Jews do not accept Jesus because he did not fulfill all messianic prophecy. Here is a Revelation!

a reply to: Akragon

I believe in your Ancient Aliens too bro, the Bible calls them fallen angels.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

a reply to: whereislogic

Another one that conflates spirits and souls..

I didn’t conflate the two, I wrote “spirit/soul” because those are the two parts of the three-part human nature that departs the body when it perishes.

In this notion of a "three-part human nature" I can see Plato's influence again (just like with the doctrine of the Trinity). Although his version was a little different. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”​—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

In the OT God says He will give man a new spirit and put His Holy Spirit inside them in Ezekiel 36:26-27:

”A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

As mentioned before, the Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma, often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit.​—Ex 35:21; Ps 104:29; Mt 12:43; Lu 11:13. At Ezekiel 36:26-27 the 3rd meaning is used, as can be clearly seen from the rest of the sentences speaking about that very subject.

It was also Jesus’ teaching. See His story about the rich man and Lazarus in Hades.

I'm quite familiar with Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus. Since you called it a "story" (the synonym for narrative) have you considered the following?

The Rich Man and Lazarus—Parable or Narrative?

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm quite familiar with Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus. Since you called it a "story" (the synonym for narrative) have you considered the following?

It was not a parable for two key reasons: in parables Jesus never uses proper names of people. The second reason is Jesus quotes Abraham and says “And Abraham said..”. If Abraham never uttered those words to the rich man then Jesus lied.

Edit: Dude, you linked me to a JW website, that’s a cult.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

As the article mentions:

... The mere fact that names are given cannot be used as an argument against its being an illustration, in view of all the evidence that proves that to take it literally is to outrage reason and common sense and to contradict the rest of God’s Word.

ABSURDITIES

...

Not only that, but we read that Lazarus was carried off to Abraham’s bosom. Are all those gaining salvation reclining on Abraham’s bosom? If we grant that this expression is a figure of speech, why insist that what befell the rich man be taken literally? It simply does not make sense to take one part of the account literally and another parallel part figuratively.

Further note that this is the only place in the Scriptures where consciousness and suffering are associated with Hades. Nor will it do to claim that before Jesus’ death Hades had two compartments, one for the good and the other for the wicked, and that after he died for man’s sin then the good went to heaven, for at the time Jesus spoke this illustration he had not yet died. That Hades is used figuratively is apparent from Revelation 6:8, 9, where Hades is shown as riding horseback, and also at Revelation 20:14, where Hades is shown—not as being the lake of fire—but as being itself cast into the lake of fire.

UNSCRIPTURAL

Making Jesus’ words regarding the rich man and Lazarus literal becomes even more untenable when compared with what the rest of God’s Word has to say regarding the penalty of sin and the condition of the dead. Adam was not warned of eternal torment, and upon sinning was simply and plainly told: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Gen. 3:19; 2:17, NW) Nor did Jehovah God say, “Your body will return to the dust”; no, but YOU, Adam, will do so. There is no mistaking the plain testimony of the Scriptures: “The wages sin pays is death.”—Rom. 6:23, NW.

And what is death, the state or condition of the dead—conscious suffering or conscious bliss? No! Man dies as the beast; the dead know not anything; there is no consciousness in Sheol (Hebrew equivalent for Hades). Man’s “breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” David prayed for God to spare his life lest “I go hence, and be [yes, exist] no more.” Peter likened the wicked to brute beasts that perish. Brute beasts are not tormented after death.—Ps. 146:4; 39:13; Eccl. 3:19-21; 9:5, 10; 2 Pet. 2:12, NW.

Besides, are we not assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust? Why a resurrection if at death man receives his eternal reward? (Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29, NW) When the brother of Mary and Martha, Jesus’ friend Lazarus, died, did Jesus comfort those women by assuring them that Lazarus was not dead? No, but with the assurance that he would rise from the dead. His sisters knew that he would “rise in the resurrection on the last day.” And when Jesus called him forth, did he call Lazarus down from Abraham’s bosom, from limbo or from a burning hell? No, but from the grave. Incidentally, had Lazarus been conscious in any such place we may be certain he would have told all his friends about the remarkable experience he had, for he had been dead four days. His very silence on this point is strong circumstantial evidence that he was unconscious.—John 11:22-44, NW.

