Why do Christians believe in a God that has "chosen" the Jews

page: 18
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 

Can you explain to me the rational behind God having to sacrifice somebody for his sake?
For His sake: God who wants to be known by the name, "He who justifies the unrighteous".

God created a flawed product, us humans, then he blames the "clay" for the "potter's" mistakes? Then he makes another human, and somehow his death leads to the salvation for sinners? Salvation from his own wrath?
The execution of the result of this "wrath" happens naturally, what we see in the effects of sin in the world, such as suffering and death. No divine intercession is necessary for those things to come about.
We are, and the universe that we live in is, "flawed", as you say, and I don't think that any defect in it is the result of intention on God's part, or anyone else's.
Jesus entering the world was for the goal of making things better for everyone who lives in this world. I think that the most basic way of bringing it about by this mechanism, so to speak, is to make God to us very real, and the place that we have in God's view very clear.

Shouldn't God recognize his own limitation instead?
I believe that the scheme of faith and the church as laid out in the New Testament is very conservative in its expectations, taking into consideration the limitations placed by the very universe that we live in, including God himself. Where the unrealistic expectations come from, in my opinion, is people who have a problem recognizing the metaphoric nature of some of the sayings found in the NT, and the taking of things out of proper context, and the fitting together of those pieces into a new created prediction about the way things are and how they are going to be.
edit on 12-7-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The fact is that man has never been fully able to keep the law . God just made it easier for man to do so and still we have those looking a gift horse in the mouth . It just goes to show that he could be giving out 1,000 dollar bills and there are people who would find something wrong with that too!
These Godless people should not denigrate God and his gift of Grace and Mercy which is Jesus Christ and just say No Thanks ! That's not for me . I just like my wretched life too much ! Be truthful ! There is something in your life that would not work along with Jesus . What is it that is more important NOW than later in Eternity ?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
 
people who have a problem recognizing the metaphoric nature of some of the sayings found in the NT,

Like 'pronoia', the new term for the mental disease of not recognizing danger,
there needs to be a new term for the mental disease of blind, irrational faith.

God equates himself with a potter, and us humans with clay. That's fine but then to blame the clay for being flawed, that is the height of hypocrisy. You call that 'God' and want me to have faith in that? Blindly?

That a bunch of guys I know nothing about wrote about a guy called Jesus some 2000 years ago does not bring 'God' closer to me, but rather seems farther away. Metaphors? I'm more interested in facts.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The promises of the Old Testament were to the Israelites, who were neither the Jews of the time of Christ, nor the Ashkenazim of today.

2000 years ago, The leadership of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of Judea had been under the control of the Idumaen "converted Jews" beginning when Pompey appointed Antipater as Governor. Antipater was the father of Herod the Great. Neither were of the tribe of Judah, neither were Israelites. Herod had most of the Judahites in the Sanhedrin murdered in 37BC, and appointed fellow Idumaen/Edomites to their place. By the time of Christ's ministry, these folks had been in control, under the Romans, for nearly 100 years. When Jews are mentioned in the NT, most of the time it is referring to these people, although, like today, sometimes the same words were used to describe people living in Judea, or followers of Judaism, or even Judahites.
en.wikipedia.org...

A record of the Jewish written histories regarding Ashkenazim:
iamthewitness.com...

According to Christ's words, he was sent for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel---the lost 10 tribes--not to the people in control in Judea.

The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.
edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


It is the Ashkenazi Jews who are behind the Protocols of Zion starting from Meyer Rothschild . The Talmudic Jews were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus from what I understand . The Edomites cheered on the Romans when they attacked the Jews also and were believed to take the place of the Jews when they were ran out .So it is a real question of just who is running Israel now .



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.


When they asked Jesus, during trial, if He were the Messiah, understood to be the king of the Jews, He said...."you said it". Jesus was known to be a descendent of the royal line of David and so a Jew.....whoever the Sanhedrin may have been.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.


