, and were praising and blessing God not worshipping God. Commandment number 1. Thou shalt have no other god before me. Even after Jesus had opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures they did not understand them. Most notably the first commandment.You're forgetting something. They did recognize and believe him at his word that he was God. Now go back and read when Jesus met with Thomas. Thomas knelt and acknowledged Christ as "My Lord and My God." They were not committing a sin. They were acknowledging Christ as God. Read the first few verses in John 1. "In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the Word was God.The word became Flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory." While they didn't quite understand things, it was as Lula said, afterwards it all made sense. It all came together. That's why they were willing to give their lives for him later on They knew the truth.
End of quote



First of all seeing a spirit does not mean that you will see an exact replica of the being that it portrays, such as in "ghost". (My fault I shouldn't have used that word, but sometimes I forget how others view it.) That is a very modern interpretation of the word "spirit", the movies and pop culture version. If you have ever seen supposed pictures of spirits you will see a very fuzzy picture of the person with extremely hard to see details, if any resemblance at all to the actual version. Also on television by the way. If indeed they had seen him exactly body wise as he was during "life" they'd not have thought him a spirit to begin with. They weren't stupid, and they weren't blind to physical reality.

Second of all, you need to quote within text, complete text, not half. They were worshipping Jesus and I quote "Now he led them out towards Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them, that he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen" You will note that they worshipped "him" not "God", and if you will note the act comes right after Jesus's blessing and his being raised up into heaven. If they'd indeed worshipped "God" it would have said so and used the word "God". They returned to Jerusalem and entered the temple where they stayed continually praising and blessing God, not worshipping god or once again it would have said so.

Jesus had 72 apostles, but only Twelve of them that "God" had deemed worthy (another bad term but a descriptive that I am sure you will understand) to receive the inner or deeper knowledge. However receiving the knowledge does not guarantee that it will be completely understood or even believed, and there's no guarantee that it will even be remembered either. Those that weren't of the "Twelve" were referred to as the others, and Cleophas was one of those "others". He saw Jesus and he didn't think him a spirit, or ghost. On the contrary he thought him a man and a stranger. It was only when he performed a familiar act that he recognized him. The big clue to his being an apostle here is that it was a familiar act, an act that Jesus performed quite often with his apostles.

When Thomas acknowledged the "Christ" as "My Lord and my God", he was not addressing Jesus the man. He was addressing the spark of divinity in all of us, that small part that is god that exists in everyone. God made man and woman in God's own image, God has no physical image, that's why the jewish religion prohibits any image of God to be made. Jesus knew this and so it was indeed not a breaking of the commandment.

How nice of John to rewrite Genesis.
Reply #155 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no such thing, it is indeed an invention by a man named Miller, whose followers founded the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Few christians live the word of god, and even fewer follow the path of Jesus.you're all mixed up and anti-denomination. Fine. I'm not very gung ho about denomination myself so you're preaching to the choir. But you're skewed in your thinking. You're getting pseudo-Christianity mixed up with real Christianity. You're getting religion and relationship mixed up. A real Christian knows they can't force or tortue a person into believing. It's God's work not ours. We are only to scatter seed (the gospel which means good news) and leave God to do the watering and growing. Only God can open eyes. Not me nor anyone. First of all I was a former Adventist. They DO NOT BELIEVE in the Rapture. It did not come from them. Miller and the Millerites sold all their possessions, went up on a mountain to wait and waited and waited. They did not get this from scripture. So don't blame the truth for all these people who came up with their own wrong truth and built a denomination around it. The Rapture theory first came about by a man named Darby in the 1700's I believe. Some groups believe in the rapture some don't. I belive it to be true because it's quite clear in 1 Thess 4:16 there will be one. Some believe in the principle of it but just not the word "rapture"The bible says that when he comes those who are alive will be "caught up" and that's where we get our modern word rapture. It comes from the Latin "rapere"
End of quote


Isn't that strange, history says it did. But then again history could be wrong, but I'm thinking it's probably not.

