The Bigotry of the Christ

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

your argument doesn't work because in the area there were jews and non-jews. the non-jews were known as either romans, gentiles or samaritans. those called jews at the time belonged to a specific faith.

in the context of the gospel of john, jew means follower of judaism

In the gospel of John the word Jew is rendered as #2453:

Ioudaos: from 2248 (in the sense fo 2455 as a country); Judean, i.e. belonging to Juhudah: - Jew (-ess), of Judaea

So a Roman could be a Roman, and a Jew, as in a resident of Judea. Just as a Jew could be a Roman if he was of the Jewish faith and lived in Rome.

It appears that the same word #2453 was used in both cases, as a resident of Judea or one of the tribe of Judah.


...........Whirlwind

reply to post by whirlwind


well... firstly the jews that are out to get jesus in the book of john seem to have a connection to the pharisees.. saying it's non-judaic jews is just a ridiculous case of special pleading.

John

11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

ROMANS... romans has a separate word here.

the book is explicitly antisemitic. it's just apparent, but you're trying to explain it away as if it isn't there in print.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Madness, you must see the difference in how the word Jew is used in the scriptures. The Bible isn't anti-semitic at all as the tribe of Judah are among God's chosen. It would make no sense at all for those of the Jewish faith to be against others of that same faith.

Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

The house of Judah and house of Israel are still split now (Christians and Jews) but they will be joined again.

Ezekiel 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upn it For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17.And join then one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

22.And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

The Christians and Jews become one when Christ returns.


There is a difference in the word "Jew" - being of that tribe and faith, of being a resident of Judea and being some that "say they are but are of the synagogue of Satan", (It is imperative that you know who they are). The two churches in Revelation that Christ approved of, out of the seven, were the two that taught who those "Jews" were. We are to KNOW who they are.

These are your scriptures from John about the Jews that you question:

John
5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
7:13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

The Jews seeking to kill Him were not your everyday, run of the mill Jews. Vs. 13 above tells us that they themself were afraid of the bad Jews. Compare it to Christians. Some are true Christians and live that life, others say they are.... but are liars.

Matthew 7:22. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?'

23.And then will I profess unto them, 'I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.'

They go to church each Sunday, some even teach and preach but they are NOT Christians. So it is with the Jews. They said they were but were not. Those are the ones being referred to as those that "sought to kill Him". There is no anti-semitism.

8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (this is jesus talking to jews)

This scripture is different than the others. Here Christ tells us who those "Jews" really are. Take this very literally. They are of Cain, the murderer from the beginning, and he is of his father - Satan!

11:8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. (again blaming the jews for the death of jesus... not the pharisees, all the jews)

I don't agree, the Pharisees were the ones saying this, they were the ones instigating the death of Christ. We must see the difference or our brother Judah will continue to be blamed for the death of Christ.

19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

Who were the Jews that were crying out? The head priest and his band of holy garbage. He was appointed by Rome, not God. The true Jews had no reason to cry out against Christ. He had walked among them, was one of them, healed and taught, performed miracles of all kinds and taught peace and love. Why would they want Him crucified?

20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Again, the Jews they feared were the charlatans, those of the synagogue of Satan.


...........Whirlwind

reply to post by whirlwind


again... you're missing my point... especially since you quote random parts of the bible outside of the book of john.
i'm not saying the whole of the new testament is antisemitic, i'm saying the book of john is.

however, the rest of the bible does have bigotry... just ask the midianites.

now.. back to the subject. you're playing semantics

Originally posted by whirlwind
.John
7:13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

The Jews seeking to kill Him were not your everyday, run of the mill Jews. Vs. 13 above tells us that they themself were afraid of the bad Jews. Compare it to Christians. Some are true Christians and live that life, others say they are.... but are liars.

i added the bold

no, it says they were afraid of THE jews. not the 'BAD' jews. you insert the word "bad" in there. look in the section i bolded.


it's odd... for a discussion on an independent book of the bible, you only bring up john once... and only a few verses of it

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

again... you're missing my point... especially since you quote random parts of the bible outside of the book of john.
i'm not saying the whole of the new testament is antisemitic, i'm saying the book of john is.

