It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is God Evil???

page: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

So all the "false messiahs" in judausm started with Jesus?!?! Lol?!?!

When you google i"false messiahs"it comes up as messiah claimants.. with Jesus being the earliest one. Lol...

Me thinks you are twisting things to fit your narrative..

I might not have specified, but I was referring to the ACTUAL VERIFIED messiahs the Jews still recognize as messiahs..

Not all the ones the jews considered fake, of which Jesus was the earliest example..




posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Christians through revisionist history have assigned all of those beliefs to Judaism to lend itself credibility .


Carefully crafted and subsumed by the Old Roman Empire into Christianity



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic

In the 1800s...


Not when you were in high school as you claimed to remember..

Unless your 150 years old.

I already said this but you seem to ignore it:

What I meant with "remember" wasn't referring to actually being alive back then, but remembering that this was how things happened in the past from my studies (of history and the reliability of the bible).

No mention of high school, already responded to your argument about age ahead of you making that argument. Should I have said personal study of history? Which includes what historians claimed in the past that has now been changed, corrected, revised because of the evidence discovered that the bible had it right all along, and historians critical of the bible had it wrong, as usual as well; track record is what I was discussing, the track record of people who argue like you do vs the track record of the bible. You have to look at history when one is trying to determin a track record of reliability, getting things right. Are you willing to acknowledge that on this point (whether or not the Hittites were a fictituous/mythological civilization or a real historical civilization) the bible got it right and the bible critics (by arguing the Hittites were a myth or fictituous) got it wrong (up until the archeological discoveries in the 19th century)?

Because we have absolutely found a record of a global flood that happened 10,000 years ago that required 5 times the amount of water on the planet.. oh no we haven't...

...[etc.]

I described that pattern of behaviour as such:

...while constantly under criticism when the evidence hasn't been discovered yet, then when the evidence is discovered for something it says, the critics quickly pretend they never got it wrong and move on to the next piece of criticism for which the evidence hasn't been discovered yet or is less convincing.

How about before moving on to your next points of criticism against the bible you acknowledge something about the Hittites first. Did the bible get it right that this was a real civilization?

Every single actual testable claim the Bible makes has not only been debunked.. it is laughable..

So is the bible's claim about the Hittites being a real civilization "laughable"? Has it been debunked or have the critics been debunked and are they making laughable unjustified assumptions just because the bible is the only historical documentation for something that hadn't been discovered and corroborated yet by archeologists and they prefer to dismiss the bible as a reliable historical source out of hand? Just like you prefer.

I can't explain away the 95-98% or more sulfur content in the samples analyzed in the video below with "geological activity" or "volcanic eruption". Perhaps you wanna have a shot at explaining the findings below as being caused by natural processes.

edit on 6-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic

You didn't get that from the Jewish encyclopedia did you??

“From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple [in 70 C.E.] a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 251)

When the source is listed that accurately by a group of people that are under as much criticism and scrutiny as the bible is, it's a safe bet that the statement can be found exactly there on page 251 (minus the stuff in between brackets). Cause if it isn't, those whose behavioural pattern is described at Luke 6:7 will be all over it.

Luke 6:7

The scribes and the Pharisees were now watching Jesus closely to see whether he would cure on the Sabbath, in order to find some way to accuse him.

Looking for something to use against him, looking intenty, closely, under heavy scrutiny. Putting in a lot of effort to find something against him, or a way to fabricate something against him.
edit on 6-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic
I might not have specified, but I was referring to the ACTUAL VERIFIED messiahs the Jews still recognize as messiahs..

Not all the ones the jews considered fake, of which Jesus was the earliest example..

So just another red herring then in response to me talking about the false messiahs listed in The Jewish Encyclopedia just like I was talking about whether or not the Hittites were a myth or a real historical civilization and not how big their territory was. As per the claims of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in past editions (using the word "fictituous", which contradicts the bible and is therefore critical of the bible, the hidden argument is that the bible is a book of myths by making such claims and publishing them in a source that is so well respected as supposedly being reliable by "this system of things") vs the bible. Nice distraction from that point by bringing up some new criticism. The earlier erronuous unreliable claim of "fictituous" doesn't go away by changing the criticism.

Romans 12:2

And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

But since I have some time for red herrings and the twist in the criticism that points to what is called the "Hittite empire" was easily identified:

...
From the foregoing it can be seen that any supposed identification of the Hittites of the Bible with the “Hittite Empire” that had as its capital city Hattushash is merely conjecture and has not been proved.