Reply #156 from Stardock Forums Top

When Thomas acknowledged the "Christ" as "My Lord and my God", he was not addressing Jesus the man. He was addressing the spark of divinity in all of us, that small part that is god that exists in everyone. God made man and woman in God's own image, God has no physical image, that's why the jewish religion prohibits any image of God to be made. Jesus knew this and so it was indeed not a breaking of the commandment.
End of quote

 

Nightshades, very interesting reply.  It sounds like something from the the Gospel of St. Thomas on the one hand and quite in keeping with Jewish mystical tadition on he other hand 

Reply #157 from JoeUser Forums Top
As for the church and christians of today, let me remind you of this fact, Jesus stressed that in order to follow him one must give up everything. Friends, family, wealth, personal aggrandizement, etc.and this happens daily for us who follow Christ. It means sacrifice. That's what Jesus said would happen and is what he requires. When we join Christ whether we are a Jew, Islamic, formally Atheistic or even Catholic......it means sacrifice. Many have lost jobs, family relations, or been cut out of wills because they followed Christ. It has nothing to do with not having wealth. Not having wealth doesn't make one more Christian. You can be wealthy but not have money be your god. One can be poor and curse God. It's not about having or not having possessions. It's not money that is evil but the love of money that is evil. Many of God's most precious saints were rich. Abraham, David, Solomon and Job are a few examples. God can and may bless some of his people with money and riches. It's about knowing and acknowledging who is behind your wealth and understanding all is the Lord's to begin with. For the world it's ok to be religious but it's not ok to follow Christ and there is a difference. My husband's family is Catholic. When he left the Catholic faith to follow Jesus (sorry Lula) he was persecuted by his own family because he left his heritage. They were religious and went to Mass every week but they were lost. There was no diff between them and the secular world. We were not invited to their parties anymore and were consideed the black sheep when in all reality we most likely were making them feel guilty for their behaviors. I heard a commercial advertisement last night on tv that said a good reason to be Catholic is that you can go to Mass, have your sins expunged and sin all week and have fun and not have any worries. That has been my experience with most of the Catholics I've met including my family and my husband's.....but not Lula. Wrong!
End of quote



Mark 10.17

"And as he as going foth on his journey, a certain man running up fell upon his knees before him, and asked him "Good Mater, what shall I do to gain eternal life?" But Jesus said to him, "Why dost thou call me good? No one is good but only God
Thou knowst the commandments; Thou shat not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not defraud, honor thy father and mother." And he answsered and said, "Master, all these have I kept ever since i was a child." And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing is lacking to thee; go, sell whatever thou hast, and ive to the poor, and thou shaalt have trasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But his face fell at the saying, and he ent aay sad, for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looking round, said to his disciples, "With what difficulty will they who have riches enter the kingdom of God!" But the disciples were amazed at his word. But Jesus again addressed them, saying, "Children, with what difficulty will they who trust in riches enter the kingdom of God." But they were astonished the more, saying among themselves, "Who then can be saved?" And looking upon them, Jesus said,"With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God".

Peter began to say to him, "Behold, we have left all and followed thee." Answering Jesus said, "Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel's sake, who shall not receive now in the present time a hundredfold as much, houses, and brothers and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands--along with persecutions, and in the age to come life everlasting. But many who are first now will be last, and many who are last now will be first."

Your saying that you can have wealth, and not have money be a god, and be a "good" christian is in direct conflict with what Jesus said above. If you have wealth, it is because you seek it, cultivate it and protect it, and that makes it a god.



Matthew 7.25, read it yourself. I've done enough of the work.


Reply #158 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are shining jewels and treasures of the truth in every religion, with a lot of human ego nonsense piled on top. The only thing that makes us think that they are saying something different is that petty little tyrant that demands that "our religion be the right and unique religion."
Reply #159 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sodaiho posts:
have you forgotten the inquisition and other terrors surrounding it? It forced conversions.
End of quote



So Daiho,

If it pleases you to know I haven't forgotten the Inquisition which is always brought up as a handy stick by those who harbor animosity towards the Catholic Church. Just what do you think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates…that Catholics are sinners? Yes, pronounced guilty. That at times Catholics in positions of power have abused their authority and acted most cruelly? Guilty as charged again.

For what it’s worth to add to this discussion, I’m going to defend the Inquisition, that is, its origin, guiding principles and necessity, but not the admitted cruelty and injustice of some who operated within it.

