A sign God does not exist or he has a wicked sense of humor!

[big shmooz]

Could you imagine a life where you were concerned with ervery minute thing like whether or not someone could print out the word God that you typed, then erase it? Unfortunately, we as man always find ways to inflict religion upon ourselves, instead of accepting the Way the Truth and the Light.

Actually I can imagine it for I live it. & I am happy with my life. I thank G_D each day for making me a Jew. This is the reason why I thank Him for this. Because I appreciate His love for me in giving me His laws so I can be close to Him.

To me it is not a burden, but rather an opportunity. If G_D came to you & said, you will win the lottery, just buy a ticket. How many people would run to do it? I ran to do it.

If I had not born a Jew & knew what I know now, I would convert to Judaism in an instant. In it I see the greatest possible closeness one can have to G_D. I did not inflict anything upon myself. When G_D came calling, (at mount Seenai) I said "here I am".

[big shmooz]

maybe you should consider typing it as G_D instead of G-D? because everytime i see it i think you're cursing.

Heh heh... Actually I never curse. (as in using foul language)

[DJEagles]

Actually I can imagine it for I live it. & I am happy with my life. I thank G_D each day for making me a Jew. This is the reason why I thank Him for this. Because I appreciate His love for me in giving me His laws so I can be close to Him.

To me it is not a burden, but rather an opportunity. If G_D came to you & said, you will win the lottery, just buy a ticket. How many people would run to do it? I ran to do it.

If I had not born a Jew & knew what I know now, I would convert to Judaism in an instant. In it I see the greatest possible closeness one can have to G_D. I did not inflict anything upon myself. When G_D came calling, (at mount Seenai) I said "here I am".

That's a nice post, and you obviously feel greatly for your religion.

[big shmooz]

djeagles11... you are very correct. & I appreciate the observation alot. I am very passionate in fact, about my faith. At the same time I try to respect others & to always listen to what others have to say even if they do not agree with me. I also aim to never personally insult others when discussing my faith with others. (which I often discuss) My Judaic faith is in fact an integral part of my life.

As my signature says.... G-D is the best thing in life.

[RAM]

Heh heh... Actually I never curse. (as in using foul language)

i didn't think you did, that's why when i first saw it i was confused. but just to let you know, i wasn't being facetious, or trying to be funny- i was being sincere.

[big shmooz]

i wasn't being facetious, or trying to be funny- i was being sincere.

Actually that is indeed how I understood you. I never thought otherwise.

P.S. In my last couple of posts you may have noticed that I have indeed typed "G_D". This is because you asked me to. It takes some getting used to & I am not sure I will always remember, but I will try.

[DJEagles]

I think this thread should become required reading to join this site! 9 pages of religious discussion, which can be a dangerous topic to discuss on the internet...and no one has been flamed or attempted to belittle anyone. A thread that was started by me, as a joke, because I thought the article was funny, has turned into a place where we can discuss our beliefs without worrying about being ridiculed. Goes to show how people can debate and disagree without resorting to name calling and finger pointing.

[UncleMo]

You know, come to think of it, I'd like to take a shot at you, a B.Jays fan. Ahem, 1993.

[DJEagles]

You know, come to think of it, I'd like to take a shot at you, a B.Jays fan. Ahem, 1993.

Let's not get catty now Mo... :lol:

[big shmooz]

djeagles11... G_D created us all. Even those of us who are not sure who G_D is. I always make it a point of keeping to addressing of the religious issues alone. It does not matter. When a person has a different belief than myself, this doesn't make them less human than I in G_D's eye. If I keep this in mind it is perfectly natural for me to respect the other person who may not believe the same way as myself.

P.S. it's 10 pages now.

[philliesphan18]

djeagles11... G_D created us all. Even those of us who are not sure who G_D is. I always make it a point of keeping to addressing of the religious issues alone. It does not matter. When a person has a different belief than myself, this doesn't make them less human than I in G_D's eye. If I keep this in mind it is perfectly natural for me to respect the other person who may not believe the same way as myself.

P.S. it's 10 pages now.

Wow I couldn't have said it better myself! I also think that it is awesome that we can discuss our faith and beliefs without getting bashed as might happen in other situations.

[PirateFan13]

My goodness, this post has exploded. Its easy to understand why discussions about Christianity get so deep and continue, its the whole basis of life.

You don't think that the Lord is working here? In a MVPMods forum? Maybe someone had to hear something, or get a word to recieve encouragement.