Source: Hittites: Insight, Volume 1
The foregoing that I skipped contains all the evidence and conclusions from the historians and the research that they conducted into this topic. You'll have to click the link if you care about the truth concerning this matter and your argument about the "Hittite Empire" whereas I said either "Hittites" or "the Hittite civilization" with some further clarifications that I was referring to the Hittites mentioned in the bible and the Hittites that were listed as being "fictituous" by the Encyclopaedia Britannica in previous editions (before the archeological discoveries in the 19th century). Oh, and just to be clear, this was just one example of a pattern of human scholars getting things wrong about history and being proven wrong and the bible being proven right time and time again in the last 2000 years give or take a few thousand if you want to look back further into human thinking and teaching vs that of God, God's word, the bible (beneficial teaching, the truth about our history, current events and future events) and establish a track record who gets it right more often and how current claims of historians that are critical of the bible should be viewed even when little or no extrabiblical evidence is available for now.
Here are some more:
The BIBLE - Accurate History, Reliable Prophecy
edit on 6-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Since it seems I've drifted a bit off the topic of my initial response to you because of explaining some of the reasons for my trust in the bible as a reliable source for history...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

at no time did Jews in the past or present think ...that Jesus met the criteria of a messiah..

Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia

Many adherents of Messianic Judaism are ethnically Jewish[25]...
Messianic Judaism is a syncretic movement that combines Christianity—most importantly, the Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah—...

They don't stop being Jews or ethnically Jewish by changing their beliefs. But as I already mentioned before, I heard your lame argument regarding this that indicates that they are no longer counted as Jews or Jewish in your book loud and clear, no need to repeat it. You use the same argument for all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures who were all Jewish as well as the Hebrew Scriptures when asking for "Jewish sources" or "sites" while brushing the bible aside. Or any Jew that changes his or her mind regarding the Messiah and Jesus (and giving up their adherence to the teachings of judaism regarding Jesus not being the Messiah).

So only Jews that don't think that Jesus met the criteria count as "Jews in the past or present". What a nice self-fulfilling pointless claim to make. Do you acknowledge that Jesus like all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures were jews by birth, otherwise described as ethnically Jewish, therefore are Jewish sources and can also be counted as part of "Jews in the past or present"? Regardless of their opinion about or adherence to the teachings of the ones described at Jeremiah 23.

Do you acknowledge that "Messiah" means "anointed one" not "freed the Jews from captivity" as you claimed?


originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Still reading but can I have a link please.

Whenever I'm inserting content from an external source and I'm not linking the source (again), I'm using the source that I linked in my first response to you on page 13, which in turn gives its own sources. Where you see ... I skipped something on page 13. So when I'm talking about coming back to something I skipped, that's what I'm referring to. In this case it was the subsection "False messiahs." that I skipped before but is still relevant to things you've said about it. In particular the distracting claim involving the terminology: "central to" which I've already said something about before. The word "downplay" is something one can think about when one reads what I said about it earlier.
edit on 6-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

As much as you and I disagree on a few things, it's a Stella argument you have put up

Don't think it will have any value to JCs capacity to understand though

Hey Josh, what religion do you subscribe to, prepared to say?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: whereislogic

As much as you and I disagree on a few things, it's a Stella argument you have put up

Don't think it will have any value to JCs capacity to understand though

Hey Josh, what religion do you subscribe to, prepared to say?


The problem with what you're saying is that you are commending someone else's argument that is further pushed by 'evidence' and 'resources' that only further provide whereislogic with confirmation bias. So, his confirmation biased argument is causing you, in turn, to find some additional confirmation bias.

Of course JC will not find value in it because you and whereislogic are arguing from a place of incomplete and nonsensical conjecture. The problem with religion is that anything outside of it that is scientifically verifiable challenges the validity of religion. And in doing so, faithers are truly the ones that lack the "capacity to understand", as you have put it.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

Yeah and your opinion is valid to me because?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

Yeah and your opinion is valid to me because?

Lol. I honestly wasn't stating it to try and get you to weigh it against what you personally find valid. From an outside perspective, this was just something noticeable to the naked eye unblinded by the silliness of religion.

Then again, I wasn't expecting much more from you considering your last reply was a one-worded 'Meh'.




posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I wasn't going to give you any more, well done for realising that
Too clever by half

For some reason this forum bring out the worst in people
Please,stop and think, why are you really here, why do you come to this forum.
What did you come here to offer

Can you answer that sincerely?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I did not know..

We haven't been name calling or such.. I bet this is prob the mildest controversial thread going right now lol.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Messianic Jews are not considered religion Jews..


As multiple quotes from actual Jewish sites have confirmed.

If you believe Satan beat god and took over heaven, but still consider yourself a Christian.. you are the only one who still considers you a Christian..

Obviously a genetic askiani jew doesn't get a DNA change when they become a Christian.

I think you are conflating genetic Jews with the Jewish religion, and they are not the same thing. They are totally different criteria.


Messiah sure messiah is a synonym for "anointed one" which just means regular old king, because kings are announced with oil.. the definition of what criteria make a Jewish messiah absolutely includes freeing the Jews from captivity (or oppression)..

