Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[1robin]

I suggest you look into the American Holocaust. Millions of indigenous people forced to convert over a period of several hundred years, with the alternative very often being death.

I assume you are reffering to Cortez and Pizzaro. They are the worst and most logical ones to focus on. As it happens to be I am very familiar with Cortez and somewhat with Pizzaro. I will address Cortez because his story is the same as all the others as it concerns this issue. Cortez was a very devout and sincere Catholic. It seemed to come 50% from convenience and 50% from legitamate faith. However this was not the driving force behind his raid into Aztec terrotory. It was approx 90% about Gold and land. The 10% that concerned faith was the one appealed to because it had a more noble sound than the theft of land and Gold. His entire mission which is the most extraordinary military account in history was centered and devoted to Gold. It was necessary for him to have Gold to redeem his name back home and buy credit with the monarchy. He did I admit tear down the alters on which the aztecs cut the hearts out of tens of thousands of their neibors every year. That is hardly an indictment. His victories were so improbable and complete I have considered the possability that maybe God was on his side even though he was not a model Christian and did many bad things, that is merely my opinion though. He then pillaged his way across mexico killing thousands on his way to Mexico city. It is actually recorded by his personal thealogian John Stevens Cabbot specifically that he told Cortez that conversion by force was useless and non biblical and Cortez agreed however I am sure some of it went on. This Abbot wrote a history of the events and is regarded as highly accurate, frank, and not flattering of Cortez.
History of Hernando Cortez - John Stevens Cabot Abbott - Google Books
Most of the tribes on the way surrendered cheerfully because they had been enslaved by the aztecs the spanish were heading to destroy. Most adopted Christianity willingly, Cortez did not have the time to spend coercing them. To shorten this story somewhat they were there for the Gold (no gold no invasion). They also promoted their religion generally not by force but I am sure it did happen to some extent. What actually won the day for them was small pox that the aztecs had no natural defence against and a legend of a white skinned God neither of which was a result of Christian zeal. There was very little violence for the purpose of conversion. Even when used as a pretext by Cortez or Pizzaro it was just to put a white mask on a potentially black deed actually done for greed. Regardless even if they had forced conversion or death on everyone then since this is forbidden by the bible then what does it have to do with the religion? Like I said, judge a belief by it's adherents not it's rebels. Also even if they had forced it and even if it was false the aztecs or at least their millions of neibors were better off after than before by a long shot. I have even visited Pizzaro's area of operation in Peru. The people there when I went were glad he did what he did although the people there at the time when he came would probably dissagree. I went to where he landed and the guide said the first thing he did was rob gold off of the buried nobles not set up a church and start preaching. His motivation was the stories about the Gold Cortez had found not the conversion of the inhabitants.

As you can see this isn't a clear cut case by any stretch of the imagination that proves your claim in any way whatsoever.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Regardless of the ulterior motive, christianity was forced on all the peoples of the Americas in an attempt to make them more easily controlled as they were sold into slavery, run off of their ancestral lands, or outright tortured and killed. This systematic extermination of a myriad of indigenous cultures throughout the American continents is a direct result of european christian greed, arrogance, and intolerance.

This site has a lot of good info on the subject:
Genocide and Christianization of Native Americans Still Haunts United States - Christian Aggression

 

[waitasec]

Regardless of the ulterior motive, christianity was forced on all the peoples of the Americas in an attempt to make them more easily controlled as they were sold into slavery, run off of their ancestral lands, or outright tortured and killed. This systematic extermination of a myriad of indigenous cultures throughout the American continents is a direct result of european christian greed, arrogance, and intolerance.

This site has a lot of good info on the subject:
Genocide and Christianization of Native Americans Still Haunts United States - Christian Aggression

a little tid bit i recently got wind of....FWIW.
i was in yosemite the last few days and learned that the actual name of the valley was called ahwahnee which means "mouth". yosemite means "those that kill"

 

[1robin]

Regardless of the ulterior motive, christianity was forced on all the peoples of the Americas in an attempt to make them more easily controlled as they were sold into slavery, run off of their ancestral lands, or outright tortured and killed. This systematic extermination of a myriad of indigenous cultures throughout the American continents is a direct result of european christian greed, arrogance, and intolerance.

