is christianity a hoax?

Originally posted by spamandham

The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant.

Four prophets dispute that statement:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jeremiah 31:31)

For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
(Isaiah 61:8)

And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:
(Ezekiel 16:62)

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(Daniel 9:27)


In regard to Edom/Esau/Ishmael--Genesis chapter 36 makes it clear both 'who' and 'where'.
'Idumea' may be a forgotten name, but the place was Palestine, and remains so to this day. The disputes of the present time are rooted in the contention which exists between the descendants of Abraham's older son Ishmael and grandson Esau on one side, and his younger son Isaac and grandson Jacob on the other side--due to the fact that two clans claim right to that one piece of land--one side by deeded right (since forfeited) and the other by 'squatter's' rights. The truth is that neither side has legitimate claim according to God--that land is His--and the strife will continue indefinitely because neither side is able to see that it is 'no-man's land' according to His Will for the present time. UN charters and endless attempts at 'peace in the middle east' mean nothing to God--these things will not sway His determination--they are follies created by man in vain.

Neither side is wrong--nor is either side in the right. The mistake of all involved and observing is of believing that their actions and desires will have any bearing on the ultimate outcome.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham

The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant.

Four prophets dispute that statement:

You are correct. I didn't phrase what I was trying to say well.

I was referring to the new and everlasting covenant Jesus spoke of, not a future covenant with the nation of Israel.

Originally posted by queenannie38
In regard to Edom/Esau/Ishmael--Genesis chapter 36 makes it clear both 'who' and 'where'.
'Idumea' may be a forgotten name, but the place was Palestine, and remains so to this day.

Agreed. It is an area that included at least some part of present day Palestine. But it is not "Islam", nor is it the entire middle east.

Originally posted by queenannie38
The disputes of the present time are rooted in the contention which exists between the descendants of Abraham's older son Ishmael and grandson Esau on one side, and his younger son Isaac and grandson Jacob on the other side

Not exactly. The present day disputes are rooted in the break up of the Ottoman empire and the reconstitution of the nation of Israel in an area where others laid claim to it for thousands of years. The problems in the Middle East today are a modern invention. Imagine the UN deciding to turn Texas into a Nordic homeland because Eric the Red had made a claim to the land 1000 years ago. Don't you suppose that would cause some problems that otherwise would not exist?

Originally posted by spamandham

Not exactly. The present day disputes are rooted in the break up of the Ottoman empire and the reconstitution of the nation of Israel in an area where others laid claim to it for thousands of years. The problems in the Middle East today are a modern invention. Imagine the UN deciding to turn Texas into a Nordic homeland because Eric the Red had made a claim to the land 1000 years ago. Don't you suppose that would cause some problems that otherwise would not exist?

I guess it's my turn to say I didn't express myself well--this that you said I understand, and is what I tried to express from a different angle.

I said 'rooted' in--which means the source is ancient--long long ago God gave the children of Israel a deed that was conditional on a covenant--which they defaulted on and in the time (centuries) between then and 1948, others made that place their home. I read somewhere in the foggy past that, all told, Israel only spent a very short actual time there in an independent, self-governed state of occupation. Maybe something like around 200 years? I'm really not sure of the exact amount, but I realized that it was surprisingly brief, presented that way. And to say that the UN's decision is an outworking of God's plan per the words of the prophets is grasping at straws.

Because when God says so, no one will be expressing their disagreements in the same manner such is common now. But the whole world, generally speaking, believes somehow that God's power is being manifested?!? I just can't see it--too messy.

i want to ask you religion people is god real? there no proof god is real just in written paper

Originally posted by queenannie38
I said 'rooted' in--which means the source is ancient--long long ago God gave the children of Israel a deed that was conditional on a covenant--which they defaulted on and in the time (centuries) between then and 1948, others made that place their home.

I understand what you're saying, but had the nation of Israel not been reconstituted, none of this would be happening. The question is then whether or not that reconstitution was a prophetic fulfillment or a self fulfilling prophecy. The evidence points to a self fulfilling prophecy brought about by dispensationalists after being convinced by Zionists that it was necessary so that Jesus would come back.

The modern nation of Israel, other than being located in roughly the same region as the ancient state, and sharing the same name (which in itself is proof of a self fulfilling prophecy - those who formed it formed it with Biblical intent in mind and named it accordingly), has nothing in common with that ancient state. Israel is a secular nation formed by non-religious Jews.

More importantly, Isaiah 11:11, which refers to the rebuilding of Israel, includes aspects which were not fulfilled in 1948. The Messiah did not strike the earth with the rod of his mouth or slay the wicked as part of the regathering as prophesied. The prophecy says that Israel would be restored in the day that the root of Jesse (Messiah) came forth. 2000 years can not be considered "in the day" in any sense.