The Church was commissioned by Christ to preach saving truth until the end of the world can never be unwilling to suppress erroneous doctrine, must be intolerant of grave error and opposed to propagation of error.

It’s essential to note that the Inquisition was a medieval court system whose tribunals were set up as the need arose to try charges of heresy. Its object was primarily corrective. If the heretic recanted his errors, it imposed a penance, such as fasting, a pilgrimage, and reconciled him with the Church. If he was obdurate, he was pronounced guilty of heresy and handed over to the state for punishment. The State passed the sentence, sometimes flagellation, confiscation of property, imprisonment or death itself.

Do you know that the Inquisitions of a religious character are of Jewish rather than of Catholic origin…that they are necessary to the maintenance of the Church based upon eternal principles which do not permit the multitudinous changes that private judgment suggests?

The Sanhedrin was a Jewish inquisition which tried heresy and other criminal as well as civil cases. It inflicted punishment according to the Mosaic Law and the Talmud, which often meant scourging and stoning to death (Deuteronomy). It was the Sanhedrin before which Christ, the Founder of the Catholic Church was tried and convicted of “blasphemy” (because He insisted He was the Son of God-their Messias) and turned over to the “secular” arm, to Pilate, to be put to death.

The right of the Jewish priests of those days to defend the principles of the children of Israel, and to regulate the discipline of its members, was recognized by Christ Himself.

Secular societies, such as the Masons, trade unions, bar associations, the B’nai B’rith, etc. all organizations, are types of inquisitions in that they have their own courts or committees who are empowered to investigate charges of violation of principles they are organized to further and to recommend penalties. Is there any basis in reason for denying this privilege to a spiritual society?

Pax Christi!
Reply #160 from Stardock Forums Top

It’s essential to note that the Inquisition was a medieval court system whose tribunals were set up as the need arose to try charges of heresy. Its object was primarily corrective. If the heretic recanted his errors, it imposed a penance, such as fasting, a pilgrimage, and reconciled him with the Church. If he was obdurate, he was pronounced guilty of heresy and handed over to the state for punishment. The State passed the sentence, sometimes flagellation, confiscation of property, imprisonment or death itself.
End of quote

Lula,  Exactly. And if Christians have their way in the United states taking down the wall separating Church and State we are left with this threat once again.  The Inquisition wasn't a small thing, no little stick.  It was a massive effort that spread like a cancer throughout Europe. Jews were and will always be heretics according to Church doctrine, or at least until of very late.

What were Jewish towns and communities to do under siege from the Inquisitors?  What were they to do when they were forced to relocate, to flee to other countries under expulsion?  enjoy the loving-kindness of Christians?  This was the context wherein Jews wrote comments about and discussed their Christian oppressors.  And you think words are the problem?  Goodness.

You dare compare the centuries of killing, torture, and unspeakable horror perpetrated against a people for its faith to a court, like the Sanhedrin?  The Sanhedrin had a brief history and was focused on issues related to Jews, not Gentiles. Hardly an inquisition by any possible stretch of the imagination.  

The Inquisition was just a dramatic point.  There are two millenia of records of anti-Jewish hate, oppression, and malicious conduct, all by otherwise loving gentiles, often in the name of the Christian God and its faith. 

You don't expect some degree of suspicion to remain in the hearts of Jews?

 

 

Reply #161 from JoeUser Forums Top
If it pleases you to know I haven't forgotten the Inquisition which is always brought up as a handy stick by those who harbor animosity towards the Catholic Church. Just what do you think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates…that Catholics are sinners? Yes, pronounced guilty. That at times Catholics in positions of power have abused their authority and acted most cruelly? Guilty as charged again
End of quote


See, this is what I can't stand about Christianity. It does not hold its wrongdoers accountable. So you killed a man in cold blood? That's ok. God forgives you.

Wrong!

If there is a God, he should keep the order by punishing those who commit moral crimes. And if he doesn't, someone should do it for him. He's obviously incompetent.

I favor a religion in which the god is not so lenient. So much lenience isn't mercy. It's apathy.
Reply #162 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Sanhedrin had a brief history and was focused on issues related to Jews, not Gentiles.
End of quote


I agree. They were trying to keep Hebraic Judaism pure.