This site has a lot of good info on the subject:
Genocide and Christianization of Native Americans Still Haunts United States - Christian Aggression

Keep this in mind. I am an indian. I am a member of the blackfoot tribe of Cherokee. In my educated opinion there was plenty of injustice on both sides but very little directly related to religion. I am probably more familiar with what the Conquistadors did than most amateur historians includeing this what looks like a high school reporters article taken from a paper written by a college student. I won't make a baseless claim though. Here is an example: "By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand.
Genocide and Christianization of Native Americans Still Haunts United States - Christian Aggression
95% of these deaths were the result of disease and had no connection to religion at all. The natives had no resitance to these european diseases and died in mass. The ones who were left many times could not support themselves and died from malnutritian. The results from murder including wars was a very small percentage and only a small percentage of those were reliously motivated. In fact in those times even in war more people died of malnutritian and disease than bullets by many times over.
Heres another: Mass killing did not cease, however, after Columbus departed. Expansion of the European colonies led to similar genocides. "Indian Removal" policy was put into action to clear the land for white settlers. Methods for the removal included slaughter of villages by the military and also biological warfare. High death rates resulted from forced marches to relocate the Indians.
These relocations were virtually always over land and cultural misstrust. This has no place in that article.
Want another:
Probably one of the most ruinous acts to the Indians was the disappearance of the buffalo. For the Indians who lived on the Plains, life depended on the buffalo.
This was purely economic and had no religous connection.
Genocide and Christianization of Native Americans Still Haunts United States - Christian Aggression Bolded words are mine of course.

There is no point in going on. I do not claim that Christians never forced their faith on anyone. I claim it is unimagineably blown out of proportion by God's critics and have no basis in reality. Even the occasions where this happened have no reflection on the religion as they are contradictory to it's teachings. I have pointed out the largest genocides in history have been commited by people who said that atheistic and evolutionary principles were the justification for over 65 million deaths and no atheist or evolutionist would accept this even though their actions were consistent with the theories.

This systematic extermination of a myriad of indigenous cultures throughout the American continents is a direct result of european christian greed, arrogance, and intolerance.

This statement would be more accurate if said this way.
"This systematic extermination of a myriad of indigenous cultures throughout the American continents is a direct result of human ignorance, greed, arrogance, and intolerance that every race and group on earth exhibits."
Since the indians that were wiped out for the greatest part were there because they wiped out their fellow indians in the past. For example not one of the larger plains horse cultures had been on the land they were kicked off of for more than two hundred years since they had wiped out the previous indians. The political correct view of history is false.

 

[waitasec]

You never did say whether the administrators satasfied you quandry about my picture?

you know, i was out of town over the last few days and was restricted to boot...
i never got a reply...go figure.


but as i said earlier i think i believe you being that there was no link to the picture in the article.

so i do apologize for insinuating you lied.
:flower:

 

[1robin]

a little tid bit i recently got wind of....FWIW.
i was in yosemite the last few days and learned that the actual name of the valley was called ahwahnee which means "mouth". yosemite means "those that kill"

If I remember correctly, soldiers did chase a band of Indians through there and those indians swept up the ones who lived in the valley and they both ran out the other end and were later seperated and the ones from the valley were free to go back. As far as I know the whites didn't kill any indians that lived there and there was not a battle worthy of the name there. There is something I keep forgetting to say. I am an indian. I am a member of the blackfoot tribe of Cherokee. In my educated opinion there was plenty of injustice on both sides but very little directly related to religion.

 

[waitasec]

If I remember correctly, soldiers did chase a band of Indians through there and those indians swept up the ones who lived in the valley and they both ran out the other end and were later seperated and the ones from the valley were free to go back. As far as I know the whites didn't kill any indians that lived there and there was not a battle worthy of the name there. There is something I keep forgetting to say. I am an indian. I am a member of the blackfoot tribe of Cherokee. In my educated opinion there was plenty of injustice on both sides but very little directly related to religion.

so the white men didn't kill the native americans?
is that what you are saying?

 

[1robin]

so the white men didn't kill the native americans?
is that what you are saying?

Of course, everyone knows that no white man ever killed an indian, that's why I didn't actually say or suggest anything like that. Good Lord. I said that to the best of my memory (not a proven fact) there was no major killing in Yosemite valley its self. It won't suprise me if I am wrong I saw it on a show about state parks. That is quite different from what you said I said.

