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.

 

Calling Out Jewish and Christians- Please Answer ONE Question

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

Jews follow the Ten commandments... Jesus refined those commandments
The Jews believed in loving their fellow Jews as long as they looked and acted exactly like they did, otherwise, they should hate, banish, or kill anyone not fitting that description.
Jesus said to love even those who do not look and act exactly like we do.


So they must live with their hate or realize the truth of love...

Its their choice... Moses does not strike people down for either belief, nor does God.

All must deal with their actions eventually... and somehow i don't believe all jews are like this





posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I'll offer:

The Jewish people had faith before they had law + faith. The sanctified priesthood was by the Melchisedec tradition (Aaron, faith only) who passed the priesthood to Moses where it was fused with Law by God to introduce rules to an unruly people.

Christians identify the Messiah based on Old Testament Prophets - consider:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
(around 720 years before Christ)

The Jews believed a strong Messiah would be the One - yet their text clearly says he would not be. To understand their feelings, use the historical context - they were occupied by the Romans at the time and had no national identity. To have the Messiah enter at that time, only to be wounded and bruised (just like their text said He would be) may of felt like a let down to the Roman occupied Jews.

We know God states He will punish His people for straying (baal, etc), just like a Father would in a larger scale. They are scattered and brought back, driven to near extinction then re-flourished because He loves them. That's exactly what's happened historically. Name any group of people who have had more 'punishment' (think hitler, the list goes on) in the history of the world. The word 'Jew' has oddly inherent negative connotations for many people. They had their entire nationality removed only to be given back '48. He continues to work with them, just like He said He would.

Christ's death opened the door for non-Jews, the shedding of His sin-free blood paid for (negated) the law - where before, sacrifices of things important to people (livestock, money, oil, flour, wine) were offered for sin. It was an end of the Law of Moses (Jews only), and a return to Melchisedec tradition (may not state Jews only) therefore allowing for Gentiles. God sacrificed something important to Him, for us.

In a sense He wounded Himself - God is entirely sin free and cannot contain sin, therefore a part of Him was made flesh to endure and take on the sin in order to make that sacrifice on Earth. Think of the Trinity - the Messiah is considered the same as God, and the Spirit. It's hard to understand, but believing in the Messiah is believing in God. People accept that based on faith. You might think "I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense, so it can't be right." so to give perspective on believing something with faith ...

In Revelations it says that 3 people, in 3 different places on the globe will be able to 'see' the antichrist simultaneously. That was written about 1800 years ago - and people (even though it didn't make literal sense) believed it would be true based on faith. At that time it would take a month to travel to the end of your own country. Just 100 years ago, no one could make physical sense of it, but they believed it anyway. Of course now we have live satellite feeds - and it's no stretch to see how we could all see the same event at the same time regardless of location.

A truly deep question is why Christ cried out in the last moments "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It's my belief that that's the moment the world's past and future sin entered the sin free environment (as stated), and God left (can't contain sin), then the sin died and He gave up the Ghost. (All three were present prior to - God, the Spirit and the Messiah as one.) The loneliness and pain must of been so great for the remaining Human - so great He cried out then, and not before (during physical pain).

Note that God did not answer Christ, where He always had before. The pain must of been extreme for Him too, not only could he not mingle with what his Son had to become and sadly had to turn His back, but possibly couldn't bear to watch the only Son He'll ever have die - for the likes of an unruly people, who don't seem to love Him back. That's real sacrifice... Yet He still has faith in us and won't give up on us, even with us being us - therefore I return the unwarranted favor with the same undying, unchangeable faith in Him.

If your wondering why He made us the way we are, it's to allow for choice (imo). Which love matters more - the love of something you made to love you where you know the outcome, or the love of something you made that then chooses to love you? Programmed vs free choice.