There is something that does bother me though, now I've been a Born-Again Christian for most of my life, Christianity is not all that complex as some pastors will make it out to be. I ride with a motorcycle club called "Sons of God MC" and we tend to befriend and encourage some of the toughest guys in the country, guys who ride with various motorcycle clubs, the basis of our message to them is, declare that you are a sinner, ask for forgiveness and then ask Jesus to come into your heart and dwell there. This is the ONLY way to get to heaven. Its the simplest decision of your life. Now please understand that you must belive in your heart that Jeses died on the cross to wash away all our sins and that he will return to destroy satan and restore his kingdom here on earth (New Jerusalem). If you sincerely ask Jesus to come into your heart you will have everlasting life in heaven.

Now, being a Christian is not easy, not easy at all. What we like to say is that your a tough guy if your a Christian. After you accept Christ to be your Lord and Saviour you need to ask to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and from there God will work on you, and point out your deficiencies and make those deficiencies into a witness for others. You DO NOT have to "get better" or "clean yourself up" to come to Christ, come to him first, then He will help you "clean up".

And please remember, without a personal relationship with Christ, all the good deeds and smiles will get you a ticket to hell. Some of the most influencial people, some of the nicest of folks, did not reach Heaven because they did not give their lives over to Christ.

And like I said before folks... there is definitely a God, because we have baseball.

Larry

[big shmooz]

Dear Larry (PirateFan 13)... Again I beg to disagree with that point of view. If you read the Hebrew Scriptures, you find time & again that people through their good deeds earned everlasting life. Perhaps G_D is here reaching out to people to say to them that Christianity is NOT the answer.

I will name a few Biblical personalities that did not believe in jesus nor ask him into their lives yet G_D testifed to their goodness & righteousness.

Noach (Noah) is the very first person in Scripture to be called "righteous". G_D saved him & his entire family due to his righteousness in the time of the flood.

Next we find Avruh'hum, Yeetschuk & Yaakov (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob) where G_D says about them not only are they righteous, but specifically to Avruh'hum, G_D says "your reward is great". (based on deeds he had done)

Moshe (Moses) is spoken of by G_D as being "G_D's servant" which is the highest compliment a person can get. This is of course based on how he lived his life.

King Duhveed (David) had one issue in his entire life as Scripture testifies of him. The rest of his life was one of goodness & G_Dliness. As it says in Scripture, only in the matter of Ooreeah (Uriah) the Cheetee did he sin. (even that is very complicated as to what the sin was, which since it is not part of the discussion, I will not elaborate on) Anyway, King Duhveed is called G_D's beloved. & King Duhveed is referred to in Scripture as a saint. (a person who goes beyond the measure of the law)

I could actually sit down & go through many many of the people in Scripture who are spoken of in positive terms & the common denominator between all these people are, that none of them believed in jesus or accepted him as their savior.

I am reminded of the city of Ninvay (Nineveh) whom G_D sent Yonah (Jonah) to, with the tidings of "in 40 days Ninvay is overturned". Yonah at first does not want to go, & in the end reluctantly does go. Ninvay repents & changes their actions & as it says there, "And G_d saw their deeds, that they had repented of their evil way, and the L_rd relented concerning the evil that He had spoken to do to them, and He did not do it". So we see here that it is in fact the deeds that change things for a person.

Scripture over & over again repeats this theme when G_D speaks of repentance & living. Yihchezkail (Ezekiel) says "because You (G_D) do not desire that the dead shall die, but rather that you shall return from your evil path & live". If jesus were the answer instead, why did G_D not say so to Yihchezkail?

If you will say jesus was not yet born, then my question would be, if he was the answer, he should have been born. Why would G_D deny jesus to all those people if he is the true answer?

Why, when G_D revealed Himself on Mount Seenai (Sinai) to Yeesruhail, (Israel) was jesus not part of the equation?

Why does G_D in Yihshayuh (Isaiah) say, "beside Me there is no other" when according to Christianity, jesus is sitting on the right hand of G_D?

These questions I post above are very understandable questions.

I also understand that the new test teaches otherwise & that is what you believe. However, this is why I believe that the new test. contradicts the Hebrew Scriptures. (amongst other places where it does this) This is a big issue for me in that it brings into at the very least high doubt as to the authenticity of the new test itself as being a G_D'ly source. Remember always, the Hebrew Scriptures came first. They are the original. It is the uncontested word of G_D by Jews & Christians alike. Hence, if along comes a new document that contradicts G_D"s word.........

[krawhitham]

A sign God does not exist or he has a wicked sense of humor!