 

[waitasec]

Of course, everyone knows that no white man ever killed an indian, that's why I didn't actually say or suggest anything like that. Good Lord. I said that to the best of my memory (not a proven fact) there was no major killing in Yosemite valley its self. It won't suprise me if I am wrong I saw it on a show about state parks. That is quite different from what you said I said.

well maybe the white mans reputation preceded them...
which is why they were referred as "those that kill"

http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/origin_of_word_yosemite.html

 

[1robin]

well maybe the white mans reputation preceded them...
which is why they were referred as "those that kill"

Origin of the Word Yosemite — What does Yosemite mean? Naming Yosemite Etymology: where did the place name Yosemite come from?

I could accept that or maybe I am just flat wrong about this specific issue in Yosemite. What is the thread about. I am running short on time.

 

[waitasec]

I could accept that or maybe I am just flat wrong about this specific issue in Yosemite. What is the thread about. I am running short on time.

i forgot...

 

[F0uad]

Without knowing what I consider a great portion your disagreement is meaningless. And you proved your claims by not giving a single example even when I asked for them. I claim that whatever time they spent forceing others to accept their religion in a general way is not all that long even combined.

Muslims and Jews in Spain:

After the end of the Islamic control of Spain, Muslims and Jews were murdered and expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497.[4] After the Reconquista, so called "New Christians" were those inhabitants (Sephardic Jews or Mudéjar Muslims) during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era who were baptized under coercion and in the face of murder, becoming forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and forced converts from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos). Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. Jewish conversos still resided in Spain and often hiddenly (cryptically) practized Judaism and were suspected by the "Old Christians" of being Crypto-Jews. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by conficating the property of the persecutees or selling them of to slavery. The end of the Al-Andalus and the expulsion of the sefardic jewry from the Iberian Peninsula goes hand in hand with the increase of Spanish-Portugal influence in the world, as exemplified in the Christian conquest of the Americas and their autochtone Indian population. The Ottoman empire and the Netherlands both absorbed much of the Jewish refugees.

The Pope:

Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:
...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined

The Dark Ages:

Forced conversion was the major means in the Christianization of the European continent. During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly Christianized the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare and law upon conquest. Examples include the Massacre of Verden in 782, during which Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred upon rebelling against conversion, and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785 which prescribes death to those that refuse to convert to Christianity.

The Romans:

Forced conversion was a major means in the Christianization of the Roman Empire. In 392 A.D. the emperor Theodosius I instituted a law making Christianity the only legal religion of the empire, and forbidding Pagan practices by law as a means to stabilize the declining empire:

It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans....The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative" (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.).[1]
​

This law led to the destruction of most pagan temples in the empire.


Goa:


Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism.[5][6][7][8][9][10]




And there are many more such as,

Muslims in Turkey by the Byzantine and the British empire,
Muslims in the time of all the 9/11 Crusades,
Muslims in Bosnia,
Big Natives groups by so called Europeans,
Muslims in Indonesia and India by British and Dutch,
Hindus in India by the British Empire,
Tribal religions in Africa in the time of slavery by France, Portugal, Spain, England and the Netherlands,
Jews in Germany,

And the list continues..

 

[sojourner]

Muslims and Jews in Spain:

After the end of the Islamic control of Spain, Muslims and Jews were murdered and expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497.[4] After the Reconquista, so called "New Christians" were those inhabitants (Sephardic Jews or Mudéjar Muslims) during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era who were baptized under coercion and in the face of murder, becoming forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and forced converts from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos). Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. Jewish conversos still resided in Spain and often hiddenly (cryptically) practized Judaism and were suspected by the "Old Christians" of being Crypto-Jews. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by conficating the property of the persecutees or selling them of to slavery. The end of the Al-Andalus and the expulsion of the sefardic jewry from the Iberian Peninsula goes hand in hand with the increase of Spanish-Portugal influence in the world, as exemplified in the Christian conquest of the Americas and their autochtone Indian population. The Ottoman empire and the Netherlands both absorbed much of the Jewish refugees.

The Pope:

Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:
...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined

The Dark Ages:

Forced conversion was the major means in the Christianization of the European continent. During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly Christianized the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare and law upon conquest. Examples include the Massacre of Verden in 782, during which Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred upon rebelling against conversion, and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785 which prescribes death to those that refuse to convert to Christianity.