PS: There's all sorts of things in the Bible that at one time could only be only accepted on faith, yet came to pass or are otherwise known today as fact. The writers wouldn't of understood then, what we've learned now - and some of it's fascinating, like the actual outline of the beginnings of the Earth (as a scientific match, day for day or stage for stage). Pretty neat to think they not only considered how the Earth came to be, but were scientifically right.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by demonologist842012
 

Demons, in their own world, may not be any worse than anyone else.
The thing is, we should, like you say, avoid them because they will only keep us attached to the earth.
Some people may find that a fine thing to be. I asked an atheist person I knew a long time ago if he wanted to be the dirt that people walked on. He smiled and said he would like that, so whatever suites you. Those who want a real life should hold a certain standard with a higher goal in mind for what we are to become.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

... and somehow i don't believe all jews are like this
I was talking about the elite Jews who ran Jerusalem in the time of Christ.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

... and somehow i don't believe all jews are like this
I was talking about the elite Jews who ran Jerusalem in the time of Christ.


ahh... i wasn't





posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pearj
I'll offer:
The Jewish people had faith before they had law + faith.
The "Jews" was something that came out of the Babylonian exile, so whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with "the Jews".

The sanctified priesthood was by the Melchisedec tradition (Aaron, faith only) who passed the priesthood to Moses where it was fused with Law by God to introduce rules to an unruly people.
What are you getting this from? Melchizedek was most likely Shem who would have been the direct ancester of Abraham, so the pristhood was passed on by descent through Shem, and Abraham, and through Jacon and his family who went into Egypt. You may be mixing things up a bit from where David fancied himself as a kind of priest and that legend got echoed in the Book of Hebrews, in the New Testament.

Christians identify the Messiah based on Old Testament Prophets - consider:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
(around 720 years before Christ)

The Jews believed a strong Messiah would be the One - yet their text clearly says he would not be.
No, the prophets said he would be a strong king who would subjugate all the countries which were giving Israel a bad time earlier. But you need to take in consideration books like Baruch.

To understand their feelings, use the historical context - they were occupied by the Romans at the time and had no national identity. To have the Messiah enter at that time, only to be wounded and bruised (just like their text said He would be) may of felt like a let down to the Roman occupied Jews.]
It would not be just a "let-down" but an absolute rejection of him and to promptly forget he ever existed.

We know God states He will punish His people for straying (baal, etc), just like a Father would in a larger scale. They are scattered and brought back, driven to near extinction then re-flourished because He loves them. That's exactly what's happened historically. Name any group of people who have had more 'punishment' (think hitler, the list goes on) in the history of the world. The word 'Jew' has oddly inherent negative connotations for many people. They had their entire nationality removed only to be given back '48. He continues to work with them, just like He said He would.
The "Jews" were a race of people who had been conquired by Babylon and brought to Babylon, just like what happened to the people from Judea who were from the upper class in that country. These central asian people attached themselves to those Judeans and created a new group, along with these Aramaic speaking people, once the Persian Empire was able to facilitate their going to Judea and being the administrators over the native people who were never deported. The people who have moved into Palestine currently and calling themselves Jews are the descendants of those converts to Judaism who did not go to Judea but migrated back to the country where they originated from, and eventually ended up in Europe, then got to Palestine by boat, and now by plane from Russia, their ancestral homeland.



edit on 1-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

ahh... i wasn't

What, some hypothetical Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

ahh... i wasn't

What, some hypothetical Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus?


No all of them...

They have their beliefs, and if they chose to have hate and discrimination in their lives its their issue...

I wasn't talking about Jews from any specific time period...




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pearj
 

Christ's death opened the door for non-Jews, the shedding of His sin-free blood paid for (negated) the law - where before, sacrifices of things important to people (livestock, money, oil, flour, wine) were offered for sin. It was an end of the Law of Moses (Jews only), and a return to Melchisedec tradition (may not state Jews only) therefore allowing for Gentiles. God sacrificed something important to Him, for us.
The "Jews" in the time of Christ, and so described in the Gospel of John, were descendants of the aristocrats who came from Babylon under the auspices of the Persian Empire to rule over Judea.
There was no nation called the Jews, there was a country called Judea, inhabited by Judeans who by the time of Jesus was overrun by all sorts of nationalities and the people were all Hellenized to a greater or lesser extent, including speaking Greek, since they were a Greek Provence between the time of Alexander, and the time of the death of Herod, when it came under practically direct rule by the Romans.
There is nothing in the Bible which should lead one to assume that Jesus paid for sins with his blood.
The "return to Melchizedek tradition" is this idea of a priest/king which goes back to David. Melchizedek acted like a high sort of priest, where Abraham himself was a sort of priest but Abraham recognized his higher authority. He was also at the same time, the king of Salem.
edit on 1-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