The only "random parts" I quote are those that directly relate to the subject.

however, the rest of the bible does have bigotry... just ask the midianites. ...now.. back to the subject. you're playing semantics

We discussed the Midanites before. As I said then, God did not just decide to smite them for no reason.

Originally posted by whirlwind
John
7:13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

The Jews seeking to kill Him were not your everyday, run of the mill Jews. Vs. 13 above tells us that they themself were afraid of the bad Jews. Compare it to Christians. Some are true Christians and live that life, others say they are.... but are liars.

Madness -
no, it says they were afraid of THE jews. not the 'BAD' jews. you insert the word "bad" in there. look in the section i bolded.

Who do you think the men were that feared the Jews? They too were Jews. Why would a Jew fear another Jew? The "bad" Jews were in power in the temple and hated Christ. Who were the "bad" Jews? Those put in power by Rome and those that resided in Judea and those that were of the synagogue of Satan....Not God's children, those of the tribe of Judah, of which Christ Himself was one. Truly, to think less would be to be anti-semitic.

it's odd... for a discussion on an independent book of the bible, you only bring up john once... and only a few verses of it

I don't understand that comment. Those verses in John are all the ones you quoted trying to make your point about bigotry. They were not my choice, but yours.

Madness, do you see what I am saying about the Jews referenced in John. Can you see that they are not just Jews of the Jewish faith or are my arguments falling on deaf ears? There truly is no bigotry against Jews in the Bible.


............Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
The only "random parts" I quote are those that directly relate to the subject.

but they don't relate to the subject. the subject is the book of john.

We discussed the Midanites before. As I said then, God did not just decide to smite them for no reason.

and the raping of the virgins after the slaughter? what was that for?

Who do you think the men were that feared the Jews? They too were Jews. Why would a Jew fear another Jew?

at that point they had essentially renounced judaic tradition by following someone that claimed to be god... they were no longer jews.

The "bad" Jews were in power in the temple and hated Christ.

you must be unfamiliar with jewish law... they would have been required to kill anyone claiming to be god. they were actually quite the good jews for hating someone that claimed to be god.

Who were the "bad" Jews? Those put in power by Rome and those that resided in Judea and those that were of the synagogue of Satan....Not God's children, those of the tribe of Judah, of which Christ Himself was one. Truly, to think less would be to be anti-semitic.

um... the jews in power that were put there in rome only extended to one person...
so your argument fails.

I don't understand that comment. Those verses in John are all the ones you quoted trying to make your point about bigotry. They were not my choice, but yours.

i know... but i'd think you'd be able to find a place within john that directly contradicted the heavy antisemitic overtones in the passages i brought up if the book weren't antisemitic.

Madness, do you see what I am saying about the Jews referenced in John. Can you see that they are not just Jews of the Jewish faith or are my arguments falling on deaf ears? There truly is no bigotry against Jews in the Bible.

the arguments aren't falling on deaf ears, just ones that see how your argument is flawed.
these are jews of the jewish faith being talked about. in now way could a person living in the area at that point in history be anything but a roman, samaritan, or a religious jew. the romans are referred ot by a seperate word and the samaritans had no reason to feel anything towards jesus.
basically your argument seems to rest on "the pharisees weren't jews"
quite the opposite, they were the jews following the law properly... except proper jews would have actually stoned jesus to death for his claims

Hi!...It's me again.

I'm the 'dark/light side' to everyones perpetual questionings. Depends on which side of the equation you're looking from.

Doesn't it 'irk' you that I ask these same questions?

Guess what???! I've developed a backbone....pretty strong at that.

I question things as well.

I think that it's time that I pick the bone to the marrow.

Because we all want to know the truth.

Right?

I love the fact that there are many sides to the equation!

Saul...Saul...why do you persecute me?

reply to post by TheDuckster


what's odd is that this really doesn't do anything to address the issue. the book of john clearly shows the practicing jews as conspirators against jesus, what with him constantly being afraid of them and all.

we're not talking about a point of view here, we're talking about what's just written down on a piece of paper.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by whirlwind
The only "random parts" I quote are those that directly relate to the subject.