Besides, how could we account for Abraham’s being in heaven in view of Jesus’ words: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man”? And did not Peter on the day of Pentecost point out to his listeners that David “both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. Actually David did not ascend to the heavens”? (John 3:13; Acts 2:29, 34, NW) None of God’s servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the coming of Christ Jesus; that is why his apostles even after his resurrection were looking to an earthly kingdom.—Ps. 45:16; Acts 1:6-8.

Returning to the illustration: it next tells us of the rich man’s calling “Father Abraham” to send Lazarus to give him relief by a drop of water on the tip of his finger, upon which Abraham reminds him of the good things he enjoyed in his lifetime as compared with what Lazarus had; besides, there is a great chasm between, which makes it impossible for anyone to cross from one place to the other. The rich man then requests that Lazarus be sent to warn his five brothers, but he is told that they have Moses and the Prophets and that if they would not listen to these they would not listen to one raised from the dead.—Luke 16:24-31, NW.

According to the Scriptures heaven and Hades (Sheol) are at opposite extremes. (Ps. 139:8; Luke 10:15) Could we imagine those in one place seeing those in the other and carrying on a conversation? And were the rich man in a burning hell would he ask for just a drop of water to cool his tongue? How much relief would that bring? Would it last to reach him? Could anyone get anywhere near a burning hell with just a drop of water? Obviously this is a figure of speech even as is Abraham’s bosom, yes, and as are all the rest of Jesus’ words on that occasion.

MEANING OF THE ILLUSTRATION

...

The "cult" remark is typical, but based on a false propagandistic description for nefarious purposes. Don't (or try not to) be so eager to accept it as the truth of the matter because it happens to tickle your ears.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

...

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

For example, in recent years a powerful antisect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, created the image of an enemy, and reinforced existing prejudices against religious minorities. Often, “sect” becomes a catchword. “‘Sect’ is another word for ‘heretic,’” wrote German Professor Martin Kriele in 1993, “and a heretic today in Germany, as in former times, is [condemned to extermination]—if not by fire . . . , then by character assassination, isolation and economic destruction.”

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis notes that “bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, . . . sent [people] to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen.”

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

“Sect” is a synonym for “cult”.

a reply to: whereislogic

I’m not getting into a new debate about JWs. See Dr. Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults” book for a reply to that.

And can you show an example where Jesus uses proper names in any other parable? To make the argument that the point is absurd you need to show examples where it’s not true or erroneous. The article still doesn’t address the second point that Jesus quotes Abraham. If Abraham did not say the words that Jesus says he said then Jesus lied.

a reply to: whereislogic

I’m not getting into a new debate about JWs. See Dr. Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults” book for a reply to that.

And can you show an example where Jesus uses proper names in any other parable? To make the argument that the point is absurd you need to show examples where it’s not true or erroneous. The article still doesn’t address the second point that Jesus quotes Abraham. If Abraham did not say the words that Jesus says he said then Jesus lied.

Read the gospel of thomas. I think many of you who are not set in various ways will be happy with the read. Also, JWs won't even come to my door because I offer them tea and food and am happy to talk about religion. I used to think that's what they wanted. A bit naive, I suppose.

Mormons housed me for nearly a month and resisted payment. They're good folks. Just... Set in they're ways. To each their own.

Theology has always interested me, there's so much to learn. It's better than some fiction book.

And yes, Jesus referred to John, Peter, Judas, Thomas, and many proper names. Depends on which bible, but it's there. A lot of reading. I don't want to do it.

Gospel of Thomas. Good read.

a reply to: sine.nomine

You might want to read the gospels...

Thomas aligns quite well with them in many cases

a reply to: sine.nomine

And yes, Jesus referred to John, Peter, Judas, Thomas, and many proper names.

Seems you misread my post. I never said Jesus never referred to anyone by their proper name. I said Jesus never uses proper names in any parable in scripture.

People cannot claim the story about Lazarus and the rich man is a parable when it doesn’t match the pattern of any of the other parables. Even the writers of the gospel account where it is written do not identify it as a parable as they do with the parables.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

a reply to: sine.nomine

And yes, Jesus referred to John, Peter, Judas, Thomas, and many proper names.

Seems you misread my post. I never said Jesus never referred to anyone by their proper name. I said Jesus never uses proper names in any parable in scripture.

People cannot claim the story about Lazarus and the rich man is a parable when it doesn’t match the pattern of any of the other parables. Even the writers of the gospel account where it is written do not identify it as a parable as they do with the parables.