The Romans:

Forced conversion was a major means in the Christianization of the Roman Empire. In 392 A.D. the emperor Theodosius I instituted a law making Christianity the only legal religion of the empire, and forbidding Pagan practices by law as a means to stabilize the declining empire:

It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans....The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative" (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.).[1]
​

This law led to the destruction of most pagan temples in the empire.


Goa:


Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism.[5][6][7][8][9][10]




And there are many more such as,

Muslims in Turkey by the Byzantine and the British empire,
Muslims in the time of all the 9/11 Crusades,
Muslims in Bosnia,
Big Natives groups by so called Europeans,
Muslims in Indonesia and India by British and Dutch,
Hindus in India by the British Empire,
Tribal religions in Africa in the time of slavery by France, Portugal, Spain, England and the Netherlands,
Jews in Germany,

And the list continues..

So...
are you saying with this argument that Jesus did, or did not, have to die for our sins?

Or are you merely pointing out that, historically, Christians are human, just like everyone else?

 

[waitasec]

So...
are you saying with this argument that Jesus did, or did not, have to die for our sins?

Or are you merely pointing out that, historically, Christians are human, just like everyone else?

you mean christ was human, like everyone else....

 

[sojourner]

you mean christ was human, like everyone else....

Christians aren't human?:sarcastic

 

[1robin]

Muslims and Jews in Spain:

After the end of the Islamic control of Spain, Muslims and Jews were murdered and expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497.[4] After the Reconquista, so called "New Christians" were those inhabitants (Sephardic Jews or Mudéjar Muslims) during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era who were baptized under coercion and in the face of murder, becoming forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and forced converts from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos). Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. Jewish conversos still resided in Spain and often hiddenly (cryptically) practized Judaism and were suspected by the "Old Christians" of being Crypto-Jews. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by conficating the property of the persecutees or selling them of to slavery. The end of the Al-Andalus and the expulsion of the sefardic jewry from the Iberian Peninsula goes hand in hand with the increase of Spanish-Portugal influence in the world, as exemplified in the Christian conquest of the Americas and their autochtone Indian population. The Ottoman empire and the Netherlands both absorbed much of the Jewish refugees.

The Pope:

Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:
...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined

The Dark Ages:

Forced conversion was the major means in the Christianization of the European continent. During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly Christianized the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare and law upon conquest. Examples include the Massacre of Verden in 782, during which Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred upon rebelling against conversion, and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785 which prescribes death to those that refuse to convert to Christianity.

The Romans:

Forced conversion was a major means in the Christianization of the Roman Empire. In 392 A.D. the emperor Theodosius I instituted a law making Christianity the only legal religion of the empire, and forbidding Pagan practices by law as a means to stabilize the declining empire:

It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans....The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative" (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.).[1]

​

This law led to the destruction of most pagan temples in the empire.


Goa:


Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism.[5][6][7][8][9][10]




And there are many more such as,

Muslims in Turkey by the Byzantine and the British empire,
Muslims in the time of all the 9/11 Crusades,
Muslims in Bosnia,
Big Natives groups by so called Europeans,
Muslims in Indonesia and India by British and Dutch,
Hindus in India by the British Empire,
Tribal religions in Africa in the time of slavery by France, Portugal, Spain, England and the Netherlands,
Jews in Germany,

And the list continues..

F0uad you have been busy haven't you? I am short on time so I will just blow all this away the easy way. Since Christianity strictly forbids all these activities even if true then their commission has no bearing on the religion. If I find time I will check into these things. If you want to evaluate a faith then look at it's adherents not it's defiers. How can someone who murders in spite of God telling them not to reflect on God in anyway.

 

[CMike]

Sorry Cmike let me get caught up a bit. You write long posts so I have to put them off until I have a significan time to address them. The blood of the animals sacrificed to offer for sin plus the bllod on the doorposts were all according to the new testament types and shadows of the actuall thing to come. That is why they couldn't remove sin only push it forward. Forward to the real thing Christ's blood which could remove them. There are dozens and dozens of symbolic practices and objects that pointed perfectly to Christ.

No there is nothing in judaism or jewish scritpure that has anything to do with your god.

Blood was put on the door so the angels of death doesn't killed the jewish first born.