When they asked Jesus, during trial, if He were the Messiah, understood to be the king of the Jews, He said...."you said it". Jesus was known to be a descendent of the royal line of David and so a Jew.....whoever the Sanhedrin may have been.


Messiah was certainly to come from the tribe of Judah. Your error is thinking that Jew=Judahite

No where in the OT is Messiah said to be king of the Jews (only time Jews are mentioned in OT is when the Israelites are fighting them). One more time---only rarely in the NT does Jew mean or even include Judahites. It usually means either Judean(a resident of Judea--which Christ was not) or one of the Herodian idumaens who had been in control of Judaism and Judea for nearly 100 years under the Romans. The Greek word is Ioudaois (the letter J was not invented for another 1400 years).
edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I was raised in private catholic schools mostly and i asked our priest the same question. His answer was that god chose all of us. Then went on to explain that we were only suppose to revere and emulate the jewish peoples from the ancient times. As if they WERE chosen but had lost their way some where down the line. But then again he was an old irishman with a drinking problem. One day he made a speech and after his point came to light he told a classroom full of kids to "put that in ur pipe and smoke it" lol. I believe we are all flawed and in need of guidance.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
 
According to Christ's words, he was sent for the Lost sheep
Idumaen "converted Jews"

It seems to me that you are missing the big picture. There is no set definition for 'Jew' - on purpose, just like Semite, Hebrew, Israel, God, definitions keep changing, thereby allowing the justification of anything by simply changing the meaning of words as convenient.

You cannot just base your claims on the Bible, since it is a biased document, biased in various ways, according to the bias (and limited knowledge) of individual authors, and according to the bias of the canonization. These people were neither neutral, nor objective, nor impartial.

The question of who is 'King of the Jews' must be viewed with the historical context in mind. Cleopatra (who reigned over Canaan) claimed to have a son with Ceasar, who would be a legitimate heir after Ceasar's death, whereas his adopted son Octavian may not have had the same legal status.

That is the reason why this question of 'who is the King' is important. The word King is meant literally, not metaphorically.

Of course the Jewish authors of the Bible want us to believe something different. And I am asking, why do we believe in a religion created by Jews? Rather than historical knowledge?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Unless one has firm definitions and a firm understanding of history, discussions like this have little point.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
 
Unless one has firm definitions and a firm understanding of history, discussions like this have little point.

Exactly my point. Given that most people who call themselves 'Jew' today do not fit your firm definition of it, how strict do you believe they were with those definitions 2000 years ago - when it meant life or death and status for them?

The discussion is about why Christians believe in a religion that was chosen or not chosen by those people. Why do you think they did?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


The title "King of the Jews" is not something that Christ ever claimed. The Roman Senate had confirmed Herod as "the first King of the Jews" in about 40 BC. When Pilate ordered the inscription placed on the cross, it was done to anger the Jews for what they were doing.


When they asked Jesus, during trial, if He were the Messiah, understood to be the king of the Jews, He said...."you said it". Jesus was known to be a descendent of the royal line of David and so a Jew.....whoever the Sanhedrin may have been.


Messiah was certainly to come from the tribe of Judah. Your error is thinking that Jew=Judahite

No where in the OT is Messiah said to be king of the Jews (only time Jews are mentioned in OT is when the Israelites are fighting them). One more time---only rarely in the NT does Jew mean or even include Judahites. It usually means either Judean(a resident of Judea--which Christ was not) or one of the Herodian idumaens who had been in control of Judaism and Judea for nearly 100 years under the Romans. The Greek word is Ioudaois (the letter J was not invented for another 1400 years).
edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)


Again, whoever anyone was around there at that point, for the sake of your argument, Jesus was a real Jew a descendent of the royal house of David, who were decedents of Judah. He was even called Son of David as it was commonly known.

