Questionable Behavior of 'God's Prophets' from the Abrahamic Religions

a reply to: FlyersFan

Well it is a choice and not many will have faith to believe.

I do think it is important to not judge the past based on our current mindset cause there will be no understanding. Like i say if you want to understand then stop thinking earthly and scientifically. Remember all things are possible with GOD. Your line of questioning only fuels the fires of dissent and will cause others undue pain in the long run but if i can't perform miricles or great feats then you will dismiss my words and cling to your earthly views. that is fine if you believe in no afterlife or spiritual growth but very damning if you believe that GOD and his actions and reasons should fit into your view of how to rule should be. Much of this can be explained through cloning and other worlds but i urge you to simply ask the holy spirit to help you understand the word and give you peace of mind.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I thought that was my point. :p I just expanded it to include most of our pre modern " Heros". The world isn't worse then ever... It's better then ever. Just not perfect.

Most Christians suffer from the same ills today in that the ones in position to be teaching need to be taught themselves .In fact Paul wrote about the Kingdom cults and Jesus taught about it Himself .But you wont be taught about it in the standard denominational churches . If you want ,I can give you a link to a study on the subject but a simple google search of the kingdom cults should get you in the neighborhood a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1 ETA Jesus was referring to more of the fact that they had a genealogy (blood) relation to Abraham ..

a reply to: deadeyedick

I disagree completely and think your logic is dangerous.... Some things should be evil in any society, no matter how primative. Slavery, genocide, child molestation, rape... Things like this have never been morally acceptable. So please explain to me how god can make these things understandable?

If all things are possible thru god. Then that means that the rapes and murders that god sanctioned were good things. How logical is that? If god tells someone to murder your wife and take your daughters as sex slaves will that be ok with you?


Oh yea stop thinking logically and scientifically! If you don't think about it at all it makes perfect sense. Lmao I love you guys. :p

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Jesus Begins His Ministry

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

Jesus Rejected at Nazareth

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down.

a reply to: FlyersFan Now go into the book of Isaiah and read the rest of the piece of scripture Jesus was reading from ...Now tell me if Jesus would have finished that quote ,would He not be the vengeful same god of the OT ? He is the suffering servant but will return to as the conquering one .

Except he didn't finish the quote, on purpose. He was making a very dramatic statement by not finishing that verse, which was very well known at that time. And it has nothing to do with him coming back as a vengeful god. It has everything to do with him telling them what God was really like, which is NOT like the vengeful god. The Pharisees were not happy with him after he didn't finish "the best part", where the bad guys get there just desserts. "The day of vengeance".

Exodus did happen, but the archaological finds in Israel and Palestine tells different story than what is written in old testament.
Dating of Massacre and destruction of Jericho and other cities old testament describes does not meet the time of Joshua. The timeline of destruction of those cities Joshua destroyed are from 2500 BC to 1400 BC, so did Joshua lived more than 1000 years.. no according to bible Joshua died when he was 110 years old.
Some archaeological findings tells different story.. canaanites were not destroyed by Israelites instead it seems to be that among canaanites there were a rebellion of the poor against the elite ( every city in Canaan had a prince who organized taxes to Egypt ) and after rebellion they merged with israelites.


While talking about young culture ( Israel ) before scribes started to write down their history there was more fiction than truth and stories were told by the campfire.

a reply to: zardust

So Jesus was explaining that God didn't really mean to have all those people raped and murdered. He was just joking.... Get it?

At some point you have to realize your shoving a square peg in a round hole. Either he's a vengeful god responsible for the Old Testament atrocities or he's the loving god who wants us all to love each other..... Or I guess he flip flops depending on what mood he's in that century.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: deadeyedick



I disagree completely and think your logic is dangerous.... Some things should be evil in any society, no matter how primative. Slavery, genocide, child molestation, rape... Things like this have never been morally acceptable. So please explain to me how god can make these things understandable?



If all things are possible thru god. Then that means that the rapes and murders that god sanctioned were good things. How logical is that? If god tells someone to murder your wife and take your daughters as sex slaves will that be ok with you?