I wasn't talking about Jews from any specific time period...
It sounded like it, how they had the Law of Moses and Jesus perfected it. That would make me think you meant the Jews as Jesus found them.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Pearj
 

In a sense He wounded Himself - God is entirely sin free and cannot contain sin, therefore a part of Him was made flesh to endure and take on the sin in order to make that sacrifice on Earth. Think of the Trinity - the Messiah is considered the same as God, and the Spirit. It's hard to understand, but believing in the Messiah is believing in God. People accept that based on faith. You might think "I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense, so it can't be right." so to give perspective on believing something with faith ...
This sounds like conjecture. For one thing, the Bible says nothing about a trinity. What you are doing is making God out to have multiple personalities which seems very weird to me. I know there are Christians who believe in this theory but I think it is misguided and wrong. I would prefer to go with the Bible that there are multiple gods. One god, The Ancient of Days, is the supreme God and considered the Father God, being older than all the other gods. YHWH would be the son of God and chief of the council of Gods of this world. Jesus made it plain that he was the new I Am, and so takes the role of YHWH and is the direct intermediary between the Father God and the people of Earth. Jesus is not an elevated man as much as a god who became a man to elevate all men.
Once the god who was to be Jesus was incarnated, he had relinquished his god powers but retained his native goodness, so he could have become a sinner as Adam did but he kept his focus on the job at hand and was not to be swayed by the enticements of the flesh.
To be hypothetical a bit, if there was a god named YHWH and he created a covenant of blood where whoever broke it had to die, and the new YHWH wanted to do away with that covenant of death, he would have to die himself as a consequence. I may be the only person in the world who believes this but it is clear to me that Jesus did not die in order to satisfy the covenant of death, but to do away with it. So, to me, this is the only logical explanation. The sacrifice was one dead YHWH god, and in his place, we have a resurrected man as Christ and Lord. We still have the Father, who is not and never was, YHWH.

edit on 1-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0

I happen to believe in a "God" or higher spiritual power. I also believe all the religions of this world are trying to interpret something that isn't meant to be. Trying to simplify something that isn't simple. I don't believe it's necessary to be "saved" from anything but ignorance. I believe their are "good" and "evil" forces at play, exactly what they are is the real question.

Quoting scripture as proof of anything is about as convincing as quoting the phone book as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad some people find it helpful in their lives, I'm sad some of those same people use it to justify harming others in a myriad of ways.

Answer: No one actually knows. Probable answer: Neither.

My apologies for cropping your post.
I wanted to say that I feel exactly the same way. I could not find a better way of stating my own opinion than your text.
We are all one in this world and universe. To harm one, of any faith, harms us all.
Unless it's in self defense then it's important that you harm last and the most.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Recheck facts on the Melchisedec order. You have the genealogy right, but it was still pre-law. It can be considered pre-Jew, but the tradition was faith, to faith+law with Moses, who at that moment would of been pre-Jew also, buy that same logic.

Prophets did say He would be a strong King / Prince. Strong to take on the world's sins, not to delegate the surrounding nations "bad time" they were giving Israel.. That's what Jews hoped for, but their own scripture says clearly otherwise. Please quote an Old Testament, major prophet verse that states that the Messiah would delegate, subjugate or work with the nations giving Israel a "bad time" as though it were a UN meeting.

That would mean the Messiah would be there to fix the chastisement God was giving His people. Working against each other? Good cop / bad cop?

There were many occupations of the area (all pre-prophesied) that was held by Jews, by more that one nation - and they killed everything in site (human or otherwise), and reduced the cities, farms and churches to burnt rubble - repeatedly.

I understand that's your definition of a "bad time", but then by that same logic - hitler was just giving the Jews a "bad time". I would guess to think Jews think that "bad time" was pretty horrific - one of the worst "bad times" in human history.

