NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a question I hear a lot from Christians - "Why don't you believe in Jesus, he fulfilled all of the prophecies for the Messiah?" I think someone asked something similiar on the Judaism thread, and I thought it was a topic worthy of its own. So, I'll tell you why those of us as Jews (and others) don't believe in Jesus as a result of fulfilled prophecy.

For one, Jesus didn't fulfill any messianic prophecies. In my experience, about 80% of the proof-texts that Christians use were never prophecy to begin with. Rather, they were scriptures about something else. If it isn't a messianic prophecy to begin with, then it can't be fulfilled as one. This is called reading out of context.

Secondly, Christians tend to avoid the intended messianic prophecies in the Tanach. Such as the ones that state when the messiah comes there will be world peace. When Christians are presented with these, they usually say "Oh, he'll do that when he comes back a second time." Which leads us into the fact that a second coming is never once mentioned.

Those two points are the main reasons why Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah - he didn't fulfill all of the messianic prophecy, and Christians invent non-prophetic proof-texts to support their claims of fulfilled prophecy.

Anyone who would like to discuss messianic prophecy or proof-texts, this is the place. Its a topic I'm rather familiar with, as I hold a degree in religious studies and run a counter-missionary website. As for further resources on why we don't believe in Jesus, or that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, some starting points would be here:

Messiah Truth (http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html#false) - This is a good website with articles and resources regarding most of the common Christian beliefs and proof-texts, and why they are unacceptable to Jews. Its run by a good team of Rabbis and students. Site navigation is along the toolbar at the top of the screen.

Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/) - A similar site, set up to counter Jews for Jesus, which is in fact a largely Protestant group that attempts to target Jews for conversion.

Outreach Judaism (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/) - Rabbi Tovia Singer's website. Good articles, most of the basics. He also has a radio show in Israel on politics and Jewish issues.

People who don't believe in Jesus generally don't care why other people do.

And people who do believe in Jesus generally don't care why others don't.

People who don't believe in Jesus generally don't care why other people do.

And people who do believe in Jesus generally don't care why others don't.

Often true, but it's worth putting out there as counter-disinformation.

The odd Christian is swayed by it. Ascii is cheap.

Guys, you're talking ancient history here, there's no need for religion these days and as a citizen of Israel (which bears some resemblance to theocracies) I can just say that religion (as opposed to faith) is bad for the peacful life of any people, no matter what they call it.

Proof =/= Belief/Faith.

Here is a question I hear a lot from Christians - "Why don't you believe in Jesus, he fulfilled all of the prophecies for the Messiah?" I think someone asked something similiar on the Judaism thread, and I thought it was a topic worthy of its own. So, I'll tell you why those of us as Jews (and others) don't believe in Jesus as a result of fulfilled prophecy.

For one, Jesus didn't fulfill any messianic prophecies. In my experience, about 80% of the proof-texts that Christians use were never prophecy to begin with. Rather, they were scriptures about something else. If it isn't a messianic prophecy to begin with, then it can't be fulfilled as one. This is called reading out of context.

Secondly, Christians tend to avoid the intended messianic prophecies in the Tanach. Such as the ones that state when the messiah comes there will be world peace. When Christians are presented with these, they usually say "Oh, he'll do that when he comes back a second time." Which leads us into the fact that a second coming is never once mentioned.

Those two points are the main reasons why Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah - he didn't fulfill all of the messianic prophecy, and Christians invent non-prophetic proof-texts to support their claims of fulfilled prophecy.

Anyone who would like to discuss messianic prophecy or proof-texts, this is the place. Its a topic I'm rather familiar with, as I hold a degree in religious studies and run a counter-missionary website. As for further resources on why we don't believe in Jesus, or that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, some starting points would be here:

Messiah Truth (http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html#false) - This is a good website with articles and resources regarding most of the common Christian beliefs and proof-texts, and why they are unacceptable to Jews. Its run by a good team of Rabbis and students. Site navigation is along the toolbar at the top of the screen.

Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/) - A similar site, set up to counter Jews for Jesus, which is in fact a largely Protestant group that attempts to target Jews for conversion.

Outreach Judaism (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/) - Rabbi Tovia Singer's website. Good articles, most of the basics. He also has a radio show in Israel on politics and Jewish issues.
So why did Jews believe in Shimeon Bar Kochba as a Messiah who incited a revolt that lead them to slaughter afterwards?

I can just say that religion (as opposed to faith) is bad for the peacful life of any people, no matter what they call it.
Tell that to the tibetean monks who suffered under the Chinese "atheist" empire...

i think its more cheeky to suggest that the christian god is the same as the jewish god than to say that jesus fulfills messiah prophesies.

FINE, the myth comes from the same root and in theory all gods are imperfect representations of the one real god but jews worship one god and christians worship a trinity. the jews dont have the "son and holy spirit" part so how is it the same guy at all?

Tell that to the tibetean monks who suffered under the Chinese "atheist" empire...
Right after I tell about the benefits of religion to all the victims of the inquisition (Christ said to love your brother more than you love thyself, those people must've hated their own guts) and the victims of the 9/11 and the thousands of people who died from terrorist acts in Israel.
The cruelty, stupidity and criminality of the Chinese government was not because it was atheist - the crimes are described were because of religion.

come to think about it....

what is the jewish thought on the messiah anyway? i just realized that the only thing i know about jewish belief on the messiah i learned in church and therefore it cant be particularily accurate.

do jews think about a messiah? what kind of being would the messiah be? just a man or some kind of spiritual being? what would he do? what is the difference between the messiah and a prophet? are there jewish groups who actively yearn for the messiah to come to fix things up in some way?

Messiah Truth (http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html#false) - This is a good website with articles and resources regarding most of the common Christian beliefs and proof-texts, and why they are unacceptable to Jews. Its run by a good team of Rabbis and students. Site navigation is along the toolbar at the top of the screen.


I like how this site, complains about Christians taking scripture out of context to prove their point about Jesus (a valid concern, don't get me wrong) but then later (just about 3 paragraphs down) starts taking scripture out of context to prove their own point.

ah, the irony...........:p

I haven't really met any people too worried about Jews not "believeing in Jesus" mostly I have found the "but they are God's chosen people" crowd, who can't seem to put one and two together for me, even when I lay it out right in front of them.

Tell that to the tibetean monks who suffered under the Chinese "atheist" empire...

This logic is specious at best. The fact that it is possible to commit an atrocity not in the name of religion doesn't in any way invalidate the original argument.

Nice try though.

i think its more cheeky to suggest that the christian god is the same as the jewish god than to say that jesus fulfills messiah prophesies.

FINE, the myth comes from the same root and in theory all gods are imperfect representations of the one real god but jews worship one god and christians worship a trinity. the jews dont have the "son and holy spirit" part so how is it the same guy at all?

I never understood how people can worship a trinity, when you can worship The Triforce instead.