I assume your going to conflate annointedcone with the divine, but the Jews didn't think so.


You mean the Christian conspiracy source telling Jews what they actually believe..

If you have posted a link to an actual Jewish site I have missed it.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It isn't even a good argument..

"These Christian sites say Jews really believed in stuff no Jewish site agrees with.."

That isn't a good point..

Both of you keep posting stuff from Christian sites as proof of what Jews believe.

I keep posting stuff from Jewish sites to prove what Jews believe..


Where is this alleged stellar argument in that??



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I just went back and clicked through a lot of your links and every one lead to a Christian theology site..


Can you find just one thing on a Jewish site that agrees??



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Your taking the messianic Jewish opinion.. which is a totally separate religion and is not considered Judaism by any Jews..

You continue to change the topics of each post without addressing the previous post. That is not debate that is simply being opinionated.

In the first place you do not seem to know what a Jew is. That same problem is in Judaism of all denominations. The Orthodox Jews believe differently than do the Reformed or Conservative or Messianic Jews. Yes I typed that correctly. Messianic Jews are every bit Jewish as Orthodox Jews.

You continually write Jew in your perspective but lets look at the days of Jesus when they had the very same problem as you have today. They did not know what a Jew was. The Sadducees were in power at this time of Jesus and they ran the whole Jewish thing at that time. The Pharisees were altogether different from the Saducees in that the Pharisees believed in angels and an after life in the bundle of life. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife nor angels but believed that what you see here is all there is to it.

Here you see that someone was not of the Judaic faith but which one? Sadducees or Pharisees? Was it the guys in power that get to say what is what?

Which ones were Jews??? Can you tell me?? You are pulling that same scam that is over two thousand years old. Now tell me another thing. Was Moses a Jew or a Hebrew?? Or was he both a Jew and a Hebrew?? Was Isaiah a Jew? Was Abraham a Jew?

If Jewish Christians are not Jews then what is the standard of being a Jew? How can you say that rabbinic Judaism of today is the true Jew when I just showed you that all four sects of Jews today have Torah and their own rabbis but believe totally different liturgy. Give me the right answer and then we can talk but so far all you have presented is vague opinions.

Who wrote the Jewish time line dictionary? Who wrote the Jewish NT bible?? Was it not David Stern and what is David Stern?? A Jew?? You really do not understand what a Jew was in the days of Jesus and you do not understand what a Jew is today. The Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed and Messianic Jews of today will all have a bond in Torah but does having the same bond in Torah make all of them Jews?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Dude If we are considering anyone believes anything even remotely related to an established religion , part of that religion. Then there are no lines at all.

Period if you go to any Jewish site by Jews, for Jews. They will back everything I have said.

If you go to a Christian site they will back what y'all are saying..

The Jewish religion has had an established cannon for millinia. They know what they believe.

Y'all are (an I say y'all because I'm talking to 3 people and the conversations blurt) using Christian sites, who's whole job is to validate Christianity to inform you of Jewish dogma.


If you actually read the mainstream normal established Jewish cannon that has been the same for over a thousand years. It doesn't match the Christian story.. and it really should...

Christians have rewritten Jewish dogma in popular culture and their own heads to lend credibility to Jesus.

If you go to any rabbi or your local synagogue and ask them if they are expecting gods done to show up. They will say no.

If you ask them If the messiah prophecy is the most important part of judaism they will say no...

If you ask them what messiahs did exist they will start the list with Cyrus the great of Persia.

If you ask them if the messiah is predicted to be a human military and political leader he will say yes.

Then he can give you a very specific list of accomplishments required Robb's a messiah that do not include dying.

(That last part was half @$$ to restate my original assertions I had made so they don't get lost in the pages of conversation...



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Oh and it was genetic Jews who had converted to Christianity who made those things I am assuming.

I think your conflating generic askiana (or whatever) Jews with the dogma of the Jewish religion.

I have ONLY been talking about the Jewish religion and dogma.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

It isn't even a good argument..

"These Christian sites say Jews really believed in stuff no Jewish site agrees with.."

That isn't a good point..

Both of you keep posting stuff from Christian sites as proof of what Jews believe.

I keep posting stuff from Jewish sites to prove what Jews believe..


Where is this alleged stellar argument in that??


Was Jesus a Jew



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


If you actually read the mainstream normal established Jewish cannon that has been the same for over a thousand years. It doesn't match the Christian story.. and it really should...

There is your problem Dude.

You say the - "normal established Jewish cannon that has been the same for over a thousand years. It doesn't match the Christian story.. and it really should."

Actually it does. I have the normal established Jewish canon which is from 90ce and it matches the KJV bible completely. What else do you not understand Dude.






edit on 6-7-2017 by Seede because: deleted reference material not neede4d.

edit on 6-7-2017 by Seede because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join