... and if you're wrong?

[Estro Felino]

No, to the extent that Satan tells you that it is bad.

how do you know that is is bad?

suppose I tell you that what god wants is evil, and that what satan wants is good, how would you defeat me?

ciao

- viole

I didn't understand anything.

Ok... God says "Love the neighbor"
Satan says "Do not love them"

So are you asking me "how do I know Satan is bad"?
Right?

 

[Rival]

We are speaking of Gentiles...who had no first Law.
Aren't we?

Er, yes. We have a law.

 

[viole]

I didn't understand anything.

Ok... God says "Love the neighbor"
Satan says "Do not love them"

So are you asking me "how do I know Satan is bad"?
Right?

Yes.

How do you know that loving your neighbor is good, and not loving her is bad?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes.

How do you know that loving your neighbor is good, and not loving her is bad?

Ciao

- viole

My heart tells me it is good.

Honestly the fact that there are people out there who think "hating others is good"...scares me.



You are going off topic, though

 

[viole]

My heart tells me it is good.

Honestly the fact that there are people out there who think "hating others is good"...scares me.



You are going off topic, though

i don’t think I am.

What scares you, and what does not scare you is irrelevant. Probably a nazi would be scared by the idea of Jews controlling the world, but that would obviously say nothing about the moral value of Jews controlling the world, or not.

ergo, being scared by X, does not entail that X is wrong.

So, what makes you believe that what God labels as wrong, is really wrong? Without begging the question, if possible.

The pumping blood organ in your chest, aka heart, is not relevant either, obviously, when it comes to rational thinking.

ciao

- viole

 

[MNoBody]

subjective moralization being apparently relativistic [the mouse views the cat as evil, wicked, but the owner of the cat thinks it a force of good and praises what the mouse curses]
makes it irrelevant.....since individuals only care at heart, when backed into a corner, lives threatened for certain, about their own subjective feelings about it. [typically, however there are anomalous exceptions, yet again]

 

[Tumah]

Seeing as I am quite late in this thread I will just add this.

There is a scripture that retorts your OP quite well...let me find it...

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.  Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will also remain in union with the Son and in union with the Father. Furthermore, this is what he himself promised us—the life everlasting.-1 John 2:22-25.

With a response like that, once you were late you should have already refrained altogether...

 

[Tumah]

We are speaking of Gentiles...who had no first Law.
Aren't we?

Ultimately, yes. But since Gentiles inherited it from the original Jewish Christians, I guess if those predecessors are in the wrong, than what they passed on will be wrong as well.

 

[Tumah]

I was reprimanded on RF for posting in the Judaism DIR because being a "Jewish person" is different than being someone who identifies with and practices Judaism.

Your "Jewish person" comment triggered this post.

In the context of my comment I meant both.

 

[Tumah]

I didn't understand anything.

Ok... God says "Love the neighbor"
Satan says "Do not love them"

So are you asking me "how do I know Satan is bad"?
Right?

I can see the question. Sometimes you need to lose a battle, in order to win the larger war.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not a quandary when we realise that head belief is not what true faith is all about and gifts from the Holy Spirit mean nothing. Having faith is shown through loving God and loving others.

I see scriptures show us that true love is accepting the risen Christ and that loving God, is found only in the heads of power.

Thus any other love of God, is only love of self, or love of idols.

Regards Tony

 

[Kenny]

Look Ken, your definitely adding your own interpretation to this passage because while the passage does differentiate between the current covenant and the new one, it doesn't anywhere state the the difference will be in the content of the covenant, but in the way the covenant is to be accessed. That's the only difference the passage here described.

So if the NT was describing how children magically know that on the 15th of Tishri it's the festival of Tabernacles without being taught by anyone, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. If adults who grew up lacking any religious education would know to attach fringes to their clothing, I'd probably be on your side. But that's not the case.

And even more than that, your NT proof texts are making claims that are verifiably not true. Non-Christian people do need someone to teach them Christian theology in order to know what it's about. Remember missionaries? That's what they do. So this passage in Jeremiah does nothing for Christianity.

Ok...we can agree to disagree since the Book of Hebrews is a compendium on the subject matter as well as the Book of Romans written by a Rabi.

For me, and again for me, these two book do teach us quite succinctly.

There isn't a single book that speaks directly to the Messiah but rather it it interspersed throughout the TaNaKh. Likewise the New Covenant.

Back to the OP.... why can't I trust them?

There aren't many groups of people that is willing to hold to their position based on a lie. It can be trusted as much as I trust the TaNaKh

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's not a great offering as it doesn't really address anything in the OP.

Men are prone to get things wrong in every age, no one is exempt. As such, we all have to look at our own position, maybe we have it wrong as well.

I do not see there is any exponent of the Jewish faith, that has yet fully embraced the One God and God's given Covenants.

Regards Tony.

 

[Tumah]

Ok...we can agree to disagree since the Book of Hebrews is a compendium on the subject matter as well as the Book of Romans written by a Rabi.

Or at least, what you believe to be a Rabbi.

For me, and again for me, these two book do teach us quite succinctly.

I'm not denying that it teaches you that. I'm saying that it does so, because you're using eisegesis, not exegesis.

There isn't a single book that speaks directly to the Messiah but rather it it interspersed throughout the TaNaKh. Likewise the New Covenant.

I'm not really sure what this means to be honest.

Back to the OP.... why can't I trust them?

There aren't many groups of people that is willing to hold to their position based on a lie.

Have you heard of Heaven's Gate?

It can be trusted as much as I trust the TaNaKh

I believe I've explained in the OP why that should not be true.