Right after I tell about the benefits of religion to all the victims of the inquisition (Christ said to love your brother more than you love thyself, those people must've hated their own guts) and the victims of the 9/11 and the thousands of people who died from terrorist acts in Israel.
The cruelty, stupidity and criminality of the Chinese government was not because it was atheist - the crimes are described were because of religion.
The crimes against tibeteans monks are crimes against religion (not against tibeteans), therefore they are "atheist" crimes. Or didn't you know that atheism is dogma? As to your comparison between Christ and the Inquisitions; please.... Jesus would not have approved them. In any case, I'm against organised religion, not religion; they are very different things.

The crimes against tibeteans monks are crimes against religion (not against tibeteans), therefore they are "atheist" crimes. Or didn't you know that atheism is dogma? As to your comparison between Christ and the Inquisitions; please.... Jesus would not have approved them. In any case, I'm against organised religion, not religion; they are very different things.

Atheism is not a dogma, people who make a dogma out of it are completely missing the whole point and the chinese government is famous of missing the points of things like "communism", "equality", "happiness" and the such.
Nobody gives a flying what Jesus would approve of, they were done in his name, by christians, those are christian crimes directly.

Atheism is not a dogma, people who make a dogma out of it are completely missing the whole point and the chinese government is famous of missing the points of things like "communism", "equality", "happiness" and the such.
Nobody gives a flying what Jesus would approve of, they were done in his name, by christians, those are christian crimes directly.
Wrong; they are Catholic crimes. If they were Christian, Christians wouldn't have died at the stake.

And atheism is Dogma. The only possible non-dogmatic religious position is "I do not know if God exists, because I cannot prove either way".

come to think about it....

what is the jewish thought on the messiah anyway? i just realized that the only thing i know about jewish belief on the messiah i learned in church and therefore it cant be particularily accurate.

do jews think about a messiah? what kind of being would the messiah be? just a man or some kind of spiritual being? what would he do? what is the difference between the messiah and a prophet? are there jewish groups who actively yearn for the messiah to come to fix things up in some way?


I might be wrong, but I think that their messiah will be a king-type person, a descendant from the Lineage of David and Solomon, and the must first rebuild the temple in Jerusalem to make way for him. But I am not for sure it thats exactly right or not.

Wrong; they are Catholic crimes. If they were Christian, Christians wouldn't have died at the stake.

And atheism is Dogma. The only possible non-dogmatic religious position is "I do not know if God exists, because I cannot prove either way".

So catholics are not christians?
What you describe is agnosticism and is indogmatic as much atheism. atheism simply means knowing that god does not exist. no dogma.

So why did Jews believe in Shimeon Bar Kochba as a Messiah who incited a revolt that lead them to slaughter afterwards?

Bar Kochba wasn't the only one. There were dozens of 'messiahs' in the first century (Kochba was a bit late, in the early second century) that Jews of various sects followed, all of whom failed. Assuming a singular historical figure that the Jesus character is based on, that person obviously failed as well. The fact that they are dead today and that we aren't living in world peace would demonstrate that the messiah as promised in Jewish scripture hasn't arrived yet.

Now, I can't tell you why Jews believed in Kochba any more than why some Jews believed in Jesus. In virtually all cases, messianic adherence during the first century was a minority view. Christianity was an interesting turn of events, because it had only a small Jewish following but exploded among the non-Jews. That was mostly due to the heavy pagan influences, either from early non-Jewish adherents or from hellenizers.

The followers of Kochba did the exact same thing Christians did with Jesus, as well. They went back and looked through scripture to attempt to find verses to support the belief that he was the messiah. Such as references to stars, which the name he adopted, 'kochba', refers to as well.

The fact that Kochba was a violent and controlling man who executed virtually all internal opposition in his direct presence probably had a lot to do with getting support from those around him as a messiah. A military general who comes to power during a revolt can weild that type of absolute and corrupting power.

A question that has always bothered me about the three major monotheistic religions is the very presence of messianic prophecy.


Why would God have any interest in sending such a being to "save humanity?" Why does it matter if there is peace on earth if none of that will matter when the time comes to exist in the presence of God for all eternity?

Why would God create a race of beings which needed some kind of "Messiah" to save it from itself?

Considering all the wide interpretations of Lucifer, what makes everyone so sure that Lucifer is "Satan" and that there is some kind of otherwordly conspiracy to deprive humanity from God? I mean according to the Persians Lucifer fell because of his love for God...

Another thing: Do souls exist or not? This question bugs me to no end when speaking with monotheists. Either you believe in resurrection or you believe in a soul; the two beliefs are mutually exclusive. Even the friends I have who are Jewish are baffled by that one.




I'm all for one God, but I will use whatever source I can get for information on the topic; its for that reason that I will look at coptic, gnostic, and kaballa texts when seeking theos.

NT

do jews think about a messiah?

Think about? Not really. What we do is wait. Many Judaic prayers contain some form of "may it happen in my lifetime" in referrence.

what kind of being would the messiah be? just a man or some kind of spiritual being?

Just a guy. A regular ol' human being. Could be any Jewish male and the surest indicator is if Elijah shows up at his Brit Milah.

what would he do?

He'd rebuild the Temple, call all Jews to Israel, and the world would enter into an era of peace. Think Garden of Eden, but with more people.

what is the difference between the messiah and a prophet?

A Prophet is a messenger whom God speaks to and/or through. The Messiah is the savior of the world. Many prophets, one Messiah.

are there jewish groups who actively yearn for the messiah to come to fix things up in some way?

I believe they all do. Well ... except the atheist Jews, I suppose. But that's a whole 'nother story.

Why would God create a race of beings which needed some kind of "Messiah" to save it from itself?

Does seem kinda silly doesn't it?

However, in the Jewish tradition, the Messiah doesn't purge sins and all that rot. The Christian idea of the Messiah is vastly different than the Judaic idea.

A question that has always bothered me about the three major monotheistic religions is the very presence of messianic prophecy.

Why would God have any interest in sending such a being to "save humanity?" Why does it matter if there is peace on earth if none of that will matter when the time comes to exist in the presence of God for all eternity?

Why would God create a race of beings which needed some kind of "Messiah" to save it from itself?

Good questions. This is one of the big differences in the Christian version of the Messiah and the Jewish version. In Judaism, there is no mediator between God and man. In Christianity, the 'messiah', whom they believe to be Jesus of course, acts as a mediator between God and man to forgive people for sins.

The Jewish messiah is just a man who will usher in the messianic age. Being "saved" in any sense that you would be familiar with from Christianity doesn't come from anything sent by God, but from your direct relationship with God. Though, to be specific, there really is no parallel concept of 'salvation' in Judaism that exists in Christianity. Christianity is more similiar to the pagan religions it borrowed that concept from, where being 'saved' from this world to the next was a key aspect.

Considering all the wide interpretations of Lucifer, what makes everyone so sure that Lucifer is "Satan" and that there is some kind of otherwordly conspiracy to deprive humanity from God? I mean according to the Persians Lucifer fell because of his love for God...

Well, Lucifer is actually a Latin word. It occurs nowhere in any Hebrew or Greek text. It was St. Jerome's Vulgate that translated various terms to Lucifer, and then St. Jerome's own interpretation that those verses were refernces to a devil.