Madness -
but they don't relate to the subject. the subject is the book of john.

They aren't separate stories and there should be no contradictions. The Bible is essentially the story of one Man and how His family relates to the world. The Old Testament points to Him and the New Testament tells about His life on earth and events after that. The scriptures I chose related to the subject we discussed in John.

WW -
We discussed the Midanites before. As I said then, God did not just decide to smite them for no reason.

Madness -
and the raping of the virgins after the slaughter? what was that for?

Nowhere was "rape" mentioned, or implied. The virgins of the Medianites were in the Hebrew family. Median was the son of Abraham and Katurah, his second wife. The virgins were not to be slaughtered because they had not been contaminated with the pagan rites. Rather, it appears to me they were to become wives of the Hebrews:

Lev.21:13. And he shall take a wife in her virginity.

14.A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

I think we have been conditioned by Islam so that when we hear the word virgin, we think of the 72 virgins waiting for terrorists in heaven.

WW -
Who do you think the men were that feared the Jews? They too were Jews. Why would a Jew fear another Jew?

Madness -
at that point they had essentially renounced judaic tradition by following someone that claimed to be god... they were no longer jews.

He didn't claim to be God. He did say that He was the Messiah (John 4:26) He also maintained all Jewish laws:

Matt.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

No one had reason to hate Him except the scribes and Pharisees at the temple. Christ was taking business away from them and showing the false traditions they claimed.

you must be unfamiliar with jewish law... they would have been required to kill anyone claiming to be god. they were actually quite the good jews for hating someone that claimed to be god.

God said Thou shalt not kill, so they wouldn't be too good, were they? I'm not familiar with Jewish law but wouldn't they have to prove He said that and to my knowledge He never said He was God?

WW -
Who were the "bad" Jews? Those put in power by Rome and those that resided in Judea and those that were of the synagogue of Satan....Not God's children, those of the tribe of Judah, of which Christ Himself was one. Truly, to think less would be to be anti-semitic.

Madness -
um... the jews in power that were put there in rome only extended to one person... so your argument fails.

True, but wouldn't he surround himself with those of like mind?

WW -
I don't understand that comment. Those verses in John are all the ones you quoted trying to make your point about bigotry. They were not my choice, but yours.

Madness -
i know... but i'd think you'd be able to find a place within john that directly contradicted the heavy antisemitic overtones in the passages i brought up if the book weren't antisemitic.

To show that there is a difference in the Jews I can quote John 3:

3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2.The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, "Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him."

So...a Pharisee, a "ruler of the Jews" went to Jesus to be taught truth. The question to me is why did he go to Jesus at night? Did he fear the other Jews - the "bad" ones?

WW -
Madness, do you see what I am saying about the Jews referenced in John. Can you see that they are not just Jews of the Jewish faith or are my arguments falling on deaf ears? There truly is no bigotry against Jews in the Bible.

Madness -
the arguments aren't falling on deaf ears, just ones that see how your argument is flawed.
these are jews of the jewish faith being talked about. in now way could a person living in the area at that point in history be anything but a roman, samaritan, or a religious jew. the romans are referred ot by a seperate word and the samaritans had no reason to feel anything towards jesus.
basically your argument seems to rest on "the pharisees weren't jews"
quite the opposite, they were the jews following the law properly... except proper jews would have actually stoned jesus to death for his claims

Everyone living in Judea was considered a Jew, as in "of that area". I live in Alabama and therefore am an Alabamian, as is everyone living in this state. I'm also Scotch/Irish, female and a very nice person. Other Alabamians are of Alabama but they are not necessarily Scotch/Irish, female or even very nice. That is the point I'm trying to make.

As far as the Pharisees not being Jews, that isn't what I said. Of course they are of the Jewish faith but some, as some Christians, are not truly Jews as others are not truly Christians - they are fakes. The Pharisees, as Christ showed were wrong in some of their interpretations of the law and the traditions that they themselves made.