Exactly the same as the Catholic Church and the Inquisition....it only prosecuted on Catholics charged with heresy...only those within the Church herself. The Church, through the Inquisition, was trying to keep the true faith pure.

Sodaiho posts:
What were Jewish towns and communities to do under siege from the Inquisitors? What were they to do when they were forced to relocate, to flee to other countries under expulsion? enjoy the loving-kindness of Christians?
End of quote


As to the Inquisition, it did not affect the small Jewish minority in Europe. The Church didn’t deny religious freedom to the Jews. I do acknowledge that in 1478, during the Spanish Inquisition, a state institution, identified conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Catholicism for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. (These Jews and Muslims would be committing heresy in doing this.)

So, let’s be clear about the Spanish Inquisition and Jews…History has shown that the Church, the Inquisition and the State left observant Jews in peace, unconcerned with their religious practices. It did, and rightly so, focus its efforts on the Jews who had “converted” to Catholicism as a cover for their designs against Christian rule of Spain. Some of the conversos were in league with the Moors and Queen Isabelle rightly feared that they would open the gates to their enemies.


Then, in Medieval Europe, that the Church could call upon the civil power to repress rebellion against her teaching proves conclusively that the men of that day considered the Church necessary for the well-being of society. Even though there was a close alliance between Church and State, the Church remained an ecclesiastical society and the State remained a separate civil society.

When the Inquisition sought only those Jews who had "converted" to Catholicism. Just as you say, the Sanhedrin was focused on issues related to Jews, the Inquisition focused on issues related to Catholics charged with heresy.

So Daiho posts:
Please understand your church systematically hunted down, tortured and killed Jews during the centuries prior to and contemporaneous with the comments you are alluding to. ..or have you forgotten the inquisition and other terrors surrounding it?
End of quote


So Daiho,



From the birth of the Chruch in 33AD on Pentecost through the year 312 when Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which decreed that all religious groups in the Roman empire were free to worship as they pleased, it’s the Christians who were being persecuted by the revolutionary Jews and the Roman emperors. It was the Christians, not Jews, who were being fed to lions because they would not honor the emperor as a god and Christians who had to celebrate Mass, the Holy Eucharist, (the breaking of bread) in private homes and later in the catacombs, for “fear of the Jews”. This is the era of Christian martyrs.

Could you be more specific as to your charge that the Church systematically hunted down, tortured and killed Jews in the 400s, 500s, 600s, 700s, 800s, 900, 1000s, 1100s, etc.? I’ll be happy to respond.

Reply #163 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula, Exactly. And if Christians have their way in the United states taking down the wall separating Church and State we are left with this threat once again. The Inquisition wasn't a small thing, no little stick. It was a massive effort that spread like a cancer throughout Europe. Jews were and will always be heretics according to Church doctrine, or at least until of very late.
End of quote


Ha, So Daiho,
The way things are going you don't have to be worried that the Christians will have their way taking down the mythical "wall"---separation of Church and state. It's snowballing in your direction. Michael Newdow is the guy who keeps suing to get rid of the words, "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and from our currency.

Can you say chaos?

SlyDrivel,
If there is a God, he should keep the order by punishing those who commit moral crimes.
End of quote


There is a God, and when we die at our Particular Judgment or at the Last Judgment after the end of the world, He will severely punish those who commit moral crimes and don't sincerely repent of their sin.

If there is a God, he should keep the order by punishing those who commit moral crimes. And if he doesn't, someone should do it for him. He's obviously incompetent.
End of quote


God is wonderfully in charge.....He's way ahead of you! He established 3 authoritative orders on earth----
---the family authority(kids must obey their parents)

---the Church authority (we must know, love and serve God and obey all His commands)and

---government authority (we must legislate just laws and we are bound to obey them).

Reply #164 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #165 from JoeUser Forums Top
Christianity should keep in mind this one thing. Christians have subjugated more of the worlds population than the Roman Empire ever did. They have slaughtered and tortured more innocents in the name of religious truth than the Roman Empire ever did all during their persecution of the christians, and that doesn't include the inquisition by the way. Their leaders have sought and gained more power and material wealth than the Roman Empire ever accumulated. They have persecuted and murdered their own, and then later declared those same people "martyrs", and raised statues in their honor on the same places that they murdered them on. Their track record is not a positive one. And yet even with all this to their discredit they will still cry "foul" and still insist that they are the ones being persecuted. Of course they aren't being murdered or tortured, they are just being told to back off and keep their religion to themselves, an option that they themselves never gave others during their long and bloody history.