People will not stop asking when the 06 mod will be finished and released

[timzeig]

timzeig. I also noticed in your quote, you quoted the following... "Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

I am genuinely puzzled by this quote, since it blatently contradicts both the book of Deut. when it says in chapter 1 verse 8. "See, I have set the land before you; come and possess the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them and their descendants after them". Also in the book of Joshua where it speaks about how G_D swore to give the land to Abraham & his seed & in the conquering of the land by Israel at that time, was fulfilled this promise. There are other places that EXPLICITELY say this too, but those two places come to mind offhand.

Edit: a few more verses in Deut. chapter 1 ...

20. And I said to you, "You have come to the mountain of the Amorites, which the Lord, our God, is giving us.

21. Behold, the Lord, your God, has set the land before you; go up and possess it, as the Lord, God of your fathers has spoken to you; you shall neither fear nor be dismayed."

I'll try to explain Gal 3:16:

(1) There can be no reasonable objection to the opinion that the promise originally made to Abraham included the Messiah; and the promised blessings were to descend through him. This is so often affirmed in the New Testament, that to deny it would be to deny the repeated declarations of the sacred writers, and to make war on the whole structure of the Bible; see particularly Rom. 4; compare Joh_8:56. If this general principle be admitted, it will remove much perplexity from the controversy.

(2) the promise made to Abraham Gen_22:18, “and in thy seed zera‛, Septuagint ἐν τῷ σπεÌÏÎ¼Î±Ï„Î¹Ì ÏƒÎ¿Ï… en toÌ„ spermati sou), where the words both in Hebrew and in Greek are in the singular number) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,†cannot refer to all the seed or the posterity of Abraham taken collectively. He had two sons, Isaac by Rebecca, and Ishmael by Hagar, besides numerous descendants by Keturah; Gen_25:1 ff. Through a large part of these no particular blessings descended on the human family, and there is no sense in which all the families of the earth are particularly blessed in them. On any supposition, therefore, there must have been some limitation of the promise; or the word “seed†was intended to include only some portion of his descendants, whether a particular branch or an individual, does not yet appear. It must have referred to a part only of the posterity of Abraham, but to what part is to be learned only by subsequent revelations.

(3) it was the intention of God to confine the blessing to one branch of the family, to Isaac and his descendants. The special promised blessing was to be through him, and not through the family of Ishmael. This intention is often expressed, Gen_17:19-21; Gen_21:12; Gen_25:11; compare Rom_9:7; Heb_11:18. Thus, the original promise of a blessing through the posterity of Abraham became somewhat narrowed down, so as to show that there was to be a limitation of the promise to a particular portion of his posterity.

(4) if the promise had referred to the two branches of the family; if it had been intended to include Ishmael as well as Isaac, then some term would have been used that would have expressed this. So unlike were Isaac and Ishmael; so different in the circumstances of their birth and their future life; so dissimilar were the prophecies respecting them, that it might be said that their descendants were two races of people; and in Scripture the race of Ishmael ceased to be spoken of as the descendants or the posterity of Abraham. There was a sense in which the posterity of Isaac was regarded as the seed or posterity of Abraham in which the descendants of Ishmael were not; and the term σπεÌÏμα sperma or “seed†therefore properly designated the posterity of Isaac. It might be said, then, that the promise “to thy seed†did not refer to the two races, as if he had said σπεÌÏματα spermata, “seeds,†but to one σπεÌÏμα sperma, “the seed†of Abraham, by way of eminence.

(5) this promise was subsequently narrowed down still more, so as to include only one portion of the descendants of Isaac. Thus it was limited to the posterity of Jacob, Esau being excluded; subsequently the special blessing was promised to the family of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob Gen_49:10; in subsequent times it was still further narrowed down or limited to the family of Jesse; then to that of David; then to that of Solomon, until it terminated in the Messiah. The original intention of the promise was that there should be a limitation, and that limitation was made from age to age, until it terminated in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. By being thus narrowed down from age to age, and limited by successive revelations, it was shown that the Messiah was eminently intended, which is what Paul says here. The promise was indeed at first general, and the term used was of the most general nature; but it was shown from time to time that God intended that it should be applied only to one branch or portion of the family of Abraham; and that limitation was finally so made as to terminate in the Messiah.

[big shmooz]

I'll try to explain Gal 3:16:

(1) There can be no reasonable objection to the opinion that the promise originally made to Abraham included the Messiah; and the promised blessings were to descend through him. This is so often affirmed in the New Testament, that to deny it would be to deny the repeated declarations of the sacred writers, and to make war on the whole structure of the Bible; see particularly Rom. 4; compare Joh_8:56. If this general principle be admitted, it will remove much perplexity from the controversy.