Fair enough. Yes, I misread. And interesting point. I'd never thought about it that way. But isn't the underlying point of a parable to make an ambiguous point about a situation? Very few people regard parables as actual fact. And aren't the stories of others just parables in the end? The Catholic bible was written by a bunch of people. There's no question to that.

Man, I can tell you a christload of excellent stories. They're based in fact, but never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Well, Jesus said He spoke in parables when the Pharisees and Jewish leaders were present to hide kingdom truths, not to help illustrate them.

See Matthew 13:10-11 when His disciples came and asked why He spoke to the Pharisees in parables:

”Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.”

Jesus used parable to conceal kingdom truths, not to reveal or explain them.

And I don’t use a Catholic Bible, they have added books to their Bibles and they also are based upon the Greek manuscripts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt from the Gnostics. The early church writers condemned the Gnostics for shortening scriptures, I.E. deleting things that didn’t agree with their Gnostic/Greek doctrines. Irenaeus specifically called them out for shortening the Scriptures in 156 AD, “Against Heresies”.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: whereislogic
And can you show an example where Jesus uses proper names in any other parable?

Is that necessary when we have the plain statement that “without an illustration he would not speak to them”? (Matt. 13:34, NW) “Them” = “the crowds” (see start of the verse), likewise at Matthew 13:10, 11 “them” = “the crowd” (see verse 1) not “the Pharisees” as you put it the 2nd time in your comment to sine.nomine. First you put it differently by saying “when the Pharisees and Jewish leaders were present” but that quickly became “when His disciples came and asked why He spoke to the Pharisees in parables”, no, they asked him why he spoke to “them by the use of illustrations”. And “them” is “the crowd(s)”, as is summed up in verse 34: “All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them.”

To make the argument that the point is absurd you need to show examples where it’s not true or erroneous.

The argument from the article was:

The mere fact that names are given cannot be used as an argument against its being an illustration, in view of all the evidence that proves that to take it literally is to outrage reason and common sense and to contradict the rest of God’s Word.

Which was already summarized prior to that and then elaborated on in the rest of the article. You did not say anything about the examples given as to how it defies reason and common sense and in what ways it contradicts the rest of God's Word.

The article still doesn’t address the second point that Jesus quotes Abraham. If Abraham did not say the words that Jesus says he said then Jesus lied.

Probably because it's a moot point that ties in to the other point of taking it literal because names are mentioned (and probably in no small part, because you want to see that as a reason or justification for taking it literal, or some kind of grammar rule or something, as if that automatically means it is literal and the one named literally said that, but it doesn't follow, i.e. it's a non sequitur in fancy Latin, a term used for a specific logical fallacy). There is no law or rule against using names in illustrations/parables. But I guess it allows some people to ignore, distract from or talk past the issues with taking it literal (including Abraham and what he says), i.e. “the evidence that proves that to take it literally is to outrage reason and common sense and to contradict the rest of God’s Word.” Especially the evidence concerning how it contradicts the rest of God's Word, which is why I didn't skip anything from the paragraph entitled “UNSCRIPTURAL”. I recommend not skipping it either when thinking about this subject or cycling through the standard set of arguments or reasonings you have been taught by repetition ad nauseam (as they do in theology classes and seminars for example, or via websites, books, podcasts, videos, DVD's, etc.).

Concerning Luke 16:19-31 (the part about the rich man and Lazarus), The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible, as explained in detail. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself.

...

For Jesus’ illustration of the rich man and Lazarus, did he draw on rabbinic beliefs concerning the dead?

Teachers and students of comparative religion have in some cases suggested that in giving this illustration, Jesus Christ drew upon the ancient rabbinic concept and teaching regarding the underworld. Josephus furnishes the following information regarding the then-current view of the Pharisees in this regard: “They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have led lives of virtue or vice: eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life.” (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 14 [i, 3]) However, Jesus flatly rejected false teachings, including those of the Pharisees. (Mt 23) Hence, it would have been inconsistent for him to frame his illustration of the rich man and Lazarus according to the outlines of the false rabbinic concept of the underworld. Consequently, it must be concluded that Jesus had in mind the fulfillment of the illustration and framed its details and movement in harmony with the facts of the fulfillment rather than according to any unscriptural teaching.