The prophecy also says that when the regathering happened, it would be a time of unparalled peace. I know, I know, that's supposed to happen later. Never mind that the original OT prophecies didn't make any mention of intervening generations before the peace happened.

It also says that the regathering would be from from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, and Hamath. Are these the regions the Jews came from to form modern Israel?

But more importantly, the prophecy was aimed at a contemporary audience of Isaiah, not some distant future generation. Here's why

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham

The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant.

Four prophets dispute that statement:

You are correct. I didn't phrase what I was trying to say well.

I was referring to the new and everlasting covenant Jesus spoke of, not a future covenant with the nation of Israel.

That new covenant was not just about Israel. It was / is about the world.

Gods plan with Abraham did not just include Israel

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

The following is not just about Israel. It is about Christ and speaks also of what comes next

Isa 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Isa 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
Isa 49:8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages

The new covenant is not really a new one. It is the old one, minus the law and works.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


There is more to show that the covenant is everlasting..but that should suffice.
You can find some by doing an e-sword search on the two words 'everlasting covenant'.

Originally posted by spamandham
The question is then whether or not that reconstitution was a prophetic fulfillment or a self fulfilling prophecy.

There's no question, in my mind--what happened in 1948 has nothing to do with prophecy--only delusion of both those in question and the world in observance. A self-fulfilling prophecy is one that is made and fulfilled by the same entity, isn't it? I don't think it applies here.

I personally am not one to confuse man's created political state of 'Israel' with the real deal--because I know 'Jew' and 'Israelite' are not synonyms. If God doesn't name you Israel, then you are not Israel, no matter how fervently you attach yourself to that name. Israel was never the name of place--it is the name of both an angel and God's 'called out assembly.'

I'm totally in agreement with you in regard to the truth of the modern state of Israel--such a rare thing to run across someone who is not fooled so easily by names.

2000 years can not be considered "in the day" in any sense.

It is 'in that day', actually--and this 'day' is not the 'evening-morning' literal day, but is used both figuratively and literally to mean day, age, season, etc.

Isaiah 52:6-15 explains the true nature of the prophesy given to Israel--and only those who are truly of the God of Israel will understand. Since the majority of the population in the world nation of Israel have not recognized their God in the Messiah, they do not conceive that 1948 was almost two millenia too late to contrive some semblance of redemption, which they sought in the literal land--instead of understanding their divine inheritance.

The 'regathering' has been going on for some time, and neither christians or jews are aware of it. These are 'hard sayings' for sure.

But more importantly, the prophecy was aimed at a contemporary audience of Isaiah, not some distant future generation. Here's why

I read the article--many good points, until the last paragraph or two. The truth is that those prophesies were meant for all who were of God's Israel born anytime after the time of the Messiah--and the ideas of the rivers and also of the peace which would manifest within the people of Israel is concerning things which are spiritual ideas--not that I'm trying to 'spiritualize' any of it away, or even say that Israel is now a 'spiritual' nation only. On the contrary, I am of the understanding that the remnant He reserved have just as much Hebraic DNA in their genes as the children of Israel have ever had--and even though it is something one is completely unaware of, there comes a time when the DNA in that blood hears the call of the Holy One of Israel--and awakens to new life under the wing of the Living God.

The plan is just as Paul said: Israelites and 'Gentiles'. But the modern christian movement of saying they have replaced the children of Israel somehow is based on wishful thinking that isn't even necessary. One need not be born with the genes to become a member of the Israelite people--just as in the OT, there is but 'one law' for the Israelite born in the land and for those who seek refuse in the camp--and obeying that commandment is the only requirement. Circumcision, still, yet now it is of the heart and done by the Spirit of God.

What Paul said is crucial for understanding:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (Romans 9:6)

and

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
(Romans 9:11)

no... israel is not in prophecy, jerusalem is not a burdensome stone to the world, and ishmaels hand is not against every nation and visa versa.

If I hadnt already supplied verses for the above... I would feel the need to do it now.

And applicable probably only to Christianity as regards the consideration of world religions.

Was Jesus literally the walking incarnation of God or not? (See 325AD for details).

Other religions make no such claim (though many claim somewhat similar divine patronage through ghostly visits in bed chambers). In the defense of Christianity not being a hoax, we have the eyewitness testimony of (for all intensive purposes) criminals. Either they were co-conspirators, or they weren't. Though a less insidious plot of merely shared delusion is certainly possible.

Or (as Christians claim) the Creator of the Universe impregnated a 13 year old Jewish girl, fathering himself, eventually came to realize it, became an enemy of the state, was executed (as was His plan) and through His death and the witness of His merry men (on the run) eventually took over an Empire that took over His cause through conversion at the end of a spear.