(2) the promise made to Abraham Gen_22:18, “and in thy seed zera‛, Septuagint ἐν τῷ σπεÌÏÎ¼Î±Ï„Î¹Ì ÏƒÎ¿Ï… en toÌ„ spermati sou), where the words both in Hebrew and in Greek are in the singular number) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,†cannot refer to all the seed or the posterity of Abraham taken collectively. He had two sons, Isaac by Rebecca, and Ishmael by Hagar, besides numerous descendants by Keturah; Gen_25:1 ff. Through a large part of these no particular blessings descended on the human family, and there is no sense in which all the families of the earth are particularly blessed in them. On any supposition, therefore, there must have been some limitation of the promise; or the word “seed†was intended to include only some portion of his descendants, whether a particular branch or an individual, does not yet appear. It must have referred to a part only of the posterity of Abraham, but to what part is to be learned only by subsequent revelations.

(3) it was the intention of God to confine the blessing to one branch of the family, to Isaac and his descendants. The special promised blessing was to be through him, and not through the family of Ishmael. This intention is often expressed, Gen_17:19-21; Gen_21:12; Gen_25:11; compare Rom_9:7; Heb_11:18. Thus, the original promise of a blessing through the posterity of Abraham became somewhat narrowed down, so as to show that there was to be a limitation of the promise to a particular portion of his posterity.

(4) if the promise had referred to the two branches of the family; if it had been intended to include Ishmael as well as Isaac, then some term would have been used that would have expressed this. So unlike were Isaac and Ishmael; so different in the circumstances of their birth and their future life; so dissimilar were the prophecies respecting them, that it might be said that their descendants were two races of people; and in Scripture the race of Ishmael ceased to be spoken of as the descendants or the posterity of Abraham. There was a sense in which the posterity of Isaac was regarded as the seed or posterity of Abraham in which the descendants of Ishmael were not; and the term σπεÌÏμα sperma or “seed†therefore properly designated the posterity of Isaac. It might be said, then, that the promise “to thy seed†did not refer to the two races, as if he had said σπεÌÏματα spermata, “seeds,†but to one σπεÌÏμα sperma, “the seed†of Abraham, by way of eminence.

(5) this promise was subsequently narrowed down still more, so as to include only one portion of the descendants of Isaac. Thus it was limited to the posterity of Jacob, Esau being excluded; subsequently the special blessing was promised to the family of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob Gen_49:10; in subsequent times it was still further narrowed down or limited to the family of Jesse; then to that of David; then to that of Solomon, until it terminated in the Messiah. The original intention of the promise was that there should be a limitation, and that limitation was made from age to age, until it terminated in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. By being thus narrowed down from age to age, and limited by successive revelations, it was shown that the Messiah was eminently intended, which is what Paul says here. The promise was indeed at first general, and the term used was of the most general nature; but it was shown from time to time that God intended that it should be applied only to one branch or portion of the family of Abraham; and that limitation was finally so made as to terminate in the Messiah.

I will aim to answer you point by point. In several cases as you will find, I totally agree that it is within the context of the Scriptures. But ONLY to a point.

On your first point that you say that the promise originally made to Abraham was to include the Messiah. This is a bit tricky to respond to, because you are correct in fact, but not correct in thought. I will explain....

Yes, the Messiah is part of the promise, since he too is a Jew. In that sense he is part of the promise. However to set him apart as the exclusive part is incorrect, as you will see when I further explain.

You claim the new test affirms this. On this I have no disagreemenet with you. It propbably does. My contention is with the new test itself. In that by stating this idea, it is speaking against G_D's word in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I am not making war on the Bible by saying as I am saying above. I just do not accept the new test AS the Bible for the reasons I am stating. (plus many I am not stating)

On your second point... in fact the word "zera" is both singular & plural. (I speak Hebrew) However Israel too is singular. So even if it meant zera in the singular context, G_D saying "zera" does not necessarily exclude Israel as being the subject of G_D's word. In fact the word saying that "to your seed I will give all this land", is later confirmed to be referring to Israel by Moses & Joshua in the Scriptures I quoted above. (other prophets in Scripture also confirm this idea)

As far as your point of "all the nations shall be blessed" cannot refer to all the proginy of Abraham, I agree. Because as you pointed out, Scripture does not count either Yishmuhail or Aysuhv or the 6 sons of Abraham through Kihtooruh as being Abraham's seed. However it's not as a ongoing revelation that this is the case as you seem to claim. In fact it is stated as such within that verse originally. Because G_D said "IN" your seed. The Rabbi's explain the word of "in" as being excluding. Not all Abraham's proginy were meant to inherit. & the verses later on show what the exclusion is.