I'm glad your ears aren't closed to all we're discussing as I enjoy talking with you.

............Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
They aren't separate stories and there should be no contradictions.

yet they are separate stories... and there are a few contradictions.

The Bible is essentially the story of one Man and how His family relates to the world.

...you clearly have never opened up the old testament.

The Old Testament points to Him and the New Testament tells about His life on earth and events after that. The scriptures I chose related to the subject we discussed in John.

no, they don't... john was written separately.
like the rest of the bible, it was never intended to be part of a compendium, it was meant to be a stand-alone book.

Nowhere was "rape" mentioned, or implied.

taking virgins for the uses of soldiers... that is implied.

The virgins of the Medianites were in the Hebrew family. Median was the son of Abraham and Katurah, his second wife.

...mIdianites.
you're skewing things.
midia has no connection to median
midia was a place

The virgins were not to be slaughtered because they had not been contaminated with the pagan rites. Rather, it appears to me they were to become wives of the Hebrews:

...to your odd contortionist thoughts, it would.
however, to anyone who knows the nature of bronze age warfare and puts the statements made into that context.. you'd be wrong.

I think we have been conditioned by Islam so that when we hear the word virgin, we think of the 72 virgins waiting for terrorists in heaven.

...wow, a random attack on islam.
news flash... in islam, those terrorists don't get 72 virgins... only REAL martyrs get them.
shows how much you know about islam
bigoted attacks against it aren't well advised, especially when they're random like this.

He didn't claim to be God. He did say that He was the Messiah (John 4:26) He also maintained all Jewish laws:

Matt.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

again... we're talking about john...

No one had reason to hate Him except the scribes and Pharisees at the temple. Christ was taking business away from them and showing the false traditions they claimed.

the traditions they claimed were scriptural.
and jesus wasn't all that popular... were he popular, we'd have documentation of him dating back to his lifetime.

God said Thou shalt not kill, so they wouldn't be too good, were they?

NO. god said thou shalt not MURDER. honestly, people with their little knowledge of their own commandments. look into the original hebrew word, it's the word for "MURDER" not "kill"

killing was actually ok. so long as it was a non-jew... or if it was a jew who had committed a crime.

I'm not familiar with Jewish law but wouldn't they have to prove He said that and to my knowledge He never said He was God?

he called himself "i am"
that's saying he's god..
and it's odd that you have such little knowledge of jewish law... when it's pretty much all in your own holy book.

True, but wouldn't he surround himself with those of like mind?

...no. actually, it would extend to the "king" such as herod. he had nothing to do with the pharisees and the scribes.

So...a Pharisee, a "ruler of the Jews" went to Jesus to be taught truth. The question to me is why did he go to Jesus at night? Did he fear the other Jews - the "bad" ones?

hmm... it seems that the bad jews apply to the jews that don't accept jesus...
that would mean the majority of jews...

do you see what i'm getting at? this is the groundwork for antisemitism.

Everyone living in Judea was considered a Jew, as in "of that area".

...nobody lived in judea at the time of jesus. it didn't exist. the regional name for the area was "palestine"
this argument fails, i'm going to ignore the alabamian analogy.

As far as the Pharisees not being Jews, that isn't what I said. Of course they are of the Jewish faith but some, as some Christians, are not truly Jews as others are not truly Christians - they are fakes.

no, they just had an interpretation that you'd say isn't right because you've been brought up by your faith to think so.

The Pharisees, as Christ showed were wrong in some of their interpretations of the law and the traditions that they themselves made.

...let's refer to my statement just before this quote

(by me)
they just had an interpretation that you'd say isn't right because you've been brought up by your faith to think so.

jesus didn't show that their interpretations were wrong... their interpretations are still right if you look at the law... jesus just put forth another interpretation that can be considered right.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by whirlwind
They aren't separate stories and there should be no contradictions.....The Bible is essentially the story of one Man and how His family relates to the world.... The Old Testament points to Him and the New Testament tells about His life on earth and events after that.

Madness -
yet they are separate stories... and there are a few contradictions.......you clearly have never opened up the old testament.