As Shakespeare wrote for the play Hamlet, "Something is rotten in Denmark."

Reply #166 from Stardock Forums Top

The something rotten is sanitation of history.  I spent some time last night reading through the Catholic Encyclopedia as regards Heretics, the Inquisition and under a separate search Jews. Most interesting.  Heretics were those "believers"  who spoke doctrine opposed to true doctrine, but secondly, those who refused to accept Christianity.  And who were the targets of the Inquisition, heretics. Hmmm. Doesn't leave a lot of room for Jews. Jews aere expelled from country to country.  Some became conversos, not for gain, but to remain at home and alive.  The Church protected Jews alright:

1555
In Papal Bull Cum nimis absurdum, Pope Paul IV writes: "It appears utterly absurd and impermissible that the Jews, whom God has condemned to eternal slavery for their guilt, should enjoy our Christian love." He renews anti-Jewish legislation and installs a locked nightly ghetto in Rome. The Bull also forces Jewish males to wear a yellow hat, females - yellow kerchief. Owning real estate or practicing medicine on Christians is forbidden. It also limits Jewish communities to only one synagogue.

Goodness. And this wasn't limited to the Catholics, the Byzantine Empire did similar things and our friend, Martin Luther, says:

 

1543
In his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies Martin Luther advocates an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews as a distinct group either by religious conversion or by expulsion:
"...set fire to their synagogues or schools..."
"...their houses also be razed and destroyed..."
"...their prayer books and Talmudic writings... be taken from them..."
"...their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb..."
"...safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews..."
"...usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them..." and "Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [certain amount]..."
"...young, strong Jews and Jewesses [should]... earn their bread in the sweat of their brow..."
"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."
Luther "got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537 , and in the 1540s he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them from Brandenburg in 1543 . His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."[

A very welcoming community, those Christian communities.

Be well

Reply #168 from JoeUser Forums Top
For those christians that believe that this country was founded on christianity, a bit of American History:

1. Robert Morris a signer of the Declaration of Independence,and an unnamed jew (isn't that just like christians to not want to acknowledge them by name) funded the Continental Congress with their own personal fortunes so that this country would have a chance at becoming a country.

2. God is not only left out of the Declaration of Independence, but it was a deliberate act on the part of the writer. The phrase used is "Their creator" which is pretty obtuse and could signify anyone or anything.

3. One of the guaranteed liberties of this country is freedom of religion, and it doesn't specify which religion.

4. There is seperation between church and state and for good reason. Most of the original colonists came here because of religious persecution.


If christians think that being persecuted is taking "in god we trust" off our money, and out of the pledge of allegiance, and banning state sponsored school prayer, and publicly funded christian holidays, they are certainly in my book anyhow a bunch of silly gooses, and have no idea what true persecution is.

Now I am not anti-Jesus, I know the truth in his message, and in his life and death. I am not however christian. I am not also jewish, hindu, buddhist, or muslim even though I acknowledge the truth of the Buddah, Krishna, Abraham, Moses and Mohammed. I am however a follower of the truth, and there is no religion higher than the truth.
Reply #169 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your saying that you can have wealth, and not have money be a god, and be a "good" christian is in direct conflict with what Jesus said above. If you have wealth, it is because you seek it, cultivate it and protect it, and that makes it a god.
End of quote


No, God gives us examples of many wealthy God-fearing men in scripture. You are referring to the rich young ruler. You can't take this one example and say we all have to sell all our possessions to follow God. Jesus knew EXACTLY what was stopping this young man from following him. Jesus went right to the heart of the matter. If you read the exchange very carefully you can see Jesus called his bluff on keeping the 10 commandments. The young man said he kept them since his youth right? So Jesus told him to sell all his possessions, right? The man went away crestfallen because he couldn't do that. Jesus just proved to this young man that he had another god he was worshipping after all. The god of money. He never did keep the commandments as he professed.

You're missing the whole point of the passage. It wasn't about money. It was about the love of money.