And it was the people, at His arrival at Jerusalem, that first openly claimed Him King, with great fan fair. "Behold your King comes meek and lowly riding upon an ass" and they saw His entrance into Jerusalem a powerful time, at that moment, of the fulfillment of this old prophecy.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 
Dude you are simply tossing stuff at the wall and hopes some sticks. You don't even make any sense. Your sources are ten times more biased, confused and disjointed than what you criticize.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


It is the Ashkenazi Jews who are behind the Protocols of Zion starting from Meyer Rothschild . The Talmudic Jews were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus from what I understand . The Edomites cheered on the Romans when they attacked the Jews also and were believed to take the place of the Jews when they were ran out .So it is a real question of just who is running Israel now .



One good indicator of this has been the response of nations around Israel to the new nation. About 3 wars to wipe out the new Israel. Years of constant churning of Jew hate there and around the world. So whoever "is running Israel now" isn't in the club over there. Do you think the local powers would be so adamant about destroying Israel if their brothers the Edomites or the Moabites were running Israel?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
 
Dude you are simply tossing stuff at the wall and hopes some sticks. You don't even make any sense. Your sources are ten times more biased, confused and disjointed than what you criticize.
It seems to me a bunch of orthodox 'experts' don't like to answer a simple question, Why do Christians believe in a God that has "chosen" the Jews? I wonder why this is. Do you not have an answer or do you just want to bury the question?

Stop attacking me for asking it.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


It is the Ashkenazi Jews who are behind the Protocols of Zion starting from Meyer Rothschild . The Talmudic Jews were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus from what I understand . The Edomites cheered on the Romans when they attacked the Jews also and were believed to take the place of the Jews when they were ran out .So it is a real question of just who is running Israel now .


The Edomites sided with the Romans when the Romans under General Pompey first invaded in 63 BC. However, 133 years later, when the Romans under Titus were sent to destroy Jerusalem, the Idumeans sent 20,000 troops to help the Jews fight the Romans.
edit on 13-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
 


The Edomites sided with the Romans when the Romans under General Pompey first invaded in 63 BC. However, 133 years later, when the Romans under Titus were sent to destroy Jerusalem, the Idumeans sent 20,000 troops to help the Jews fight the Romans.
What does any of this have to do with Christian belief?
Still not answering the question of this topic?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
 


The Edomites sided with the Romans when the Romans under General Pompey first invaded in 63 BC. However, 133 years later, when the Romans under Titus were sent to destroy Jerusalem, the Idumeans sent 20,000 troops to help the Jews fight the Romans.
What does any of this have to do with Christian belief?
Still not answering the question of this topic?


You have been answered several times. Your question insinuates that the promises of the OT were made to the "Jews"--that is an incorrect, but common, fallacy among those with limited and programmed information. The Jews of today are not the Israelites of the OT. Their own literature re-iterates this time and again. The major ancient and modern historians re-iterate it time and again. You have been told several times, but you still don''t seem to understand it.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
 

UNRELATED:

The promises of the Old Testament were to the Israelites, who were neither the Jews of the time of Christ, nor the Ashkenazim of today.
UNRELATED:

Messiah was certainly to come from the tribe of Judah. Your error is thinking that Jew=Judahite
No where in the OT is Messiah said to be king of the Jews...
UNRELATED:

Unless one has firm definitions and a firm understanding of history, discussions like this have little point.
UNRELATED:

You have been answered several times. Your question insinuates that the promises of the OT were made to the "Jews"...The Jews of today are not the Israelites of the OT...You have been told several times, but you still don''t seem to understand it.

Its easy to link, so why don't you do that? Easy to give a short summary. Why don't you do that either? Are you incapable to answer a simple question?

If you don't want to answer, fine, just stop posting your "promises to Isrealites" in a thread that they relate to. Or make your own thread.

Question is: Why do Christians believe in a God that has "chosen" the Jews?

For you I will explain, this question means, I want to explore the motivation for the Christians for choosing that belief.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Why do Christians believe in a God that has "chosen" the Jews? This question is mostly about Christians. Jews are incidental to it, in that it is not their 'fault' that God chose them over somebody else.

One possible answer is, that an emperor chose 'Christianity'. The population had then little choice but to go along with it. Does anybody agree, or, if not, why?





top topics
 
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join