There are a few contradictions but most have been answered with deeper study and of the very few remaining I know they will be answered....one day. The difference I'm finding is that you read the Bible to find problems while others read it to find answers. "Seek and ye shall find", and we do.

None of us will ever know all there is to know in the Bible but my statement above still stands. He was at the beginning and His story flows throughout the Bible.

Gen.1:2...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It is amazing when you consider that different men penned the Bible centuries apart and yet the story told is consistent. That alone shows God's Divine handiwork.

no, they don't... john was written separately.
like the rest of the bible, it was never intended to be part of a compendium, it was meant to be a stand-alone book.

They were written separately but they tell one story - His story.

WW -
Nowhere was "rape" mentioned, or implied..... The virgins were not to be slaughtered because they had not been contaminated with the pagan rites. Rather, it appears to me they were to become wives of the Hebrews:

Madness -
taking virgins for the uses of soldiers... that is implied....to your odd contortionist thoughts, it would. however, to anyone who knows the nature of bronze age warfare and puts the statements made into that context.. you'd be wrong.

The penalty for rape was death. These virgins were to be taken as wives.

WW -
The virgins of the Medianites were in the Hebrew family. Median was the son of Abraham and Katurah, his second wife.

Madness -
...mIdianites.
you're skewing things. midia has no connection to median. midia was a place

It was a place, a nation on the southern border of Israel but it was named for a person and that person was Midian, son of Abraham and Keturah. [I didn't skew things but I did misspell them].

WW -
I think we have been conditioned by Islam so that when we hear the word virgin, we think of the 72 virgins waiting for terrorists in heaven.

Madness -
...wow, a random attack on islam.
news flash... in islam, those terrorists don't get 72 virgins... only REAL martyrs get them. ...shows how much you know about islam
bigoted attacks against it aren't well advised, especially when they're random like this.

Where was the "random attack" and how was it bigoted? If I wanted to attack them it wouldn't be by using the phrase they themself use.


................Whirlwind

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Whirlwind -
He didn't claim to be God. He did say that He was the Messiah (John 4:26) He also maintained all Jewish laws:

Matt.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Madness -
again... we're talking about john...

Why is talking about John a problem? If the answer is contained therein it would be foolish not to use it.

WW -
No one had reason to hate Him except the scribes and Pharisees at the temple. Christ was taking business away from them and showing the false traditions they claimed.

Madness -
the traditions they claimed were scriptural.
and jesus wasn't all that popular... were he popular, we'd have documentation of him dating back to his lifetime.

I'm going back to John as that seems to be where you believe the antisemitism is most prevalent to discuss your "traditions being scriptural."

Jonn 7:14Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

15.And the Jews marvelled, saying, "How knoweth this Man letters, having never learned?"

19.Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill Me?"

So...the Pharisees were not just following scriptural tradition. As far as documentation, remember, the people there were not literate and Christians were being persecuted.

WW -
God said Thou shalt not kill, so they wouldn't be too good, were they?

Madness -
NO. god said thou shalt not MURDER. honestly, people with their little knowledge of their own commandments. look into the original hebrew word, it's the word for "MURDER" not "kill"

I know that but I didn't know if you did. I thought it might just bring about another bone of contention.

Madness -
killing was actually ok. so long as it was a non-jew... or if it was a jew who had committed a crime.

It was ok to simply randomly kill someone walking by? That is how you make it sound. If someone murders or rapes they were to be executed. I don't see a problem with that at all.

WW -
I'm not familiar with Jewish law but wouldn't they have to prove He said that and to my knowledge He never said He was God?

Madness -
he called himself "i am" ....that's saying he's god.. and it's odd that you have such little knowledge of jewish law... when it's pretty much all in your own holy book.

I'm learning.

WW -
True, but wouldn't he surround himself with those of like mind?

Madness -
...no. actually, it would extend to the "king" such as herod. he had nothing to do with the pharisees and the scribes.

He was the head priest. How could he not have anything to do with the them?

WW -
So...a Pharisee, a "ruler of the Jews" went to Jesus to be taught truth. The question to me is why did he go to Jesus at night? Did he fear the other Jews - the "bad" ones?