Just because blood is mentioned in jewish text doesn't mean it has anything to do with jesus

Isaiah 53. I was looking for a bit more than "no it isn't". That hardly substitutes for a reason or proof.

And I said more. It's referring to Israel. It's part of the prophesy in the chapter before and chapter after. It's one long prophesy.

I agree that some parts of Isaiah are referring to Israel and sometimes it even uses symbolic language to do so.

That's nice.

I couldn't possibly dissagree more. Here is a list of 351 that he fulfilled.
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html
You can find hundreds of prophetic lists that Christ fulfilled to the letter all over the place. Either they are all lies or he is the messiah. I do not think any other option makes any sence. The fact that there are 351 prophecies so close enough in detail to be regarded as fulfilled by one man (by countless scholars) makes the claim that Christ wasn't the messiah seem desperate and intentional.

Here are a few of the more well known:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 700 B.C

Bad translation again. It actually says that the "young maiden" will be with child.

Virgins don't give birth yanno?

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

700 B.C

Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." 625 B.C. (reference to Herod's slaughter)

Yeah, and none of these have anything to do with jesus.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

725 B.C.

Yup, Israel. You are very confused.

Matthew 2:14-15 [14] So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, [15] where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (These two are a good illustration of something. If you choose to believe that this is about the "nation" Israel how do you explain Mathew 2:14. The chances that would happen to Jesus if he was not the messaiah is astronimical)

I don't care what Matt said. I don't believe in the NT.

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

700 B.C (Again if you wish to force this into a prophecy concerning Israel how do you explain that this event in Jesus' life is recorded by four Gospels) The odds are unimagineable.

I am not forcing anything. It is a prophesy regarding Israel. Israel as a suffering servant is mentioned several times. It's part of one long prophesy were Israel is clearly mentioned as the subject.

Psalm 69:21 They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. 1000 B.C.

(How in the world can you suggest this metaphorically happened to Israel when it literally happened to Jesus. The claim that they were purposely fulfilled isn't an option because he couldn't control many of them.)

What literally happened? Jesus suffered. So did Israel.

The difference is that no prophesy ever involved jesus in jewish scripture.

G-D made it clear in numerous passages that only he is the saviour. That only he is t be trusted. That only he is to be treated as a G-D.

The messiah will be a mortal man. And never would he challenge G-D.

That you somehow think that your god jesus has anything to do with judaism or the real G-D is great affront to G-D, who has said so in numerous texts

More Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ
I am not going to post all three hundred plus, I think you can see my point above. It is easier to believe they are describing literal events recorded in the life of Christ than allegorical, flowery, vague references to Israel that also happened in detail to a literal man.



There were prophecies given that concern Christs ministry in his first appearance and there are some that concern his second coming and even his final reign. So I do not see a conflict with the ones above. Also how do you explain Paul's belief considering his superb education and devotion to Jewish law. If there is one person who would have rejected Christ for Judaism it would have been him. What is the orthedox Jewish position on Christ. Do you believe it's all lies or he accidentally met all these conditions?

Obviously Paul was a blashphemer and affront to G-D. That he would worship anyone else other than the one G-d is appalling from a jewish point of view.

There is no difference between worshipping jesus and and a gold calf from a jewish point of view. In both cases you are putting your trust in someone other than G-D. G-D said not to do this.

And strangely enough this "second coming" is a christian invention. There is nothing about it in jewish scripture.

Also just because a jewish text may mention blood, a lamb, sin, suffereing, pain, a baby, a child, a virgin, a rock, a tree, etc. doesn't mean it has anything remotely to do with jesus.

 

[1robin]

No there is nothing in judaism or jewish scritpure that has anything to do with your god.

Just asserting this doesn't make it true. Why should I believe this? And why in the world do two billion people and countless scholars find no ambiguity between the old a new testament? Instead there is a seemless transition.

Blood was put on the door so the angels of death doesn't killed the jewish first born.

Then I assume you are saying that the blood of the Lamb (Christ) saving us is an extremely improbable coincidence.

Just because blood is mentioned in jewish text doesn't mean it has anything to do with jesus

Is is not hard at all to see the link unless you are trying not to.

And I said more. It's referring to Israel. It's part of the prophesy in the chapter before and chapter after. It's one long prophesy.

I wil investigate that issue further. However many of the claims even considering symbolism seem a stretch.

