Agreed on both points. There is no doubt among credible theologians that Jesus was Jewish as Christianity did not exist at that time. So either he was Jewish or Pagan, or perhaps Zoroastrian. No one truly believes he was Hindu, so that leaves very little other options. And there is also no doubt that poster is taking that verse out of context, which is often the case with people who tend to choose one or another verse to question the veracity of the Bible. I am sure you, too, have noted this tendency in some of the posters here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The contrast between Old and New Testaments
- Thread starter pozitÍv visszacsatolás
- Start date
Have you never considered that some verses which people take out of context, when viewed in the whole, are either allegorical or metaphoric and often, both. Isn't it possible that by using the word 'killing' they might have been speaking of killing their pagan beliefs or some other meaning?
First of all, most posters here would capitalize the word Jew or Jewish out of respect to our Jewish members. And second, what behavior are you speaking of here, with regard to how Jews behaviors supported him? For most Jews, Jesus was seen as apostate, at best. He allegedly did not marry, which was a law for the Jewish community at that time. So again, what behaviors are you referring to? Please be specific.
What verse in the Bible states that Jesus called Jews the 'children of satan"? And how do you come to the conclusion that he never agreed with them? Where is that written as well?
Last question: Yes, Jesus was Jewish.
I see no contrast. The Scripture you cited was the Jews plea for Jehovah to take vengeance on Babylon. Babylon destroyed the temple, and cruelly treated God's people. The children of Babylon meant the inhabitants of that city, and they deserved destruction for their arrogance against God. Jesus likewise will take action against the wicked, as described in the " New Testament" or more accurately, the Christian Scriptures. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 foretells regarding Jesus: "But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength,"
Jehovah made no alliance with Satan, but simply allowed Satan to try to prove his scurrilous slander against Job. I believe Jehovah has temporarily permitted the innocent to suffer to answer once and forever the moral issues Satan raised concerning God's right to rule and man's integrity to God. God certainly has the ability to undo all the harm Satan and those who follow Satan have caused.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's the "Tanakh", not the "O.T." to us.
I don't know what kind of examples you are looking for? The vast majority of narratives in the Tanakh have nothing to do with killing or war.
pozitÍv visszacsatolás
New Member
The vers is John, 8,44 : Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
And how to conclude, that they never agreed ? The Jews got him crucufied... I think, it is a fair sign of disagreement.
The New Testament is full of arguments about the interpretation of the religion...
For example one did not needed to be "choosen" by god.... Then... A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have.
Then the question of the holy Spirit, the circumscison, the Sabbath, the role of the Messiash.
His teachings had connections with Zoroastrism, or Mazdaizm, the religions of "light" : Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.
When Nicodemus visiting him at night he told him : And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.
There is plenty reference to the light in the New Testament... And signs of similarities with the eastern religions...
outhouse
Atheistically
NO they did not. The unknown Hellenistic gospel authors who never witnessed anything who were divorcing Judaism after hundreds of years of perverting Judaism made that claim.
Jesus got himself killed by starting trouble in the temple during Passover.
There is so much misinformation and errors here, its hard to know where to begin. As for John, where in those passages does it say he was speaking to Jews?? It states 'Them". How do you conclude he is speaking to Jewish people here? And the Jews did not get Jesus crucified. That was the Romans. Your remarks are veiled anti-Semitism. And just as disgusting for all that. Your views of the NT revealing connections to eastern religions is pure speculation on your part. No credible theologian would state this. They would, OTOH, agree that there are clear influences from other faiths, lots of them.
It is Satan, the great deceiver. It made people believe that God has a son who is meek and would never dash children against a rock, probably.
Well, if I were Satan, that is exactly what I would have done.
Ciao
- viole
God forewarned, and people could repent.
You probably recall about the Canaanite prostitute Rahab not only saving herself but also her family.
Also, there were the Gibeonites who were spared. 2nd Samuel chapter 21
God's own people corrupted themselves - Deuteronomy 32:5; Deuteronomy 32:16-17; Exodus 32:7 - making themselves an enemy of God.
Being meek does Not mean being a Casper Milquetoast, but also does Not mean meek Moses, or meek Jesus, would dash children against rocks.
If you have Psalms 137:7-9 in mind it is Not talking about a literal dashing, but in ' Bible speak ' showing the end of the family line. The family line or name being wiped out.
So, saying ' dashing against the stones ' expression figuratively shows the final result for those being literally corrupted as found at Isaiah 13:14-16
Not all expressions in Scripture are literal. Just as the smoke going up forever - Isaiah 34:10 - for Edom ( Idumea ) meaning destroyed forever and Not burning forever.
Well my opinion is to see both the new and old testaments as products of their time written by perhaps well-meaning but imperfect human beings influenced by the thoughts of their time. If we let modern sense and reason rule here, we can still find the good heart of Christianity.
MountainPine
Deuteronomy 30:16
There are many accounts of violence in the Old Testament that would seemingly contradict the New Testament. One of the major issues that catches many off guard is the Israelite conquest of the Levant during the time of Joshua. It needs to be understood that the Philistines, Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites were evil in their ways. They worshiped the goddess Asherah (Cybele/Ishtar) by sex rites, then sacrificed their babies and ate them before their god Molech (Baal/Marduk/Dagon) (Leviticus 18:21). (The fertility goddess and the chief god were known by different names by the individual nations that lived in the Levant, but were the same in nature by the way they were worshiped.) The people whom lived there at that time were bloodthirsty in their ways whom had their destruction coming to them. This is why the Israelites were commanded to wipe them out, including children. If any Philistine, Canaanite, Hittite, Amorite, Perizzite, Hivite and Jebusite children were spared then they would have grown up to reestablish their disgusting way of life, which had to be prevented. Unfortunately, it wasn't, because the Israelites disobeyed and married women of these nations and learned their ways. This is why Israel was never set-apart like God intended them to be (Exodus 19:5-6), and was even sent into exile after so many generations had proven themselves to be perverse, disloyal, and unrepentant.
What epistemology do you use to decide what is literal and what is not?
Ciao
- viole
ThirtyThree
Well-Known Member
This is precisely who I am reading the Old Testament, pausing for a while and then, once clearing my head, reading the New Testament as an entirely separate entity.
thevoiceofgod
Active Member
The problem is that no man knows that the Bible contains information from the Beast and from Christ. It's the Beast that has confused all God's people from knowing the Truth.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Psalms aren't prophecy. Don't treat them as such.
In his day ( Jesus' 1,000-year day of governing over earth ) there will be Peace on Earth - Psalms 72:7-8; Psalms 72:12-13 - the wicked will be gone forever - Psalms 92:7
At Matthew 5:5 Jesus made reference to Psalms 37:11; Psalms 37:29
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Matthew isn't prophecy, either. The Psalms are ancient hymns. Matthew is a narrative about Jesus.