Madness -
hmm... it seems that the bad jews apply to the jews that don't accept jesus...that would mean the majority of jews... do you see what i'm getting at? this is the groundwork for antisemitism.

Why do you think it was the majority of the Jews? It is not anti-semitic to me when I know who killed Christ - it was not our brother Judah.

WW -
Everyone living in Judea was considered a Jew, as in "of that area".

Madness -
...nobody lived in judea at the time of jesus. it didn't exist. the regional name for the area was "palestine"
this argument fails, i'm going to ignore the alabamian analogy.

You may ignore Alabama if you wish but you are wrong about Judea. The following scripture is about John the Baptist just before he baptized Christ.

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.

WW -
As far as the Pharisees not being Jews, that isn't what I said. Of course they are of the Jewish faith but some, as some Christians, are not truly Jews as others are not truly Christians - they are fakes.

Madness -
no, they just had an interpretation that you'd say isn't right because you've been brought up by your faith to think so.

That isn't true Madness. God warns us about false Christians.

Madness -
Jesus didn't show that their interpretations were wrong... their interpretations are still right if you look at the law... jesus just put forth another interpretation that can be considered right.

I stand corrected. I agree in that He was saying they were being legalistic and in doing so were hurting the idea of the law but as shown above (John 7:19) He also tells us others were wrong.


...........Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
There are a few contradictions but most have been answered with deeper study and of the very few remaining I know they will be answered....one day.

...there is a simple answer to the contradictions. the books of the bible weren't meant to be a consistent narrative... though paul's letters were meant to have a consistent message.

there has yet to be an answer to "how did judas die?"

The difference I'm finding is that you read the Bible to find problems while others read it to find answers. "Seek and ye shall find", and we do.

no, i don't read the bible looking for problems, i read the bible looking for what's in the bible.

i find problems, i find good stuff, i find ridiculous things, i find sensible things

the thing is that you look at the bible for answers... i'm not looking for anything in particular.

None of us will ever know all there is to know in the Bible but my statement above still stands. He was at the beginning and His story flows throughout the Bible.

no, not really.
again, this shows how little you know of the history of the bible. it wasn't meant to stand as 1 narrative....

hell... parts of it are just made up history...
like any mention of the jewish people being monotheistic prior to visiting egypt.
or the jews being slaves to the egyptians...

hell, the son of the pharaoh mentioned in exodus was found.. the firstborn son... not killed by a plague, killed by blunt force trauma to the head.

Gen.1:2...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

...not connected.

It is amazing when you consider that different men penned the Bible centuries apart and yet the story told is consistent. That alone shows God's Divine handiwork.

the first 2 chapters of the bible are inconsistent with each other!
creation story 1
creation story 2
...
you're clearly looking at the bible through the lens of "it can't be wrong"
i'm looking at the bible through the lens of "let's see what's in it"
i'm being objective, you're looking for something.

They were written separately but they tell one story - His story.

they tell several accounts of the same event..
there are multiple accounts of creation
multiple accounts of the receiving of the 10 commandments
and multiple accounts of the end of the world...

The penalty for rape was death. These virgins were to be taken as wives.

the penalty for the rape of a JEWISH WOMAN was death....
and the woman who was raped would get killed if she didn't scream for help loud enough...
great justice system.

however, there was the alternative punishment of having to marry the woman you raped... yeah, that was a fair one too.

It was a place, a nation on the southern border of Israel but it was named for a person and that person was Midian, son of Abraham and Keturah. [I didn't skew things but I did misspell them].

...but it wasn't considered jewish. it was considered sub-human (to the jews all non-jews were sub-human)
and again... twas a genocide. nothing forgivable about slaughter and mass-rape

Where was the "random attack" and how was it bigoted? If I wanted to attack them it wouldn't be by using the phrase they themself use.

....it's a bigoted random attack because we're not discussing islam and you're equating the whole of islam with a narrow minded fundamentalist belief system

it would be like me saying you're just like fred phelps.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

the books of the bible weren't meant to be a consistent narrative... though paul's letters were meant to have a consistent message...there has yet to be an answer to "how did judas die?"