Isn't that strange, history says it did. But then again history could be wrong, but I'm thinking it's probably not.
End of quote


show me! History DOES NOT say this. I'm 100% on this.

I'm telling ya, Adventists DO NOT believe in the rapture. I was one. Ask them. Go find one and ask them. Find a church, call them up on the phone and ask them.

What you're referring to is this group sold all their possessions and waited on a hilltop for Christ's return. That IS NOT the rapture.

Nightshades, very interesting reply. It sounds like something from the the Gospel of St. Thomas on the one hand and quite in keeping with Jewish mystical tadition on he other hand
End of quote


exactly, nothing to do with the bible.

I am however a follower of the truth, and there is no religion higher than the truth.
End of quote


Jesus declared himself truth. I follow him and by doing so I follow truth. Pilate stood in front of Jesus and asked "what is truth?"




Reply #170 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jesus had 72 apostles,
End of quote


where are you getting 72 apostles?

I know he sent out 70 disciples at one point in time, but that wasn't the issue here. Besides there is a difference between Apostles and Disciples. You said he had more than 70 in that room when Christ went to meet them and that NONE of them recognized the risen Christ. It's not true. You are twisting scripture.

You yourself wrote that it was of the 11 and those with them. It doesn't give a number other than the 11. And It doesn't say they didn't recognize Him. It was as tho they saw his ghost. Obviously they did recognize him. They couldn't believe he was in front of them because they watched him die (further reason to believe he was indeed dead) but it doesn't say anything about NOT recognizing him. They did, that's why they got so scared.

Reply #171 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your saying that you can have wealth, and not have money be a god, and be a "good" christian is in direct conflict with what Jesus said above. If you have wealth, it is because you seek it, cultivate it and protect it, and that makes it a god.No, God gives us examples of many wealthy God-fearing men in scripture. You are referring to the rich young ruler. You can't take this one example and say we all have to sell all our possessions to follow God. Jesus knew EXACTLY what was stopping this young man from following him. Jesus went right to the heart of the matter. If you read the exchange very carefully you can see Jesus called his bluff on keeping the 10 commandments. The young man said he kept them since his youth right? So Jesus told him to sell all his possessions, right? The man went away crestfallen because he couldn't do that. Jesus just proved to this young man that he had another god he was worshipping after all. The god of money. He never did keep the commandments as he professed. You're missing the whole point of the passage. It wasn't about money. It was about the love of money.
Isn't that strange, history says it did. But then again history could be wrong, but I'm thinking it's probably not.show me! History DOES NOT say this. I'm 100% on this. I'm telling ya, Adventists DO NOT believe in the rapture. I was one. Ask them. Go find one and ask them. Find a church, call them up on the phone and ask them. What you're referring to is this group sold all their possessions and waited on a hilltop for Christ's return. That IS NOT the rapture.
Nightshades, very interesting reply. It sounds like something from the the Gospel of St. Thomas on the one hand and quite in keeping with Jewish mystical tadition on he other handexactly, nothing to do with the bible.
I am however a follower of the truth, and there is no religion higher than the truth.Jesus declared himself truth. I follow him and by doing so I follow truth. Pilate stood in front of Jesus and asked "what is truth?"
End of quote


Re-read the passage again. At no time did Jesus ask him the one commandment that says
"Thou shalt not have any god before me". And I don't agree that the passage is about the love of money, it is about having a god before god, it is about having "self" before god. God will provide what is needed, when man worries about his needs he is putting himself first. And needs are very simple for all. We need, food, clothing and shelter, no more than that, everything else is a "want". If you are wealthy, than you are concentrating not on God, but on yourself and on your wants and your needs. You waste energy better spent else where, such as on the cultivating of the salvation of your soul, instead of on the cultivating, accummulating, and protecting yourself through the accumulation of wealth. You have to or you wouldn't be wealthy at all, you'd be poor.

Yes the bible does speak of wealthy "god fearing men", but God doesn't. However it doesn't speak of those men as walking with God. Jesus walked with God, and in order to do so there can be no earthly attachments, and that does include "wealth". Jesus said "Render unto Cesaer that which is Cesaer's, and unto God that which is Gods". There is also another thought to consider, Jesus died for the sins of the "world". Not your sins not my sins or anyone elses sins, but he chose to die so to show that he'd renounced the world and all it's sins of self. And he did it in such a public way that all men would know that they too were capable of the same no matter their station in life, or their past transgressions.