Oh yea stop thinking logically and scientifically! If you don't think about it at all it makes perfect sense. Lmao I love you guys. :p

I completly agree with you but my thoughts do not end with knowing that you are correct but i understand that there is so much more than what your line of thought hides eventhough it is correct and is the path that i most want to preveil over the one that is put forth in the op but my soul will not allow me to cast judgement on all things without all the facts. as a person all i can do is go down the path i choose and that would include taking lives if it meant i could save someone especially fam and friends. There is much we do not know

a reply to: the2ofusr1

This is one of those things in the Bible that has been proven to be false. There was no synagogue in Nazareth during the supposed life of Jesus. There is good question as to whether Nazareth could have even been called a town. At the time it was known to be a very large funerary and no more that a few small farms.

1955-1960 Excavations conducted by Father Bellarmino Bagatti (Professor, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum at Flagellation, Jerusalem). Beneath his own church and adjoining land, Bagatti discovered numerous caves and hollows. Some of these caves have obviously had a great deal of use, over many centuries. Most are tombs, many from the Bronze Age. Others have been adapted for use as water cisterns, as vats for oil or as 'silos' for grain. Apparently, there were indications that Nazareth had been 'refounded' in Hasmonean times after a long period when the area had been deserted. Yet overwhelmingly, archaeological evidence from before the second century is funerary. Obliged to admit a dearth of suitable evidence of habitation, none the less, Bagatti was able conclude that 1st century AD Nazareth had been 'a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.' - See more at: www.jesusneverexisted.com...

There was no synagogue at Nazareth and therefore, no expensive scroll was handed to Jesus to be read from to be rejected by the city's population.

Well then you have to read and understand the day of the Lord .True that the Jewish leaders were looking for the a reply to: zardust

The second coming of Jesus Christ is the hope of believers that God is in control of all things, and is faithful to the promises and prophecies in His Word. In His first coming, Jesus Christ came to earth as a baby in a manger in Bethlehem, just as prophesied. Jesus fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Messiah during His birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection. However, there are some prophecies regarding the Messiah that Jesus has not yet fulfilled. The second coming of Christ will be the return of Christ to fulfill these remaining prophecies. In His first coming, Jesus was the suffering Servant. In His second coming, Jesus will be the conquering King. In His first coming, Jesus arrived in the most humble of circumstances. In His second coming, Jesus will arrive with the armies of heaven at His side.

The Old Testament prophets did not make clearly this distinction between the two comings. This can be seen in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7 and Zechariah 14:4. As a result of the prophecies seeming to speak of two individuals, many Jewish scholars believed there would be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah. What they failed to understand is that there is only one Messiah and He would fulfill both roles. Jesus fulfilled the role of the suffering servant (Isaiah chapter 53) in His first coming. Jesus will fulfill the role of Israel’s deliverer and King in His second coming. Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 1:7, describing the second coming, look back to Jesus being pierced. Israel, and the whole world, will mourn for not having accepted the Messiah the first time He came.

After Jesus ascended into heaven, the angels declared to the apostles, “‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:11). Zechariah 14:4 identifies the location of the second coming as the Mount of Olives. Matthew 24:30 declares, “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.” Titus 2:13 describes the second coming as a “glorious appearing.”

Read more: www.gotquestions.org...

Well if in the future someone does a excavation in a small town and finds out there was no church there as claimed by a letter one would have to ask the question , what kind of church are you referring to .If its a standard Catholic Church you might expect a steeple and some stained glass windows but if it was a house church would you expect to find such evidence ? a reply to: windword

a reply to: FlyersFan

God never said "rape the virgins", He said keep them for yourselves. Given the level of morality of the 10 Commandments and the Levitical Law, it is safe to assume that God intended for those girls to be assimilated into the Israelite culture. They did not become sex slaves.

Murder and capital punishment are two very different things. Moses executed Law breakers according to God's will.

Correct me if Im wrong, but didnt Moses and Elijah both stand next to Jesus at His transfiguration? It seems that Jesus was willing to associate themselves with these sinners.

a reply to: ArtemisE

OR there is a mixture of good and evil that is written by the prophets, which is the view I take, as the letter, the written word is as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When people bring back what they've "seen" in the heavenlies they cannot translate perfectly, and their own biases will enter.

The fact is Jesus quoted the OT, well at least that is what we have recorded in the material at hand. As far as I know the gnostic scriptures and other "non-canon" also have many OT quotes also. So everything we have recorded about Jesus has him quoting the OT. (correct me if I'm wrong about the gnostic/non-canon).