The context and the wording of the story show clearly that it is a parable and not an actual historical account. Poverty is not being extolled, nor are riches being condemned. Rather, conduct, final rewards, and a reversal in the spiritual status, or condition, of those represented by Lazarus and by the rich man are evidently indicated. The fact that the rich man’s brothers rejected Moses and the prophets also shows that the illustration had a deeper meaning and purpose than that of contrasting poverty and the possession of riches.

Source: Lazarus (Insight on the Scriptures)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: NOTurTypical
...
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. ...

Dr. Walter Martin is a prime example of one of those teachers who do their best to tickle the ears of their potential audience, telling them what they want to hear. He also makes extensive use of the propaganda technique described there as questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts, especially those facts related to what the Bible actually says and teaches* regarding the theological subjects or Christendom's doctrines of concern (such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of an immaterial immortal soul, a literal hell burning with literal fire, etc.). *: in particular there where the Bible contradicts Christendom's doctrines.

Simply because he didn't save Israel, just died on a cross and didn't over throw Caesar, leaving the Jews in the paws of the Roman Empire.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yes or No, do JWs teach that Jesus is “a god”, in other words that YHWH created Jesus as a lesser god?

God gave the prophet Mohammed two important messenges, that is why, Mohammed is accurately described, as the messenger of Alla, and the 2 most important messages, is there is only 1 God, and that Jesus is his Prophet. From there, you go read about the Prophet Jesus, in the Bible, of the Jews, the Old and the New Testament, the Catholic Bible, 2 covenants joined, with blood and water, over the Ark, creating a seal, in the cave of Jericho, where the ark was found and the entrance to my home, the Garden of Eden, guarded by my personal guardian ArcAngel, St. Uriel, when his blood 🩸 and water 💦 spilled from his heart, that was pierced by the Centurian to make sure he was dead, that no one can break but God, the 3rd and everlasting covenant that was sealed after the second day, which is the 3rd day in Heaven but 2000 years plus on earth is the end of the second day and the beginning of the 3rd day, which is the prophesy of Jesus, that on the 3rd day he will rise again, and he will come again in Glory from Heaven on the clouds. So again, God gave Satan 2 days, ie 2000 years, since the birth of Christ, and on the 3rd day, Jesus was born in 6 bc, making 1994 the beginning of the third day.

It has been exactly 2027 years since the birth of Christ, and at Christmas it will be his 28th birthday on earth, for even he had to be reborn in Christ, for he is human, and he was born in 1994, for 1,000 years for God is one day, and his prophesy says that on the 3rd he will rise again, he rose from the dead, but he also said he will come back from Heaven, he came down from Heaven one way, so logic dictates, to fulfill his own prophesy, he has to be born again the same way, this time I believe The Father assumed human form and had him naturally, or maybe Mary had him on earth, or the Father found a new woman. He will literally be born again in Christ, ie , he will be Catholic, baptized by the very church he started, and he will know the full truth, very early on in age, if not instantly and naturally, for he is the Truth, the life and the way, people think his second coming will be Revelations, and he will come from Heaven, and it is True.

But people don’t stop to think how he will come back as human, if he went to Heaven and was transfigured and died, his human body died, so he has to be reborn again to come to earth from Heaven like he did the first time, that’s why the tomb was empty, they, the Angels, took his dead body away, and he went to Sheol, for 3 days to empty hell for new arrivals. That’s why King Leonidas is bound to my soul, he was released by Christ as well as every one who died before he went there, then they saw him for the first time on the road and didn’t recognize him, for he was like an Angel, and can change appearances to humans and each other, I guess, so how would Christ Get from Heaven to be human again, he literally has to be born again in Christ, in himself to be human again, and then come from Heaven, but he had to wait till the third day, which is exactly 2,000 years, for 1 day in Heaven is 1,000 years on earth, so the earliest he could arrive is exactly after 2,000 years, the beginning of the 3rd which occurred in 1994, making Jesus 27, the perfect age, the prime of his life, nobody would believe a 3 year old kid who’s name is Sean Murphy, saying he’s Jesus, they will lock him up, or kill him, or beat him up for lying, but this newborn Jesus, born knowing the full truth being baptized in the Holy Catholic Church, in himself, but now, a man, and you will see him come from Heaven, with his Army, in full Glory, that is waiting for him, only God knows the day and the hour. Merry Christmas 🎄 Margot. Happy 28th Jesus. Hope to see you soon. Love you Sean, love ❤️ You Margot. Amen.