I disagree, the Books were meant to be consistent and they are. As I said, they are the story of one Person and how He and His family relate to the world. Genesis is simply an overlay of Revelation; It shows the beginning while Revelation shows the end.

As far as the death of Judas. It is as I said before. He either was hung and slit open by the holy joe's from the temple, who couldn't allow others to see what part they had in the entire affair, or....he hung himself and burst open. Either way there is no contradiction. He was hung and he did burst open. He can't tell us and the religious community from that time wouldn't tell us.

WW -
The difference I'm finding is that you read the Bible to find problems while others read it to find answers. "Seek and ye shall find", and we do.

Madness -
no, i don't read the bible looking for problems, i read the bible looking for what's in the bible. ..i find problems, i find good stuff, i find ridiculous things, i find sensible things ...the thing is that you look at the bible for answers... i'm not looking for anything in particular.

Fair enough. Because I find answers doesn't mean others will or want to.

WW -
None of us will ever know all there is to know in the Bible but my statement above still stands. He was at the beginning and His story flows throughout the Bible.

Madness -
no, not really.
again, this shows how little you know of the history of the bible. it wasn't meant to stand as 1 narrative.... hell... parts of it are just made up history... like any mention of the jewish people being monotheistic prior to visiting egypt. ...or the jews being slaves to the egyptians...hell, the son of the pharaoh mentioned in exodus was found.. the firstborn son... not killed by a plague, killed by blunt force trauma to the head.

Why are you so quick to accept the account of others before you do the Word of God? Of course the Hebrews were monotheistic. Abraham was going to sacrifice his son to his One God. Of course the Jews were slaves to the Egyptians. What else could it be if you were forced to make bricks with no straw and not allowed to leave when you wished. They were slaves. How do you know the child found that was killed by a blunt force was The firstborn son of The Pharoah that endured the plagues?

WW -
Gen.1:2...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Madness -
...not connected.

Of course they are. The Spirit moved in the beginning and the Word was in the beginning. He is the Word and He was there at the beginning.

WW -
The penalty for rape was death. These virgins were to be taken as wives.

Madness -
the penalty for the rape of a JEWISH WOMAN was death....
and the woman who was raped would get killed if she didn't scream for help loud enough... great justice system. ...
however, there was the alternative punishment of having to marry the woman you raped... yeah, that was a fair one too.

There are reasons for things and neither you nor I decide if it is fair or not. If a woman, in a city, was raped and didn't scream (so someone could help her) was she really being raped? This sounds like a safeguard for the man so the woman couldn't unjustly accuse him. That is opposed to a woman in "a field" because if she screamed there would be no one to hear her. There are reasons. As far as having to marry the woman you raped - that was for her protection. No one would marry her after that and this forces the stupid, sorry, s.o.b., to financially support her.

WW -
It was a place, a nation on the southern border of Israel but it was named for a person and that person was Midian, son of Abraham and Keturah. [I didn't skew things but I did misspell them].

Madness -
...but it wasn't considered jewish. it was considered sub-human (to the jews all non-jews were sub-human)
and again... twas a genocide. nothing forgivable about slaughter and mass-rape.

There was NO mass rape. There was killing. There are reasons for war and will be reasons until the return of Christ. That is difficult for a gentle soul to come to grips with but it is never-the-less a fact of life. It is not yet a perfect world.

WW -
Where was the "random attack" and how was it bigoted? If I wanted to attack them it wouldn't be by using the phrase they themself use.

Madness -
....it's a bigoted random attack because we're not discussing islam and you're equating the whole of islam with a narrow minded fundamentalist belief system it would be like me saying you're just like fred phelps.

Well....admittedly I am bigoted against Islam but I truly don't believe the remark I made was. The reference to 72 virgins is one associated with them and was not of my imagination.

I had to look Fred Phelps up. I'm glad you don't consider me part of anything like that.

I'll have to continue in another post.