Lastly we aren't debating other books. You might as well open the Gilgamesh topic to debate Noah - but then this would be a whole different thread... wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Pearj
 

In Revelations it says that 3 people, in 3 different places on the globe will be able to 'see' the antichrist simultaneously. That was written about 1800 years ago - and people (even though it didn't make literal sense) believed it would be true based on faith. At that time it would take a month to travel to the end of your own country. Just 100 years ago, no one could make physical sense of it, but they believed it anyway. Of course now we have live satellite feeds - and it's no stretch to see how we could all see the same event at the same time regardless of location.
Are you getting this from YouTube videos?
For one thing, the word "antichrist" is not found in Revelation.
Second thing, there is no mention of three people in Revelation.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Pearj
 

Please quote an Old Testament, major prophet verse that states that the Messiah would delegate, subjugate or work with the nations giving Israel a "bad time" as though it were a UN meeting.
There isn't anything like that, meaning the Messiah concept is a popular belief that comes from Jewish Apocolyptic Escatology, it does not come from the "Old Testament, major prophet" verses.
What you need to do is look at things like psalms:

He succeeds in everything he attempts.

Why do the nations rebel?
Why are the countries devising plots that will fail?
The kings of the earth form a united front;
the rulers collaborate
against the Lord and his anointed king.
They say, “Let’s tear off the shackles they’ve put on us!
Let’s free ourselves from their ropes!”
The one enthroned in heaven laughs in disgust;
the Lord taunts them.
Then he angrily speaks to them
and terrifies them in his rage, saying,
“I myself have installed my king
on Zion, my holy hill.”
The king says, “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me:
‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father!
Ask me,
and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
the ends of the earth as your personal property.
You will break them with an iron scepter;
you will smash them like a potter’s jar!’”
So now, you kings, do what is wise;
you rulers of the earth, submit to correction!
edit on 1-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
... I would prefer to go with the Bible that there are multiple gods. ...


I stopped reading there - although I'm willing to bet you went on to describe the Trinity as "multiple gods".

That's a pretty bent thing to "read into" the Bible, best to just stick with what it actually says... Compare scripture with scripture so you know what they're actually saying - and use context. (First two rules in Theological study.) I don't want to debate what the Bible says with someone who mis-quotes it, so my input to you ends as well.

No offense meant, I just don't see it being productive.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Dear Deetermined,



Deserving of salvation and receiving salvation are two different things. I find you to be "luke warm" in your comments.


Firstly, I have only recently heard of Mr. Osteen and have never watched or seen him so I have no idea what he believes. As for what I believe, I believe what I wrote. It was pretty simple and used direct examples. Moses was Jewish, he did not know the name of Jesus and Moses was saved. Is that really that hard to understand? Your misunderstanding of Christian beliefs is easy to understand when there are so many who profess to believe, yet, do not know what the bible says.

In the bible it talks about how none can say they didn't know because they could find God in the stars in nature and in everything. No human has perfect knowledge, not of God and not of the universe. It is not about the differences in understanding, it is about understanding what really matters. When Jesus was asked which of the commandments was the most important, he said that we were to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. If we do that then the little details and misunderstandings become irrelevant to salvation.

The original question is silly because it starts from incorrect premises. It is like asking a man if he is still beating his wife. If the answer is that he never beat her at all, you say that he didn't answer the question. That is flawed logic and insincere.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Trevor is the false squid. Travis is the TRUE SQUID!

All hail Travis!


In a Multiverse, they are both the True Squid!

IRM



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taz2122

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's etc... They're all wrong!

Anyone with half a brain knows that the universe rides on the back of a giant celestial squid called Trevor.

IRM


Poppycock!

The correct answer is of course four elephants and a gigantic turtle


Are the elephants on top of the turtle, or does the turtle have a leg on each Elephant? I don't know man... I think Trevor is going to smite you down for that post!

IRM



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 

All of God's promises were made to the House of Israel. Even the Son was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel; so they are neither Jewish nor Christian.
The apostasy will be those who relinquish their previous religious ideas to be obedient to God the Father and thus form the twigs of the Fig Tree which will be known as Israel. It will be a religious nation that is worldwide and not a geographical one. It will include natural Jews, natural Israelite and naturalised [foreigners - previously of any sect or religion] who cleave to the LORD.
God's purpose was outlined in Exodus 19:5 & 6 and the Son was lauded by the 24 Elders for having achieved just that in Revelation 5:9 & 10. God is after priests who will form a holy nation; not a congregation.
You'll find more detail at:
www.helium.com...

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320030100&sr=8-1

nabi1-brielle.blogspot.com...




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join