The God/devil dichotomy found in Christianity is similar to that of the Persians like you've noted. In fact, that concept most likely was borrowed from Zoroastrianism, where Zoroaster served as the virtual 'messiah' and the god/devil dichotomy was between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.

In Judaism, we don't believe in a devil. Satan isn't a fallen angel, a devil, or a wicked entity that battles against God. For a more full explanation, you can read the article on my site about satan here (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id14.html).

Another thing: Do souls exist or not? This question bugs me to no end when speaking with monotheists. Either you believe in resurrection or you believe in a soul; the two beliefs are mutually exclusive. Even the friends I have who are Jewish are baffled by that one.

Who says they are mutually exclusive? Why can't a person die, go to Gan Eden and hang out until the messianic age and a bodily resurrection? I'm not saying that is what I believe, but that is one explanation that could reconcile a 'soul' in a traditional sense as well as resurrection. In Christiant texts, like the Apocalypse of John, it refers to the souls of the righteous waiting around as well and then a later resurrection.

Now, 'soul' in the sense that it is a conscious entity like we understand the term in Western usage today doesn't occur in Jewish scripture. The term translated to soul often simply refers to life, or literally our breath. Jewish views on an afterlife are rather uncertain, as it isn't a fundamental doctrine. Many of the oldest Jewish views lack an afterlife at all. You die, thats it, you wait in the ground until you are resurrected.

You die, thats it, you wait in the ground until you are resurrected.

Best to bring a book.

Best to bring a book.

Preferably a very long one, given the amount of time some folks are going to end up spending in the ground.

Preferably a very long one, given the amount of time some folks are going to end up spending in the ground.

I'd suggest several medium length ones instead. Good to have a variety.

I'd suggest several medium length ones instead. Good to have a variety.

True. And we'd have to make sure they had plenty of interesting content to keep from getting boring.

True. And we'd have to make sure they had plenty of interesting content to keep from getting boring.

Naked lady mags!

Naked lady mags!

We could just stick those inside the books. :cool:

We could just stick those inside the books. :cool:

Perfect! I bet we could find a market for portable DVD players designed for the corpse on the go.

So catholics are not christians?

isnt it fun taking what a part of a group did and generalizing it for everyone in that group. why stop now lets keep doing it for more groups

Arabs are terrorist
Asians are great at math
Mexicans live on our welfare program
Black people use their race to get their way
atheists are against religion

What you describe is agnosticism and is indogmatic as much atheism. atheism simply means knowing that god does not exist. no dogma.

more like thinking. no one can know for sure.

So catholics are not christians?
catholics are just a percentage of the christians, like the taliban are a percentage of the muslims. they do not own the faith.

What you describe is agnosticism and is indogmatic as much atheism. atheism simply means knowing that god does not exist. no dogma.
thanks for reminding me of how i identify myslef in my signature. :D do you know what God is? if you don't, how do you know that God doesn't exist? provide proof please, to show me atheism is not dogmatic.

A question that has always bothered me about the three major monotheistic religions is the very presence of messianic prophecy.

Why would God have any interest in sending such a being to "save humanity?" Why does it matter if there is peace on earth if none of that will matter when the time comes to exist in the presence of God for all eternity?
maybe because the existence "in the presence of God" is not an individually conscious existence; i.e. after dying we become one with God again, not an individual conscience but a unified and single conscience. if so, peace on earth is our only chance of enjoying an individually conscious and peaceful life.

Why would God create a race of beings which needed some kind of "Messiah" to save it from itself?
because we obviously can't achieve peace on our own. :D

Considering all the wide interpretations of Lucifer, what makes everyone so sure that Lucifer is "Satan" and that there is some kind of otherwordly conspiracy to deprive humanity from God? I mean according to the Persians Lucifer fell because of his love for God...
maybe satan is simply the dark side inside each and every one of us. plenty of people believe that they love God and still kill other people... that's Lucifer; i.e. the worst "devil" is the one who believes in God and still goes against His word.

Another thing: Do souls exist or not? This question bugs me to no end when speaking with monotheists. Either you believe in resurrection or you believe in a soul; the two beliefs are mutually exclusive. Even the friends I have who are Jewish are baffled by that one.
i cannot tell you whether souls exist, since i do not know if God exists (i haven't even decided what i think God is). there is a view in some religious scriptures that the soul has two paths after dying. if the soul is ready, it becomes free from living in this material world to live in the non-material world of God (heaven). if it's not ready, it returns to Earth (hell). this is a view i do not subscribe or unsubscribe to, but it does answer your question that a soul and reincarnation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm all for one God, but I will use whatever source I can get for information on the topic; its for that reason that I will look at coptic, gnostic, and kaballa texts when seeking theos.
same here :D you should read Tao as well, very very interesting.

Well ... except the atheist Jews, I suppose.
what's an atheist Jew?? isn't that a paradox? don't you mean atheist israeli?

And atheism is Dogma.
Wrong.


The only possible non-dogmatic religious position is "I do not know if God exists, because I cannot prove either way".
Wrong.

Did you have something of merit where you didn't have the idiotic belief that atheism is solely and only the denial that there is any god? You DO realize that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, don't you? And that as a lack of belief, it cannot be a dogma. You DO realize that, don't you?

And for your edification: communism is theistic. It deifies the state/party. All atrocities in communism are done by megalomaniaical wankers with god-complexes.

Did you have something of merit where you didn't have the idiotic belief that atheism is solely and only the denial that there is any god? You DO realize that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, don't you? And that as a lack of belief, it cannot be a dogma. You DO realize that, don't you?
atheism it's not just lack of belief; it's believing that God does not exist. if you lack belief in God but are not convinced that God doesn't exist, you're an Agnostic (like myself), not an atheist. at best, you're an agnostic atheist. try again.

And for your edification: communism is theistic. It deifies the state/party. All atrocities in communism are done by megalomaniaical wankers with god-complexes.
communism is atheist in ideology from the start. try again.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Did you have something of merit where you didn't have the idiotic...
your argument skills are wonderful. you should write a book, for my "edification".

[QUOTE=Tropical Sands]
For one, Jesus didn't fulfill any messianic prophecies. In my experience, about 80% of the proof-texts that Christians use were never prophecy to begin with. Rather, they were scriptures about something else. If it isn't a messianic prophecy to begin with, then it can't be fulfilled as one. This is called reading out of context.

How can you say that christians point to out of context proofs? All proofs that christians use are in the Biblical Old Testament, or your Torah. So, if you say that we pull out of context, when in fact we pull in context from essentially YOUR holy book, then your denouncing your own faith.

Just a guy. A regular ol' human being. Could be any Jewish male and the surest indicator is if Elijah shows up at his Brit Milah.


does that mean that the messiah will be sent by god and be destined to be the messiah?

if he fails, are we all screwed?

if he's not sent by god (destined to be the messiah) then can anyone become the messiah by accomplishing what the messiah is supposed to accomplish?

does that mean that the messiah will be sent by god and be destined to be the messiah?