..........Whirlwind

For one, The Old Testament really is only in the Christian Bible to show all of the Prophecies that were made concerning the Christ Messiah and other things that have almost all come to pass.

In this way, in the New Testament, they can quote from the Old Testament passages which prophecy things that have already come to pass or that still should apply. But the Old Testament is not to be followed ardently, word for word, except by Jews in their own forms of the book, the Tanakh and the Torah.

Sure, at first Jesus may have instructed his first disciples to teach to the tribes of Israel who were doing wrong in his belief. But he came to Paul, formely known as Saul the Persecutor of Christians, after his fleshly death, in a blinding white light that made Paul blind for three days while he was making a trip to Damascus to round up more Christians to be tried, jailed and/or killed. Then Jesus spoke to HIM from the sky, but the two men he was with, although seeing the blinding light, did not hear the voice.

The voice said, "Paul, why do you persecute me?" and Paul was awed and fell to his knees. He was instructed to go forth and teach the message of Jesus to the Gentiles and the Greeks. This is a man who was having Christians put to death days before! And suddenly, after 1 weird experience in the desert, he completely changes his whole perspective at the risk of his neck? He was a Pharisee! A Jewish Priest! But also a Roman Citizen. And thats why he was chosen, so he wouldnt be murdered by the angry crowds in all of the Pagan cities that he visited in Asia Minor and Macedonia, and Malta, Sicily too. Eventually Caesar crucified him in Rome but hey? He got the message across, and since he condemned Christians before to be crucified, he himself was still yet crucified as well, despite repenting and spreading the word.

So it was the Early Christian Church that sprang up in the first 3 centuries after Jesus' crucifixion. The cities it sprang up in were the ones Paul visited, but also Alexandria, in Egypt, and in Tyre and Sidon of Lebanon, and into Anatolia, Turkey, and Syria as well. The Eastern Hellenistic World, what was once the Hellenistic world anyways..

By 4th Century, the Roman Empire had been converted! All by this one man who supposedly didn't exist? He left such a profound impact yet didn't exist? Theres no way that a fabrication of lies could've made it this far. Impossible and unprovable.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Continued from an earlier post:

WW -
It is amazing when you consider that different men penned the Bible centuries apart and yet the story told is consistent. That alone shows God's Divine handiwork.

Madness -
the first 2 chapters of the bible are inconsistent with each other!
creation story 1
creation story 2
...

No, there is only one account and it is not inconsistent. I'll say more below.

Madness -
you're clearly looking at the bible through the lens of "it can't be wrong"
i'm looking at the bible through the lens of "let's see what's in it"
i'm being objective, you're looking for something.

The first few times I read it I was looking for errors. I wanted to prove how ridiculous the entire story was. Now I see it for what it is. You're right, I was looking for something and I found Him. My eyes are opened now and for that I thank Him each day.

WW -
They were written separately but they tell one story - His story.

Madness -
they tell several accounts of the same event..
there are multiple accounts of creation
multiple accounts of the receiving of the 10 commandments
and multiple accounts of the end of the world...

There can be different accounts of the same event if given by different people.

There is one account of creation. I am assuming that when you say Chapters 1 and 2 are different you mean the creation of man.

Gen.1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping think that creepeth upon the earth.

27.So god created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

31.And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Day six and God had created mankind, both male and female....This was NOT Adam and Eve.



Gen.2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6.But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7.And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19.And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20.And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22.And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



God created mankind on day 6 - all the races. God formed Adam on day 8 - the Adamic race that Christ would come from.

Mankind had domionion over fish, fowl and wildlife. Adam was to till the soil and the animals created with him were farm animals. Note that with mankind, they were created man and woman together. Adam was formed alone and Eve at a later time.

Also, the word "rib" can be translated as "curve". Could it have been the helix curve, taken from Adam - his DNA?

Was that the part of the creation story you believed was contradictory or was it something else?

I'll have to reread the part about the 10 commandments to see what you mean, unless you can be more specific about the different accounts. As far as the end of the world. It is detailed by different people at different times but essentially it seems the same to me. What stories do you find opposed to others?


.........Whirlwind