Bad translation again. It actually says that the "young maiden" will be with child.

I was aware of that. I have had a Jewish person tell me that maiden infers virginity in Hebrew culture. Here is some info I found. You are encouraged to respond with a justification for any counter claim.
As I see it, the problem with the wording of Isaiah was not a controversy, until sometime after Jesus was crucified, and when the Gospel was being preached. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), compiled by Hebrew scholars long before the birth of Jesus, translates Isaiah 7:14 to indicate virgin in the Greek. They used the word parthenos (G3933), the same word used by Matthew. The fact is that almah, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, is used seven times in the Old Testament: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 & 6:8 and Isaiah 7:14. Of these Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 are definitely virgins; while the others imply the young women are virgins, and Isaiah 7:14 seems to say a virgin shall not only conceive, but a virgin shall also bear or give birth to the babe as well. There simply doesn’t seem to be a problem with “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 until after Jesus’ time.
Jesus ~ Born of a Virgin or a Young Girl? « Coffee House Apologetics

Virgins don't give birth yanno?

What does that mean? I speak english obviously.

Yeah, and none of these have anything to do with jesus.

Thats not what the majority of new testament scholars say. They are just as sincere and competent as any Rabbi.

Yup, Israel. You are very confused.

That remains to be seen.

I don't care what Matt said. I don't believe in the NT.

I am not saying you have to believe it's implication just that it was written and so what then does it mean.

I am not forcing anything. It is a prophesy regarding Israel. Israel as a suffering servant is mentioned several times. It's part of one long prophesy were Israel is clearly mentioned as the subject.

See above.

What literally happened? Jesus suffered. So did Israel.

Many of the details concerning the suffering are literally applicable to Jesus but only vaguely symbolic concerning Israel.

The difference is that no prophesy ever involved jesus in jewish scripture.

Once again why should I believe this, bcause you said so?

G-D made it clear in numerous passages that only he is the saviour. That only he is t be trusted. That only he is to be treated as a G-D.

I find no conflict with this statement and my faith.

The messiah will be a mortal man. And never would he challenge G-D.

Once again why should I believe this, bcause you said so?

That you somehow think that your god jesus has anything to do with judaism or the real G-D is great affront to G-D, who has said so in numerous texts

I disagree emphatically.

Obviously Paul was a blashphemer and affront to G-D. That he would worship anyone else other than the one G-d is appalling from a jewish point of view.

This conjecture is incorrect in it's premise.

There is no difference between worshipping jesus and and a gold calf from a jewish point of view. In both cases you are putting your trust in someone other than G-D. G-D said not to do this.

You must know that Christians consider Jesus God. You do not have to agree. I do not care. However feigning ignorance in order to make a point is dissingenuine.

And strangely enough this "second coming" is a christian invention. There is nothing about it in jewish scripture.

It is a Jesus invention and that fact in no way makes it incorrect.

Also just because a jewish text may mention blood, a lamb, sin, suffereing, pain, a baby, a child, a virgin, a rock, a tree, etc. doesn't mean it has anything remotely to do with jesus.

You appear to be possibly a little hostile and too quick to make unjustified assertions to have a meaningful discussion with. I wanted some explanations not unjustified claims. I often look for a respectful and informed person from a different faith to gain a better understanding of what they think. The jury is still out. I will reserve judgement until you respond.

 

[javajo]

I believe that as the OT & NT both say, all of us have sinned. The reason God wants to save us is that he loves us. He loves us so much that even though we are undeserving sinners who cannot be in Heaven with God as we must be as perfectly holy as God and we are not, he sent his Son to pay the penalty we deserved. The penalty for sin is death. So he died. For this payment to be credited to us, we simply, by faith, trust him for that. When we do, our sins our all paid for AND he gives us God's righteousness in place of our own 'filthy rags' righteousness, and we are able to be with him in Heaven. Its so simple, most people miss it.

 

[CMike]

Just asserting this doesn't make it true. Why should I believe this? And why in the world do two billion people and countless scholars find no ambiguity between the old a new testament? Instead there is a seemless transition.

Then I assume you are saying that the blood of the Lamb (Christ) saving us is an extremely improbable coincidence.

Is is not hard at all to see the link unless you are trying not to.

It's not even a coincidence. Jesus, your god, was killed nailed on a cross. Perhaps blood came out of the holes, but blood isn't that big part of it.