That's how the story goes, yes.

if he fails, are we all screwed?

Failure is supposedly impossible.

if he's not sent by god (destined to be the messiah) then can anyone become the messiah by accomplishing what the messiah is supposed to accomplish?

That is a question Rabbis and learned people have been debating for centuries. That whole notion of "self-fulfilling prophecy". In short, I don't know. Nobody knows.

How can you say that christians point to out of context proofs? All proofs that christians use are in the Biblical Old Testament, or your Torah. So, if you say that we pull out of context, when in fact we pull in context from essentially YOUR holy book, then your denouncing your own faith.

What he means is that taking non-messianic prophecy from Tanakh (what you call the 'Old Testament') and calling it messianic prophecy is wrong.

And it does happen.

Mostly through taking bits of the Psalms way, way out of context, but the worst offenses are pulled from Isaiah 53. There are no messianic prophecies in Isaiah 53, but millions of Christians seem to think there are because some Pope decreed it so a few hundred years back.

The crimes against tibeteans monks are crimes against religion (not against tibeteans), therefore they are "atheist" crimes. Or didn't you know that atheism is dogma? As to your comparison between Christ and the Inquisitions; please.... Jesus would not have approved them. In any case, I'm against organised religion, not religion; they are very different things.

Atheism is not a 'dogma'. Indeed, it COULD be argued as being implicitly the ABSENCE of 'dogma'.

Atheism is not a 'dogma'. Indeed, it COULD be argued as being implicitly the ABSENCE of 'dogma'.

Without dogma, what would we eat?

(gigantic cookie to anyone who gets that referrence)

atheism it's not just lack of belief; it's believing that God does not exist. if you lack belief in God but are not convinced that God doesn't exist, you're an Agnostic (like myself), not an atheist. at best, you're an agnostic atheist. try again.


EXPLICIT Atheism is a belief there is no god. But, most Atheists are actually 'Implicit Atheists'... which is a 'lack of belief'... not a 'belief of lack'.


communism is atheist in ideology from the start. try again.

Rubbish. Some forms of Communism may lean towards Atheism, but the two are not automatically connected.

How can you say that christians point to out of context proofs? All proofs that christians use are in the Biblical Old Testament, or your Torah. So, if you say that we pull out of context, when in fact we pull in context from essentially YOUR holy book, then your denouncing your own faith.

Which 'text' they appear in is irrelevent to whether or not they are taken out of context.

I can go through the New Testament, and pick verses that say Jesus preached war and suffering... would you agree that is the 'spirit' of the message?

Or would I be 'perverting the message' by taking verses out of context?

Without dogma, what would we eat?

(gigantic cookie to anyone who gets that referrence)

A reference to the band "Dog Eat Dogma"?

EXPLICIT Atheism is a belief there is no god. But, most Atheists are actually 'Implicit Atheists'... which is a 'lack of belief'... not a 'belief of lack'.
sorry, but lack of belief doesn't necessarily mean you're an atheist... there are many people who are theists and lack belief at times, just as are agnostics who lack belief (like me)... i would actually argue that a lot of people that think themselves as atheists, don't even know that there is a middle position called "agnostic" that matches closer what they really are.
a·the·ism
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
dis·be·lief
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
Rubbish. Some forms of Communism may lean towards Atheism, but the two are not automatically connected.
you are talking about modern variations of communism. the foundations of modern communism (Marxism in particular) are based on principles like "religion is the opium of the masses", hence why china (the most faithful example to the roots of communism) banned religion; true communism is atheist, whether you like it or not. have you ever read Karl Marx?...
The proletariat, after becoming the ruling class, was "to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state" and to increase productive forces at a rapid rate. Once the bourgeoisie had been defeated, there would be no more class divisions, since the means of production would not be owned by any group. The coercive state, formerly a weapon of class oppression, would be replaced by a rational structure of economic and social cooperation and integration. Such bourgeois institutions as the family and religion, which had served to perpetuate bourgeois dominance, would vanish, and each individual would find true fulfillment. Thus social and economic utopia would be achieved, although its exact form could not be predicted.
source (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism)

A reference to the band "Dog Eat Dogma"?

In the right ballpark. It's a line from the song "Don't Be a Hippie" by the obscure musical duo "The Judys". Limewire it sometime. They're a fun band from my high school days.

Your sig provides one of the best examples of this very discussion! Awesome.

Ahh! A perfect opportunity to pull out the random, seemingly useless Swahili proverb that I somehow know:

Jitihadi haiondoi kudura.

Effort will not counter faith.

Swahili is teh cool...

In the right ballpark. It's a line from the song "Don't Be a Hippie" by the obscure musical duo "The Judys". Limewire it sometime. They're a fun band from my high school days.

Your sig provides one of the best examples of this very discussion! Awesome.
what exactly does his sig provide, other than both God and Satan supposedly asked David to count the number of jews?

In the right ballpark. It's a line from the song "Don't Be a Hippie" by the obscure musical duo "The Judys". Limewire it sometime. They're a fun band from my high school days.

Your sig provides one of the best examples of this very discussion! Awesome.

"Don't Be a Hippie" has been added to my official 'list' to look up; :)

The quotes in the sig... I even have a 'rationalisation' for the 'discrepency', but I like to see how people 'deal' with it.

It's almost time for a new one, though... I'm thinking of using the 'virgin birth' prophecy.... :)

"Don't Be a Hippie" has been added to my official 'list' to look up; :)

The quotes in the sig... I even have a 'rationalisation' for the 'discrepency', but I like to see how people 'deal' with it.

It's almost time for a new one, though... I'm thinking of using the 'virgin birth' prophecy.... :)
hehehe... don't jews believe that God and Satan are the same? I'm actually not that familiar with the old testament... i rather stick to Jesus' words...

what exactly does his sig provide, other than both God and Satan supposedly asked David to count the number of jews?

Actually, it provides that apparently Paul thought God and Satan were one and the same.

Samuel says that God did it ... Paul contradicts Samuel and says Satan did it. We're not talking about two different times, but the exact same census.

So who are we supposed to believe? Samuel or Paul?

hehehe... don't jews believe that God and Satan are the same?

No. Satan is a purely Christian construct. The Judaica contains no great adversary.

i rather stick to Jesus' words...

Good! Excellent choice. He was a nice man. Just don't be drawn in by that misogynist, homophobic, slave mongerer Paul of Tarsus.

Good! Excellent choice. He was a nice man. Just don't be drawn in by that misogynist, homophobic, slave mongerer Paul of Tarsus.
Hooray!

... Then again, just how much of Jesus did Paul make up?

0_o

sorry, but lack of belief doesn't necessarily mean you're an atheist... there are many people who are theists and lack belief at times, just as are agnostics who lack belief (like me)... i would actually argue that a lot of people that think themselves as atheists, don't even know that there is a middle position called "agnostic" that matches closer what they really are.

Depends on which definition of Atheism you are using. What you describe as Agnosticism can also be described as weak or implicit Atheism.

atheism it's not just lack of belief;
Yes it is.