It's not a matter of semantics at all. There's no I'm not a Christian, but I respect the beliefs. No. If you don't believe the historical figure named Jesus was literally GOD (not just a groovy prophet), then you must conclude that Christianity is a hoax, not to mention sheer blasphemy against God. Similarly, there's not I'm not sure if He was God or not, but I'm a Christian because my parents were or it can't hurt or I like the way it makes me feel. No. If you don't' believe He was God, yet follow "christianity" you follow what you believe to be a hoax.

It's not that it's trendy to "bash" Christianity, it's that over 80% of the world's population think it's a hoax by the very definition. If you aren't Christian, you must conclude so. Or convert. Because if it's not a hoax, that was God.

There's a big difference in saying I think Buddha got a lot of it right. Or Mohammad was very close to God. Or Abraham and Moses knew some stuff. And yo, our guy IS GOD. The difference is staggering, and the difference means one of only two things: Harmful, dangerous hoax or slaughter the infidels, God was here! (which is a whole other kind of danger, but "justifiable" when you've got GOD on your side).

[edit on 22-7-2005 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT
Was Jesus literally the walking incarnation of God or not? (See 325AD for details).

No, that's not the main issue at the heart of the 'hoax' question: it's about 'christianity' being a hoax, not whether or not God is a true fact.

Because whether or not anyone believes He is at all--even if not a single soul knew Him--if He is true, then He is true. And there were times when no humans concieved of Him, before He had made Himself known--and yet, if He exists now, He existed then.

Opinion has no actual influence on fact--any fact, divine or mundane. Man can not and does not influence God. And that's the key here--mainstream 'christianity' has naught to do with the Living God.
(True believers who still think of themselves as Christians: I apologize because I don't mean you when I say 'christians'--I refer to the modern generation of vipers, aka pharisees)

What the world largely believes concerning the nature of its Creator is a false misrepresentation that is an image of man's creation of a god, which reflects only man's negative side and his need to justify that side instead of overcome it, and this is the heart of all that is 'antichrist'--essentially 'the image of the beast'. Mankind is the 'beast' and the contrived god that christianity has devised is the 'image of the beast.'

To call one's self a 'christian' is not technically even being known by His name--His name is not 'Christ'--that was His title for the time He walked among us. He is the Annointed One--in Greek the Cristos and in Hebrew the Messiah. Those are not His actual name.

Who started applying that name to His followers, at Antioch? Was it the followers, themselves? NO. It was non-believers, gentiles, who wished to differentiate between those who believed in the Living God and had recognized their Savior from those who had not yet recognized Immanuel (the Jews). If the Apostles used the word 'Christianos' in their epistles, it was meant in the purest form of the Greek where 'ianos' means simply 'followers of'--and they seldom used that word, anyway--preferring to use words such as 'disciples' and 'saints.' They recognized the body of Christ as an elect assembly called out of the general assembly---and it was long after their deaths that the Greek word 'ekklesia' was manipulated into a whole new meaning, entirely suited to the purpose of the political bastions of the then-dominant world power in Rome. It was during the rule of Constantine that 'christian' became a 'household word.' Up until that time, it was used by outsiders, and had become almost equivalent to having an 'x' carved on one's forehead--meaning they were fair game and prey, marked for persecution and extermination.

It should be readily recognized by those who love Him that the moment that the term 'christian' became acceptable in the eyes of the world, that it no longer represented God's truth. Because God's truth is not of this world--a Truth just as immutable now as it was when it was first declared.

There's a big difference in saying I think Buddha got a lot of it right. Or Mohammad was very close to God. Or Abraham and Moses knew some stuff. And yo, our guy IS GOD. The difference is staggering, and the difference means one of only two things: Harmful, dangerous hoax or slaughter the infidels, God was here! (which is a whole other kind of danger, but "justifiable" when you've got GOD on your side).

[edit on 22-7-2005 by RANT]

No doubt--at that's what is so wrong about 'christianity'--the type of which our country's leaders tout as their religion: to use God as a reason to kill another human being is an outright lie and a blasphemy of His Holy Name. The old argument about the 'god of the OT vs the god of the NT' is invalid--those that use this point for their arguments on either side do not understand the deepest part of the story of the world. So suffice it to say, now that God was a man and died, we have no impunity for killing each other, whether it be in the name of 'freedom' (war) or even 'justice' (capital punishment). Both are examples of men playing god from a necessity born of their own inept creation of a god.

They take a name which stands for things they obviously have no concept of and they use it to sanctify their killing machines of greed and poison.(and I sound harsh, but I'm just blunt--I also realize that, truly, 'they know not what they do' and I am no one's judge--but I must always discern true from false for the sake of my own part in life)

And that is what makes christianity a hoax--or at least one major factor in the whole picture.