Then you need to argue with the History Channel, I just watched a program on the Millerites, and they seem to have gotten it wrong. By the way I didn't say that the Seventh Day Adventists believed in the rapture, just that it was founded by the followers of Miller. However the rapture is also not spoken of in the bible either.

If Pilate wished to know the truth, he'd have gone and found out for himself what it was. All men are capable of doing so, and "belief" is not a prerequisite. Nor is it necessary to have another tell you "the truth", only how to find it for yourslf, for we really only "know" that which we experience for ourselves. Belief is not knowing. Even aetheism is a belief.

If you however follow Jesus and you have earthly wealth, amongst other things, than you are not a follower, you are a hanger on. Someone who hopes that simple belief is enough to save his soul. Well it is a start, and a good one, but it's not a band-aid, nor is it a get out of jail free card. Your soul will not be saved except through your own efforts, and unfortunately that does require a leaving behind of the earthly, and not by the accident of dying either, but as Jesus did, by free choice.

But tell me what is your truth.
Reply #172 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did not say that there were 70 in the room. I said that he had seventy two apostles. There was no difference between the apostles or the disciples other than the self aggrandizement that the Eleven that were chosen to learn the inner knowledge, gave themselves. Jesus stated specifically to them, "Those who are now first shall be last, and those who are now last shall be first."

Further more they did not watch him die. Only the women were present at the crucifixion. The Eleven ran for their lives. And the passage reads "they thought him a spirit", the word ghost is not in the text.
Reply #173 from JoeUser Forums Top

Further more they did not watch him die. Only the women were present at the crucifixion. The Eleven ran for their lives. And the passage reads "they thought him a spirit", the word ghost is not in the text.
End of quote


no John was at the foot of the cross with Mary...Jesus spoke to him remember? "Behold your mother" as he looked at John. We don't know about the others, true, but there is some indication Peter was traveling a distance away keeping his eyes on things but can't be totally sure.

a spirit and ghost is the same thing. Sometimes the bible talks about the Holy Spirit and Sometimes it speaks about the Holy Ghost...depends on the translation.

So where are you getting 72?








Reply #174 from JoeUser Forums Top
At no time did Jesus ask him the one commandment that says
"Thou shalt not have any god before me".
End of quote


he didn't have to. The young man said he kept all the commandments since his birth. So Jesus said ok, go sell all you have. This to show him he wasn't being honest with himself. Money was his god. He violated the first commandment right there. Jesus knows the heart and goes right to it whether it be this rich young ruler or you or me.

However it doesn't speak of those men as walking with God.
End of quote


Abraham didn't walk with God? David was said to be a man after God's own heart. Read Job. After he passed some pretty strict testing he was rewarded with double everything....his wealth was doubled by GOD HIMSELF. Sorry but you have a twisted view of things here.

If you are wealthy, than you are concentrating not on God, but on yourself and on your wants and your needs
End of quote


that's a pretty big assumption. So I guess we won't see Abraham, David, Solomon or Job in heaven. Sorry but I do think while it's more difficult you can still be wealthy and love God. You can be poor and hate God. It's not about money...it's about the heart.

I just watched a program on the Millerites, and they seem to have gotten it wrong. By the way I didn't say that the Seventh Day Adventists believed in the rapture, just that it was founded by the followers of Miller. However the rapture is also not spoken of in the bible either.
End of quote


Maybe you misunderstood? The Millerites were waiting for the return of Christ not necessarily the Rapture. The Millerites changed into the Adventists under the direction of Ellen White. The rapture is spoken of in the bible a few times. The most frequent verse is 1 Thess 4:16. What is that telling you?

If you however follow Jesus and you have earthly wealth, amongst other things, than you are not a follower, you are a hanger on. Someone who hopes that simple belief is enough to save his soul. Well it is a start, and a good one, but it's not a band-aid, nor is it a get out of jail free card.
End of quote


That is not true. Simple belief is all that is required. Belief like a child. That's it. There is nothing we can do to earn or work our way to heaven. Nothing. If that was the case why did Christ die then?