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god + belief in

a + theism

lacking or without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Now then, you can argue with me all you like, but you won't get anywhere at all because that's how you properly break down the word "atheism". If you don't like it, feel free to call someone who cares, because I certainly don't.

Communism is a theistic ideology from the start. It deifies the state/party/collective. You might want to learn something before you post.

Hooray!

... Then again, just how much of Jesus did Paul make up?


Fortunately, Paul didn't write any of the Gospels. I've always told people, if you're going to follow Jesus, then follow Jesus. Only Jesus. Nobody else but Jesus.

Go find a Bible and rip out everything but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then snip out ever word Jesus himself, and only Jesus himself, actually said. (A lot of Bible editions make this very easy by using red letter print).

You have left the Manifesto of Jesus, which is a startling read. It is clear, concise, teaches love and brotherhood and contains not one drop of vitriol nor seethes with any form of hatred.

If Jesus and his words were just made up by someone, then one can at least take that as hope for mankind that we could make up something so beatific and wonderful. "Love thy enemy" ... it's powerful stuff.

No. Satan is a purely Christian construct. The Judaica contains no great adversary.
Well, the satan-boogeyman of the xer death-cult, to be sure, is not in Judaism. However, satan as a concept of an adversary/accuser is in Judaism, e.g. Numbers 22:20-24.

Of course, I don't think the jews had this concept until after the Babylonian exile.

Fortunately, Paul didn't write any of the Gospels. I've always told people, if you're going to follow Jesus, then follow Jesus. Only Jesus. Nobody else but Jesus.

Go find a Bible and rip out everything but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then snip out ever word Jesus himself, and only Jesus himself, actually said. (A lot of Bible editions make this very easy by using red letter print).

You have left the Manifesto of Jesus, which is a startling read. It is clear, concise, teaches love and brotherhood and contains not one drop of vitriol nor seethes with any form of hatred.

If Jesus and his words were just made up by someone, then one can at least take that as hope for mankind that we could make up something so beatific and wonderful. "Love thy enemy" ... it's powerful stuff.

Hmm, I wonder if Burroughs ever made a Jesus cut-up.

No. Satan is a purely Christian construct. The Judaica contains no great adversary.
If that was true, why would a jewish bible name Satan? also, the old testament is pre-christian so that can't be right. also, I'm pretty certain that the concept of Satan exists in Judaism, it's only that they don't see it separate to God but as part of God, since they argue that God created Evil.

Communism is a theistic ideology from the start. It deifies the state/party/collective. You might want to learn something before you post.
please show me a Communist text, by its original thinkers, saying the State is a deity.

Yes it is.

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god + belief in

a + theism

lacking or without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Now then, you can argue with me all you like, but you won't get anywhere at all because that's how you properly break down the word "atheism". If you don't like it, feel free to call someone who cares, because I certainly don't.
again, most atheists don't just say they don't believe in God, they say he doesn't exist. that's an assertion, not the lack of one... you can argue as much as you like as well, but you cannot convince me that anyone who asserts adamantly that "God does not exist" isn't as dogmatic as someone who says "God exists".

like myself, there are many people who lack belief... and that doesn't make me an atheist.

If that was true, why would a jewish bible name Satan? also, the old testament is pre-christian so that can't be right. also, I'm pretty certain that the concept of Satan exists in Judaism, it's only that they don't see it separate to God but as part of God, since they argue that God created Evil.

Technically, Evil was a byproduct of Creation, hence the need for the 10th Sephirah. Not so much part of the Divine, but easily crushed by the realisation of the Divine (sekhinah).

The Great Adversary bit is Christian, while demons and devils are present in Judaica. Demons and devils are easily cast aside, though. Generally, any form of evil presented towards men in Tanakh is the work of Angels, such as the one who made the wager with God concerning Job.

Technically, Evil was a byproduct of Creation, hence the need for the 10th Sephirah. Not so much part of the Divine, but easily crushed by the realisation of the Divine (sekhinah).

The Great Adversary bit is Christian, while demons and devils are present in Judaica. Demons and devils are easily cast aside, though. Generally, any form of evil presented towards men in Tanakh is the work of Angels, such as the one who made the wager with God concerning Job.
still, it doesn't justify why the word Satan appears in jewish scriptures that pre-date christianity... i agree that Satan, as the great adversary, is a christian invention, since in judaism Evil is a byproduct of God, as you say.

and the 10th sephirah comes from God, even it has become separated from it. Sekhinah is God's essence materialised and becoming separate, no? (i'm asking, as i'm still learning about it...)

please show me a Communist text, by its original thinkers, saying the State is a deity.
considering that religion is the opiate of the masses im thinking that not too many communists are big on organized religion of any sort

again, most atheists don't just say they don't believe in God, they say he doesn't exist. that's an assertion, not the lack of one... you can argue as much as you like as well, but you cannot convince me that anyone who asserts adamantly that "God does not exist" isn't as dogmatic as someone who says "God exists".

like myself, there are many people who lack belief... and that doesn't make me an atheist.
a dogma that consists of ONE item isnt exactly equal to hinduism now is it?

those who hold out some reasonable hope that god might exist are more properly called agnostics (although a true agnostic is more sophisticated than that)

and really, not believing (or believing not) that god exists isnt right up there with believing that george bush doesnt exits. when was the last time "god" showed his face and told us flat out who he was, what he wanted, or anything else relevant to belief?

considering that religion is the opiate of the masses im thinking that not too many communists are big on organized religion of any sort
that's exactly what i mean. religion is not compatible with true communism; hence why organised religion is forbidden in china.

when was the last time "god" showed his face and told us flat out who he was, what he wanted, or anything else relevant?
When was the last time "Dubya" did that?

please show me a Communist text, by its original thinkers, saying the State is a deity.
You understand the concept of a metaphor, right?

Marx (upon whose writings communism is based) took Hegel's writings and just stripped them of the supernatural crap. Hegel did have the state as the ultimate expression of the march of god through time. Marx merely removed the immaterial crap and had the state/collective will of the proletariat as god.

again, most atheists don't just say they don't believe in God, they say he doesn't exist.
Actually, most of them don't.

And yes, you are an atheist. Have/lack. On/off. That's it. It's binary, not trinary. We can have this discussion in another thread if you want, but you are an atheist. Plain. And. Simple.

If you do not like it, I suggest that you kill yourself or disabuse yourself of your erroneous notions.

Just an aside: Marx never wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Actual quote: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

And then he proceded to create a religion of state/collective worship. What do you expect from a man who berated Hegel while using every last bit of Hegelian crap he could?

still, it doesn't justify why the word Satan appears in jewish scriptures that pre-date christianity... i agree that Satan, as the great adversary, is a christian invention, since in judaism Evil is a byproduct of God, as you say.

Same in name only. The Judaic Satan was not a great fallen angel who waged a Heavenly war against God with other fallen angels.

and the 10th sephirah comes from God, even it has become separated from it. Sekhinah is God's essence materialised and becoming separate, no? (i'm asking, as i'm still learning about it...)