How do we deal with all this quoting? These are what seem to be put forth so far.
1. Say that all of those times he quoted the OT, it was a later redaction, or some other conspiracy
2. Say that he agrees with 100% of the "insert your canon here"
3. Its all a bunch of crap

We have to deal with the fact that he did repeatedly quote scripture, which the OT was what there was for scripture at the time. IMO, he did use the OT and many other sources of teachings to try and show people what the kingdom is like.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Well if in the future someone does a excavation in a small town and finds out there was no church there as claimed by a letter one would have to ask the question , what kind of church are you referring to .If its a standard Catholic Church you might expect a steeple and some stained glass windows but if it was a house church would you expect to find such evidence ? a reply to: windword

No, we're not talking a church with a steeple or stained glass. We're talking about the (non-existent) synagogue that Jesus supposedly visited in Nazareth, as per the scripture that you quoted. There was no synagogue in Nazareth during the time of Jesus. Therefore, the scripture is wrong.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sorry but that doesn't cut it for me. At least not in regards to the issue at hand, which is the great and terrible day of the Lord. Yes there may be more comings, though IMO you will be waiting forever if you think a flesh and blood Jesus is coming back, but thats a whole other discussion.

The way Jesus read his bible was VERY different from the way that most christians read their bibles, and the way that the Jews also read theirs. A vengeful, sacrifice wanting god is nothing more than the imagination of man. Setting up the image of the beast (the beast is you, and me, in Adam) in the holy of Holies, in (between your) temple(s).

Making god in your own image.

When the return happens he is not coming back to fix your life he is coming to take it in exchange for a new life. I think it may help to understand what we view is wrong with what has happened by looking at the way we treat the animal kingdom and imagine what they would view our actions as. then apply that to what we view GOD'S actions to be cruel. Most have no problem in understanding our current techniques on animals. Perhaps if we had a way to be an animal and remember what it is like then we might change our ways. When we reach a point of stagnation in our train of thought it is helpful too get another perspective however adversity and having something to hate and overcome seems to drive all aspects of our being. Without it i wonder what our goals would be.

Now imagine that your family has been murdered and the killer has died and been reborn into your new wifes womb. How far would you go if somehow you found out years later that your other children are in danger and anyone else for that matter. Would you go as far as castration in order to keep him from spreading offspring? Would you murder him/her outright? Would you try to be the best parent you could be and change his ways? what if this happened again would you resort to the first ways i mentioned? Really what would you do if you knew beyond any doubt that this person wants everyone dead?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
God never said "rape the virgins", He said keep them for yourselves.

Comeon ... he tells the soldiers to kill everyone except the tween/teen girls and 'keep them for yourselves'. OF COURSE the soldiers were taking sex slaves. There was nothing else that it possibly could have been.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Well if in the future someone does a excavation in a small town and finds out there was no church there as claimed by a letter one would have to ask the question , what kind of church are you referring to .If its a standard Catholic Church you might expect a steeple and some stained glass windows but if it was a house church would you expect to find such evidence ? a reply to: windword

No, we're not talking a church with a steeple or stained glass. We're talking about the (non-existent) synagogue that Jesus supposedly visited in Nazareth, as per the scripture that you quoted. There was no synagogue in Nazareth during the time of Jesus. Therefore, the scripture is wrong.

It is not proof positive that scripture is wrong. Perhaps they used to time travel or some other thing that is not known.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Moses executed Law breakers according to God's will.

And there's the point. God's Will supposedly was to have family members mass murder other family members. That's what Moses claimed. But in the New Testament, Jesus was forgiving and merciful and took his time with sinners to convert them and love them. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm thinking Moses was losing control over the group so he claimed a vision and had the people do his killing for him. That took care of the 'problem people' while at the same time, initiating the killers in a blood oath that couldn't be backtracked on.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

John 8
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus calls the Pharisee's father the devil and a liar.

John 8
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

He then names Abraham as their father a few short verses later. There is no twisting of context here, Jesus calls the Pharisee's father the devil, then a few short minutes later (in real time) he calls their father Abraham. Jesus called Abraham the devil, there are no two ways about it. If Abraham is the devil, what does that say about the god he worshiped?

In Jesus' day the religious authorities had all the power by telling lies. If in Jesus' day this was the case and Abraham was the devil as Jesus says then why wouldn't he (the devil) have been glad that day had come? The devil loves to gain power through lies and coercion.