Your soul will not be saved except through your own efforts,
End of quote


really? Our efforts? What about the effort of Christ? Why did he die? Why does the bible say our works are as filthy rags to God? Our works are NOT going to get us into heaven. God doesn't need our works. He wants our hearts. Our works come out of a clean heart and only God can cleanse a heart. A man is saved TO DO good works not saved BY his good works and there is a diff.



Reply #175 from JoeUser Forums Top
At no time did Jesus ask him the one commandment that says "Thou shalt not have any god before me".he didn't have to. The young man said he kept all the commandments since his birth. So Jesus said ok, go sell all you have. This to show him he wasn't being honest with himself. Money was his god. He violated the first commandment right there. Jesus knows the heart and goes right to it whether it be this rich young ruler or you or me.
However it doesn't speak of those men as walking with God.Abraham didn't walk with God? David was said to be a man after God's own heart. Read Job. After he passed some pretty strict testing he was rewarded with double everything....his wealth was doubled by GOD HIMSELF. Sorry but you have a twisted view of things here.
If you are wealthy, than you are concentrating not on God, but on yourself and on your wants and your needsthat's a pretty big assumption. So I guess we won't see Abraham, David, Solomon or Job in heaven. Sorry but I do think while it's more difficult you can still be wealthy and love God. You can be poor and hate God. It's not about money...it's about the heart.
I just watched a program on the Millerites, and they seem to have gotten it wrong. By the way I didn't say that the Seventh Day Adventists believed in the rapture, just that it was founded by the followers of Miller. However the rapture is also not spoken of in the bible either.Maybe you misunderstood? The Millerites were waiting for the return of Christ not necessarily the Rapture. The Millerites changed into the Adventists under the direction of Ellen White. The rapture is spoken of in the bible a few times. The most frequent verse is 1 Thess 4:16. What is that telling you?
If you however follow Jesus and you have earthly wealth, amongst other things, than you are not a follower, you are a hanger on. Someone who hopes that simple belief is enough to save his soul. Well it is a start, and a good one, but it's not a band-aid, nor is it a get out of jail free card.That is not true. Simple belief is all that is required. Belief like a child. That's it. There is nothing we can do to earn or work our way to heaven. Nothing. If that was the case why did Christ die then?
Your soul will not be saved except through your own efforts,really? Our efforts? What about the effort of Christ? Why did he die? Why does the bible say our works are as filthy rags to God? Our works are NOT going to get us into heaven. God doesn't need our works. He wants our hearts. Our works come out of a clean heart and only God can cleanse a heart. A man is saved TO DO good works not saved BY his good works and there is a diff.
End of quote


If the young man kept all the commandments since birth, why was he wealthy? Jesus didn't ask because wealth speaks for itself, it literally screams self importance. He had kept all the other commandments, and Jesus knew this and specifically asked him about the ones that he had kept, and loved him for keeping them, but he deliberately left the one out because he knew that he hadn't kept that one.

No Abraham, nor Job, walked with god. There are only three spoken of in the bible that walked with God. Ezekial, Henoch and Jesus. Abraham and Job both died. Neither were "taken up and seen no more", or resurrected from the dead and "taken up". Are they to be seen in heaven? I don't know, do you? Have you seen them?

Simple belief is not enough, and neither are good works, because if you are working to save your soul you are doing all those works for the wrong reason. The reason of "self" specifically "self salvation". And those works are like rags to God. You are correct there. The words "by your own effort" are not the same as good works, or working for your own salvation. By your own effort means to set self aside, no small feat by the way, and only you can do that, it can't be done for you, and allow god or spirit to work through you, without care for or personal interest in the outcome of those works. Jesus speaks of the belief of a child, because a child accepts unquestioningly, they do not question every act, nor the outcome of every act. They don't usually stop to think "what's in it for me?", or "how will this affect me?" either. And I do agree that the one thing that we must do is "love god with all our hearts". That is the most important commandment, but as Jesus pointed out, "a man can not serve two masters", and self importance is a master, it's also a love and one can not serve both it and god.

I said why Jesus died as he did, didn't you understand it? Sometimes I'm not so clear in my meaning. If not, ask and I will try to make what I am saying clearer.