Technically, it's part of the Divine. Sekhinah is the realisation of the Divine because only through realisation can God become material. Think of God as a casing for the Divine, much like a cocoon holds a caterpillar within. We don't know of the caterpillar except that we realise its cocoon.

The great Chassidic Masters say that there would have been no light without the actual utterance of "Be" and the light would not have conitnued without man's realisation. Very simbiotic relationship we have based on eating of the tree of knowledge.

[note: this is not something I believe, but I grew up studying it, so I may as well use it]

when was the last time "god" showed his face and told us flat out who he was, what he wanted, or anything else relevant to belief?

You've been looking at the wrong tortillas!

a dogma that consists of ONE item isnt exactly equal to hinduism now is it?
it's still a dogma, even if it's a very simplistic dogma. denial that something exists = believing that something does not exist. it's a matter of different wording, not different principles.

those who hold out some reasonable hope that god might exist are more properly called agnostics (although a true agnostic is more sophisticated than that)
i would agree to a certain extent (the sentence is right but not complete), since some agnostics actually tend to think that God may not exist, even if they accept that they cannot know it. an agnostic, by definition, is just someone who doesn't adamantly assert whether God exists or not, since he/she realises that there is no way to prove or disprove God's existence. there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, depending on whether they tend to think God exists or not...

and really, not believing (or believing not) that god exists isnt right up there with believing that george bush doesnt exits. when was the last time "god" showed his face and told us flat out who he was, what he wanted, or anything else relevant to belief?
first, that depends on what you call God in the first place. some people believe in God, without believing in a self-conscious entity. Judaism, for example, does not try to define the nature of God, simply accepting that God exists and that everything comes from God. buddhists hold a similar position and so did many gnostic christians (also rememeber that Jesus was a jew, not a christian). christianity was a product of his followers, not of Jesus himself.

people....let's just agree on one thing...the freedom to belive in jessus or not to depends on diferent individuals...so let's forget this stupid arguement and focus on more important things like feeding the hungry children in afrika or saving the polar caps:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Actually, most of them don't.
right... now most atheists don't say God does not exist ROFL :headbang: so how exactly do you define someone who says "God does not exist"??
And yes, you are an atheist. Have/lack. On/off. That's it. It's binary, not trinary. We can have this discussion in another thread if you want, but you are an atheist. Plain. And. Simple.
so your way to win an argument is stating that i like blue, when i say i like orange? don't tell me what i am... i'm certainly not an atheist; i actually tend to think that God may exist, as often as i don't, even if i don't know what the nature of God is.
If you do not like it, I suggest that you kill yourself or disabuse yourself of your erroneous notions.
that's the most pathetic argument i've heard recently...
Just an aside: Marx never wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Actual quote: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
it [religion] is the opium of the people [masses]. my statement is more accurate that your assertments that communism is a form of religion. in that frame of thought, every political belief is religion, which is an absurd argument.
And then he proceded to create a religion of state/collective worship. What do you expect from a man who berated Hegel while using every last bit of Hegelian crap he could?
again you are using metaphors... does your argument hold without them? no.
You understand the concept of a metaphor, right?

Marx (upon whose writings communism is based) took Hegel's writings and just stripped them of the supernatural crap. Hegel did have the state as the ultimate expression of the march of god through time. Marx merely removed the immaterial crap and had the state/collective will of the proletariat as god.
yes i understand metaphors but a metaphor is not a scientific argument; it's a figure of speech, so you shouldn't use it as a literal definition. you are saying state=God when the state did not create the world (which is what God has supposedly done). communist thinkers do not say that the state is God or that the party is religion.

right... now most atheists don't say God does not exist ROFL
They don't.


so your way to win an argument is stating that i like blue, when i say i like orange?
No, my way to win is to tell you that, like it or not, you are what you are, and you are not what you desire to be. There can be no such thing as "agnostic". Atheism and theism relate to belief in existence. Agnosticism and gnosticism relate to belief that knowledge of something is attainable. Two different things. Please do make a point to note the difference. Thank you.

So, like it or not, you're an atheist. It's simple. Deny it and you're going to have to deny the meaning of the greek/latin roots. I don't think you want to do that--do you?


it [religion] is the opium of the people [masses]. try again.
I posted to you the actual quote. Try again.


again you are using metaphors... does your argument hold without them?
Yes.


yes i understand metaphors but a metaphor is not a scientific argument;
And?


it's a figure of speech, so you shouldn't use it as a literal definition.
I wasn't.

Your problem is that you believe that I did. Silly you.

How can you say that christians point to out of context proofs? All proofs that christians use are in the Biblical Old Testament, or your Torah. So, if you say that we pull out of context, when in fact we pull in context from essentially YOUR holy book, then your denouncing your own faith.

Christians pull scriptures from the Tanach. They don't pull the context along with it. Just like Mormons use NT verses out of context to support the Book of Mormon and the LDS religion. The fact is, the verses used by Christians to support Jesus were never intended to be used as such by the original authors. That is one reason, among many, why Christians fail to use proper biblical exegesis when interpreting Jewish verses in respect to Jesus.

Like I stated, examples would be when Christians use verses that were never intended to be prophecy, then suddenly claim they are prophecy.

hehehe... don't jews believe that God and Satan are the same? I'm actually not that familiar with the old testament... i rather stick to Jesus' words...

I find it bizarre that people can read the New Testament WITHOUT a firm grasp on the Old Testament...

After all - what does it matter if Jesus is 'messiah'... if you haven't read the scripture that leads up to what messiah means?

What is the importance of a 'new covenant', if you aren't versed in the old?

Fortunately, Paul didn't write any of the Gospels. I've always told people, if you're going to follow Jesus, then follow Jesus. Only Jesus. Nobody else but Jesus.

Go find a Bible and rip out everything but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then snip out ever word Jesus himself, and only Jesus himself, actually said. (A lot of Bible editions make this very easy by using red letter print).

You have left the Manifesto of Jesus, which is a startling read. It is clear, concise, teaches love and brotherhood and contains not one drop of vitriol nor seethes with any form of hatred.

If Jesus and his words were just made up by someone, then one can at least take that as hope for mankind that we could make up something so beatific and wonderful. "Love thy enemy" ... it's powerful stuff.

Actually - I'd be wary of John, also - since he is careless, and mixes his own ruminations on Jesus in very closely with Jesus' own words.

Indeed - on at least one occassion, I believe the commonly accepted 'red letter' versions have taken an extended 'John digression', and attributed it to Jesus.

As an example - specifically, I believe the scripture misinterprets Jesus in the John 3:10-21 passage, which is ALL given as the words of Jesus... however, I believe most of it is actually John:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

(Emphasis mine).

again, most atheists don't just say they don't believe in God, they say he doesn't exist. that's an assertion, not the lack of one... you can argue as much as you like as well, but you cannot convince me that anyone who asserts adamantly that "God does not exist" isn't as dogmatic as someone who says "God exists".

like myself, there are many people who lack belief... and that doesn't make me an atheist.