There are literally thousands of pages in the Torah. Just becauses there are passages that mention blood doesn't mean it has anything to do with your god. :sorry1:

Also just because a sheep and a goat are mentioned isn't related to jesus either.

Additionally if a rock or a tree is mentioned doesn't mean it has anything to do with jesus.

Incredible creativity though.

I was aware of that. I have had a Jewish person tell me that maiden infers virginity in Hebrew culture.

A maiden is a maiden. It means a young woman. A batulah is the hebrew word for virgin.

Here is some info I found. You are encouraged to respond with a justification for any counter claim.
As I see it, the problem with the wording of Isaiah was not a controversy, until sometime after Jesus was crucified, and when the Gospel was being preached. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), compiled by Hebrew scholars long before the birth of Jesus, translates Isaiah 7:14 to indicate virgin in the Greek. They used the word parthenos (G3933), the same word used by Matthew. The fact is that almah, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, is used seven times in the Old Testament: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 & 6:8 and Isaiah 7:14. Of these Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 are definitely virgins; while the others imply the young women are virgins, and Isaiah 7:14 seems to say a virgin shall not only conceive, but a virgin shall also bear or give birth to the babe as well. There simply doesn’t seem to be a problem with “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 until after Jesus’ time.
Jesus ~ Born of a Virgin or a Young Girl? « Coffee House Apologetics

I really don't care how it's translated into the greek. I am translating it from the hebrew.

Also some young women are virgins. Therefore, just because it mentions young maidin doesn't necessarily imply if the person was or wasn't a virgin.

Thats not what the majority of new testament scholars say.

They are just as sincere and competent as any Rabbi.

No they are not.

The Torah was written by jews, for jews, to be interpreted by jews.

Frankly, I find it irksome that these people go into someone else's religion's text and perverted in order to make it seem like it supports their beliefs.

It's similar to muslims going into the NT and saying that mohammed was the second coming of jesus and utterly perverting your scripture to prove it. It's rather offensive.

Many of the details concerning the suffering are literally applicable to Jesus but only vaguely symbolic concerning Israel.

Just the opposite. Jesus was arrested and executed on a cross. Where exactly in the jewish text does it say the messiah will be arrested and executed on a cross?

You must know that Christians consider Jesus God. You do not have to agree. I do not care. However feigning ignorance in order to make a point is dissingenuine.

Well your god jesus said he prayed to god. He said that you have to go through him to get to god Apparently he considered himself a separate entity.

That completely contradicts what the real G-D has said.


Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-D, the L-ord is ONE (Deut)

I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from Me there is no God. ...so that from the rising of the Sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:5-6)

...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah, 46:9)

... so that all the peoples of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other. (1 Kings, 8:60)

Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the Earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:22)

Also he couldn't be the messiah because he didn't complete the messianic propesies as listed in Ezekiel 37 and Michah 4:3 which I quoted.

It is a Jesus invention and that fact in no way makes it incorrect.

It makes it very incorrect. Jesus is nobody to change what G-D said. The reason G-D made the prophesies is so jews would know who the messiah is.

That he would even try and change what G-D said is repulsive.

Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 13



Chapter 13

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it

You appear to be possibly a little hostile and too quick to make unjustified assertions to have a meaningful discussion with. I wanted some explanations not unjustified claims. I often look for a respectful and informed person from a different faith to gain a better understanding of what they think. The jury is still out. I will reserve judgement until you respond.

Jesus falls under the following passages in Deuteronomy 13.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 (Parshah Re'eh) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,ב. כִּי יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת:3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"ג. וּבָא הָאוֹת וְהַמּוֹפֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדַעְתָּם וְנָעָבְדֵם:4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.ד. לֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ אֶל חוֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא כִּי מְנַסֶּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לָדַעַת הֲיִשְׁכֶם אֹהֲבִים אֶת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁכֶם:5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.ה. אַחֲרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֹתוֹ תִירָאוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּבְקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹדוּ וּבוֹ תִדְבָּקוּן:6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.ו. וְהַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ חֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא יוּמָת כִּי דִבֶּר סָרָה עַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְהַפֹּדְךָ מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known."ז

:8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth;

:9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him.ט. לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו:10. But you shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people:11. And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.