 

[Tumah]

Men are prone to get things wrong in every age, no one is exempt. As such, we all have to look at our own position, maybe we have it wrong as well.

I do not see there is any exponent of the Jewish faith, that has yet fully embraced the One God and God's given Covenants.

Regards Tony.

I have no idea what you're trying to say nor how it relates to the topic of the OP in anything but a tangential way.

 

[sun rise]

In the context of my comment I meant both.

As a "Jewish person" who does not follow Judaism I'll therefore comment:

Tumah said: ↑

There's a bit of denialism from you. Half the NT relies on the Tanach for context. The NT very clearly bases itself on the Tanach, so it's clearly not irrelevant. To put it another way - can you make the claim that Jewish people were not commanded by G-d on Mt. Sinai to not serve anyone but Him? That's relevant, because that means a Jewish person will have to have stronger evidence than the national revelation at Mt. Sinai in order to serve anyone else

I agree that the NT has a strong basis in Tanach. There are clear passages in the NT that are taken with emphasis changed as the NT does in the statement of the two "greatest commandments" which emphasized two commandments out of many.

Ignoring the literalism of My. Sinai which I don't accept, I also agree with the proposition that Judaism is based on following the Divine's call.

Most important to me is what the heart says. As the Baal Shem Tov said There are two levels in the study of Torah, Torah of the mind and Torah of the heart. The mind cogitates, comprehends and understands; the heart feels. I have come to reveal Torah as it extends to the heart as well.

From that perspective and thinking about a meaning of "Torah of the heart", whether one accepts or rejects the thesis in the OP has to be considered as a matter of the heart. Thus I'm led again to the conclusion that those who feel in their heart that Judaism is their path should practice Judaism. Those who feel that Christianity is the way should walk that path.

 

[danieldemol]

There's always going to be that guy with this type of post.

It doesn't matter whether the claim of Judaism is true or not. Christianity believes it to be true, so it needs to follow a logical progression from that.

Actually it matters just as much as whether or not the claims of Christianity are true.

What you want here is an unlevel playing field where the claims of Judaism get a pass on scrutiny whilst the claims of Christianity are scrutinised, but if scrutiny is needed to find truth about Christianity then it is needed to find truth about Judaism as well.

It is pure special pleading to call for lopsided scrutiny.

Of course I am supposing that your aim is to find truth and not merely to proselytise Christians. Maybe that's the problem

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It doesn't matter whether the claim of Judaism is true or not. Christianity believes it to be true, so it needs to follow a logical progression from that.

The logical progression is God's to give and It is man that must obtain and use logic that is in harmony with God's purpose.

Regards Tony

 

[Nakosis]

What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?

View attachment 43145

It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.

And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.

I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.

Thoughts?

If you are going to believe in God, unless you are personally in communications with God, you're going to have to rely on someone else for knowledge about God.
Not knowing any of these people, these folks claiming to speak for God, not knowing their character, their trustworthiness, whether OT or NT, except what is written in the Bible. Murders, liars, drunks, adulters, not the greatest resume for folks you ought to be listening to.
So if you have to pick one to question the reliability of any one of them over the other is like the kettle calling the pot black.
Pascal's Wager is stupid in the first place. It assumes to know that God is going to punish you or reward you for what you believe in. Maybe, just maybe the only thing God wants is for folks to act with a little decency towards each other.

Among all of these folks with questionable characters, God wants you to pick out the right one to believe in. A person has about as much chance of getting it right as winning the lottery.

 

[rational experiences]

All stories no matter who quotes the story is said by a living human.

All beliefs, all thought upon themes and the themes human written. So in fact you all argue human written information as a group against another group.

Using words, which is a human inferred applied method of a human claiming that they can describe everything, and believe self correct was termed coercion.

A cult mentality, for science invented the unnatural cult group as a separation from the natural human family.

The story is written as a thesis after all events, so it is not written at any other time or for any other reason. It is and always was just a summation.

The summary was all reasons why a natural living human.....who happens to be the theist sacrificed and attacked their own life.

And the term it was given was Satanism, to theme tan and forms of designs and also angles, why "tan" as a word also means to whip and flog.

As a human who got brain burnt irradiated and saw black wispy fast and actual black jagged lines appear, that cut at my legs "by feelings" my ankles swelled and I could only shuffle. The brain burning irradiation effect felt like intense prickling.

Being a healer researcher I never just accepted any idea or word or spirit information, I would research and study it. In my own life attack I therefore applied the same mentality. And quoted, "the situation" must be similar to what happened to my brother, Jesus, when males quote today, science was not being practiced then.

And want you all to believe that their pyramid and temple studies today are not theorising science themes. Do you think we are all that ignorant?

A lot of described thesis about the bible and the past pyramid ownership have been inferred to be scientific owned...and as the Egyptians were the High Priest science self, what did it matter if you quote other brothers in other countries were not technically inclined. The Egyptians prove that they were.

And it is actual coercive preaching that tries to take the reader away from understanding that human scientists are our life Destroyer. For it is what they try to achieve. What Satanism was preached as, owning the human mind use to think for scientific symbolism.....in a conscious high aware wisdom and knowledge of their own consciousness, that then in fact attacked and whipped and struck the body with radiation.

Which proves that they always knew before they did, what the symbolic meanings would cause to self in return.

Why today any of us who want to survive evil theists, should in fact study ancient scientific symbolism to realise that spiritual conscious human minds, knew in their symbols what effects life would gain when they used it in machines controlled only by humans.

Whilst falsely quoting that some form of higher entity consciousness before them told them, when the scientist lived in the past before and did it before...and that reference to self deisms is the male human his own self. Always was.