In my experience - most Atheists say they don't believe in god. You claim otherwise. Unless one of us can provide evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, as an Implicit Atheist myself - I can testify that I, for one, 'lack belief' - rather than believing definitively that there is no god.

I ALSO lean towards Agnosticism... but Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in god... it ONLY pertains to whether one believes it is possible TO KNOW (for sure) one way or the other.


I do agree with you, however, that the Explicit Atheist is as 'dogmatic' as the 'true believer'.

Heh the one taht makes me laugh is the old the messiah will come from the line of David. Then of course we get that whole geneolgy bit showing how Joseph was from that very line. Exccept of coures Jesus was not Josephs son now huh!

still, it doesn't justify why the word Satan appears in jewish scriptures that pre-date christianity... i agree that Satan, as the great adversary, is a christian invention, since in judaism Evil is a byproduct of God, as you say.

and the 10th sephirah comes from God, even it has become separated from it. Sekhinah is God's essence materialised and becoming separate, no? (i'm asking, as i'm still learning about it...)

The term used is "HaSatan"... and it is a 'title', not a name.

The Adversary of man, not of God, HaSatan is sent to test men - as, for example, in Job. (Try reading Job - there is no 'contention').

But - that doesn't mean there is ONE figure, eternally called 'Satan', or defined entirely by that concept. It's just a job.

Wrong; they are Catholic crimes. If they were Christian, Christians wouldn't have died at the stake.


a) the Inquisition was wrong. It should never have happened.

b) Do I really have to go on my "Catholics are Christians" rant again? Weren't you people listening? Saying that we're not, no matter how many times you say it -- no matter how loudly you say it -- does not make you right. And for the record, you fundies, especially some (not all) of the ones that tend to post here, exhibit some of the least Christian attitudes I've ever encountered.

Good questions. This is one of the big differences in the Christian version of the Messiah and the Jewish version. In Judaism, there is no mediator between God and man. In Christianity, the 'messiah', whom they believe to be Jesus of course, acts as a mediator between God and man to forgive people for sins.

The Jewish messiah is just a man who will usher in the messianic age. Being "saved" in any sense that you would be familiar with from Christianity doesn't come from anything sent by God, but from your direct relationship with God. Though, to be specific, there really is no parallel concept of 'salvation' in Judaism that exists in Christianity. Christianity is more similiar to the pagan religions it borrowed that concept from, where being 'saved' from this world to the next was a key aspect.



Well, Lucifer is actually a Latin word. It occurs nowhere in any Hebrew or Greek text. It was St. Jerome's Vulgate that translated various terms to Lucifer, and then St. Jerome's own interpretation that those verses were refernces to a devil.

The God/devil dichotomy found in Christianity is similar to that of the Persians like you've noted. In fact, that concept most likely was borrowed from Zoroastrianism, where Zoroaster served as the virtual 'messiah' and the god/devil dichotomy was between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.

In Judaism, we don't believe in a devil. Satan isn't a fallen angel, a devil, or a wicked entity that battles against God. For a more full explanation, you can read the article on my site about satan here (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id14.html).



Who says they are mutually exclusive? Why can't a person die, go to Gan Eden and hang out until the messianic age and a bodily resurrection? I'm not saying that is what I believe, but that is one explanation that could reconcile a 'soul' in a traditional sense as well as resurrection. In Christiant texts, like the Apocalypse of John, it refers to the souls of the righteous waiting around as well and then a later resurrection.

Now, 'soul' in the sense that it is a conscious entity like we understand the term in Western usage today doesn't occur in Jewish scripture. The term translated to soul often simply refers to life, or literally our breath. Jewish views on an afterlife are rather uncertain, as it isn't a fundamental doctrine. Many of the oldest Jewish views lack an afterlife at all. You die, thats it, you wait in the ground until you are resurrected.



Ok so according to Judaism the Messiah will be some kind of super demagogue who will come to earth and galvanize the Jewish faith and expose the error of our wicked human ways? This actually leads into a question I will ask after my next response.


So God has no adversary? This article raises more questions for me than it solves. Please forgive my ignorance here, but I was taught that the differences between Christianity and Judaism were less pervasive and prevalent than this. How are the presence of fallen angels explained if there is no one to lead them in rebellion against God? How does one explain sin? Is the presence of sin a function of "original sin" (the original sin of Adam and Eve carrying on through the generations)? Is sin to blame on the inherent nature of man? (More clearly is this to say that man is predisposed to sin, as opposed to simply being capable of it). It would seem rather odd for God to create man if man were predisposed towards sinning. I mean I understand the argument for free will, but creating a predilection towards sinning would seem cruel.


Perhaps I over-stated my case: it's not entirely impossible but it does seem ridiculous. I mean why waste the effort of having beings chill around, presumably with God, for a while only to be brought back to earth so they can then chill around with God. I personally find the notion of soul as a "spiritual substance" ridiculous and wasteful.

But then we get to early Judaism which as you said (and I had previously read) believed simply in death and that the soul was essentially breath, or the "essence of life." But then why even mention this "soul?" How is it important to name something which amounts to little more, if at all, than a quality of mankind? And what of Sheol (sp?), the eternal separation from God? If death is just the end, then why raise those who were non-believers? I mean I can understand that one should not reward those who refused faith in God, but then going on to torture them by dangling what they are missing out on in front of them for all eternity seems cruel.



And how is the "messiah" even relevant to "salvation?" Is not the presence of God enough? Why should mankind be given a "second chance" at coming back to God? I can accept that the methods of God are inscrutable, but if the ultimate aim of the "messianic age" is to establish the foundation of the kingdom of God, then why should anyone without the conviction to believe prior to the Messiah worthy to take part in this "kingdom of God?" And one thing which does strike me about Christian teachings which seems to correlate with the real world is that all are guilty of sin. Are not these people, even the believers, guilty of such gross amounts of sin that all should be an abomination in the eyes of God? And if this is true, then what exactly can the Messiah do about it if he isn't anything more than a super believable prophet?


I don't mean to belittle your religion if it is sounding that way. I am curious about all religions, their beliefs, and the consequences of their beliefs. So if I sound confrontational it is because I don't like "loose ends."

NT

So God has no adversary? This article raises more questions for me than it solves. Please forgive my ignorance here, but I was taught that the differences between Christianity and Judaism were less pervasive and prevalent than this. How are the presence of fallen angels explained if there is no one to lead them in rebellion against God? How does one explain sin? Is the presence of sin a function of "original sin" (the original sin of Adam and Eve carrying on through the generations)? Is sin to blame on the inherent nature of man? (More clearly is this to say that man is predisposed to sin, as opposed to simply being capable of it). It would seem rather odd for God to create man if man were predisposed towards sinning. I mean I understand the argument for free will, but creating a predilection towards sinning would seem cruel.

The differences between Christianity and Judaism are stunningly huge, once you get into details and close examination.

And, I would say that for the most part God has no adversary. Satan is an adversary to human beings, but not to God.

Fallen angels are a bit different. Unlike the Christian version of fallen angels, where they fought a battle in heaven and were expelled, I think most stories of fallen angels in Judaism aren't based on direct conflict with God, but rather the angels doing something wicked. Specifically seducing human women, like we find in Enoch. But, you've also got to remember that Judaism has quite a depth regarding stories like this, and things like fallen angels aren't really a core part of Judaism, so there isn't a solid canon on them, or even if they really exist.

Original sin doesn't exist. That idea, and the term, was actually invented by early Christians. Sin is a bit different in Judaism as well. Christians view it as a thing, whereas it would really be an act. Its just violating a law, and of course that is made possible as soon as people were subject to God's laws. Sin doesn't carry on through generations like a stain either; I recall the Talmud explaining that "sin crouches at the door" based on exegesis in a verse in Genesis. That is, you start with a clean slate, and from that point on your are susceptible to sin.

Nor is do humans have a 'sinful' nature per se. Rather, we were created in the image of God. Popular concepts regarding human nature in Judaism are the good impluse and evil impulse. And these terms can be misunderstood, because neither is purely 'good' or 'evil' in the sense that we use the terms in English. It might be easier to compare them to the yin and yang of Eastern philosophy. In essence, we have a good nature and a bad nature. The good nature teaches us to do things like abstain from sex, while the bad nature tells us to do things like sex. Sex is a neutral act in itself, and there are proper and improper times for it. Thus, its balancing your yezter tov and yetzer ra that keeps people in line, and when either get too much emphasis it leads to sin. Too much yetzer tov and you will never have sex, thus sinning by never having children. Too much yetzer ra and you visit prostitutes or something. :D

So, in short, we don't have a sinful nature or a tendency to sin. We have dual natures that we generally have full control over.

But then we get to early Judaism which as you said (and I had previously read) believed simply in death and that the soul was essentially breath, or the "essence of life." But then why even mention this "soul?" How is it important to name something which amounts to little more, if at all, than a quality of mankind? And what of Sheol (sp?), the eternal separation from God? If death is just the end, then why raise those who were non-believers? I mean I can understand that one should not reward those who refused faith in God, but then going on to torture them by dangling what they are missing out on in front of them for all eternity seems cruel.

Mentioning the soul may only be important because it was used to explain questions about our world. It isn't really the type of eternal soul that exists in Christianity, and generally needs less emphasis, as it isn't as central to Jewish belief as it is to Christian belief.

Sheol isn't necessarily eternal separation, but in some cases it could be. Interpretation of this varies from separation to sitting in the grave until resurrection. And, I'm not sure if during the resurrection non-believers will be raised. There really isn't an eternal place of torture in Judaism to the extent there is in Christianity either. I think most views hold that there may be a temporary place, a lot like the Catholic purgatory.

And how is the "messiah" even relevant to "salvation?" Is not the presence of God enough? Why should mankind be given a "second chance" at coming back to God? I can accept that the methods of God are inscrutable, but if the ultimate aim of the "messianic age" is to establish the foundation of the kingdom of God, then why should anyone without the conviction to believe prior to the Messiah worthy to take part in this "kingdom of God?" And one thing which does strike me about Christian teachings which seems to correlate with the real world is that all are guilty of sin. Are not these people, even the believers, guilty of such gross amounts of sin that all should be an abomination in the eyes of God? And if this is true, then what exactly can the Messiah do about it if he isn't anything more than a super believable prophet?

The Messiah isn't relevant to salvation in Judaism. That was a later Christian interpretation. In Judaism the messiah just brings about the messianic age and the things that come with it, including resurrection. "Salvation" in the sense is exactly like you describe it - between men and God, in the presence of God.

The Christian teaching that all are guilty of sin is slightly off as well. Its true that virtually everyone has sinned, but this does not mean that all are guilty of sin. A sinful man who repents is as if he never sinned. This is the way atonement and sin is viewed in Judaism; we make atonement, and its over. Rather than in Christianity, where it is something that sticks with you like dirt, then you need to wash it off with blood.

Thus, God does not view the repentant as abominations. They are viewed as the righteous because they have repented and made atonement.

Which 'text' they appear in is irrelevent to whether or not they are taken out of context.

I can go through the New Testament, and pick verses that say Jesus preached war and suffering... would you agree that is the 'spirit' of the message?

Or would I be 'perverting the message' by taking verses out of context?

You intend to provoke out of me a denouncing of my own accusations. At this you fail. You would not be perverting the message, because in fact suffering was about 50% of his message. I quote Matthew 9:11 "do not be discouraged when you are mocked and persecuted in my name, for your reward is in heaven, and remember the old prophets were persecuted too."
So, even though you wished to provoke out of me a response that would drive your agenda forward, you have not. I accept that suffering is part of christianity, in which Jesus also said "die to yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me." So nice try, but try a little research next time

Fallen angels are a bit different. Unlike the Christian version of fallen angels, where they fought a battle in heaven and were expelled, I think most stories of fallen angels in Judaism aren't based on direct conflict with God, but rather the angels doing something wicked. Specifically seducing human women, like we find in Enoch. But, you've also got to remember that Judaism has quite a depth regarding stories like this, and things like fallen angels aren't really a core part of Judaism, so there isn't a solid canon on them, or even if they really exist.


Bear in mind it's a few years since I directly researched it...

I'm thinking that the Book of Enoch details Samyasa and his friends descending at Mount Harmon (Armon?), in order to become better acquainted with those 'hot human chicks', and to teach secret knowledge to men... the result of the union between the angels and humans being the evil generations or anakim/nephilim/giants... ALL of which is in Genesis also, just in less detail.

The point Enoch makes is that Samyasa and his friends didn't so much 'fall', as 'wander in a downwards direction'.

You intend to provoke out of me a denouncing of my own accusations. At this you fail. You would not be perverting the message, because in fact suffering was about 50% of his message. I quote Matthew 9:11 "do not be discouraged when you are mocked and persecuted in my name, for your reward is in heaven, and remember the old prophets were persecuted too."
So, even though you wished to provoke out of me a response that would drive your agenda forward, you have not. I accept that suffering is part of christianity, in which Jesus also said "die to yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me." So nice try, but try a little research next time

I'm not attempting to 'provoke' anything. I'm simply explaining how one can 'take out of context' - as you asked.

If you do not want an answer - just don't ask the question.

The point was - if you look at things like the 'prophecy' of the 'virgin birth'... not only is it NOT a 'messianic prophecy'... it is also NOT about a 'virgin' (that's a confusion in the Greek translation that the Gospel writers would have had easy access to).

Try looking back over the Old Testament - and you'll find that, IN CONTEXT, the verses often cited as 'messianic prophecy', simply aren't... often they are neither 'messianic' NOR 'prophecy'.

The point I was trying to make about the New Testament was NOT about 'provoking you'... (I think you have an inflated sense of your own importance if you think I'm putting that much effort into trying to antagonise)... the point was that one can take verses out of the New Testament that suggest a certain 'truth'... (Like, Jesus was anti-love, and pro-violence)... even though the same words IN CONTEXT might suggest a very different thing.