Regarding your third & fourth points .... I actually completely agree with them. Scripture clearly backs up that neither Yishmuhail (Ishmael) nor Aysuhv (Esau) nor the six sons of Kihtooruh were part of the promise as I explained above.

On to point 5.... you mention the above special blessing was promised to the family of Judah. Here we completely disagree. I will explain why you are mistaken. You in fact mention Genesis 49 verse 10 as your basis for this. I will now quote that verse for you & others reading this... "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet, until Sheeloh comes, and to him will be a gathering of peoples." It is referring to Judah being the kingly family of Israel. as we see starting from verse 8 there. I quote... "Judah, [as for] you, your brothers will acknowledge you. Your hand will be at the nape of your enemies, [and] your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you.". It also speaks about the Messiah (here referred to as "Sheeloh") ruling the nations. As you can see from here, this has nothing to do with our point. This is not talking about being a blessing to the nations at all.

In conclusion, what we find here is that the new test is saying something that G_D"s word never said nor intended. In fact if we look deeper it actually is contradicting G_D's word in that it is excluding the entire Israel as the promised one spoken of to Abraham. In short, the verses in both Numbers & in Joshua that I have quoted above make it very clear of whom G_D was speaking when He said "in your seed". This can't be taken away from by the new test or anybody else. It is G_D's infallible truth.

[timzeig]

I will aim to answer you point by point. In several cases as you will find, I totally agree that it is within the context of the Scriptures. But ONLY to a point.

On your first point that you say that the promise originally made to Abraham was to include the Messiah. This is a bit tricky to respond to, because you are correct in fact, but not correct in thought. I will explain....

Yes, the Messiah is part of the promise, since he too is a Jew. In that sense he is part of the promise. However to set him apart as the exclusive part is incorrect, as you will see when I further explain.

You claim the new test affirms this. On this I have no disagreemenet with you. It propbably does. My contention is with the new test itself. In that by stating this idea, it is speaking against G_D's word in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I am not making war on the Bible by saying as I am saying above. I just do not accept the new test AS the Bible for the reasons I am stating. (plus many I am not stating)

On your second point... in fact the word "zera" is both singular & plural. (I speak Hebrew) However Israel too is singular. So even if it meant zera in the singular context, G_D saying "zera" does not necessarily exclude Israel as being the subject of G_D's word. In fact the word saying that "to your seed I will give all this land", is later confirmed to be referring to Israel by Moses & Joshua in the Scriptures I quoted above. (other prophets in Scripture also confirm this idea)

As far as your point of "all the nations shall be blessed" cannot refer to all the proginy of Abraham, I agree. Because as you pointed out, Scripture does not count either Yishmuhail or Aysuhv or the 6 sons of Abraham through Kihtooruh as being Abraham's seed. However it's not as a ongoing revelation that this is the case as you seem to claim. In fact it is stated as such within that verse originally. Because G_D said "IN" your seed. The Rabbi's explain the word of "in" as being excluding. Not all Abraham's proginy were meant to inherit. & the verses later on show what the exclusion is.

Regarding your third & fourth points .... I actually completely agree with them. Scripture clearly backs up that neither Yishmuhail (Ishmael) nor Aysuhv (Esau) nor the six sons of Kihtooruh were part of the promise as I explained above.

On to point 5.... you mention the above special blessing was promised to the family of Judah. Here we completely disagree. I will explain why you are mistaken. You in fact mention Genesis 49 verse 10 as your basis for this. I will now quote that verse for you & others reading this... "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet, until Sheeloh comes, and to him will be a gathering of peoples." It is referring to Judah being the kingly family of Israel. as we see starting from verse 8 there. I quote... "Judah, [as for] you, your brothers will acknowledge you. Your hand will be at the nape of your enemies, [and] your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you.". It also speaks about the Messiah (here referred to as "Sheeloh") ruling the nations. As you can see from here, this has nothing to do with our point. This is not talking about being a blessing to the nations at all.

In conclusion, what we find here is that the new test is saying something that G_D"s word never said nor intended. In fact if we look deeper it actually is contradicting G_D's word in that it is excluding the entire Israel as the promised one spoken of to Abraham. In short, the verses in both Numbers & in Joshua that I have quoted above make it very clear of whom G_D was speaking when He said "in your seed". This can't be taken away from by the new test or anybody else. It is G_D's infallible truth.

To put it simply and in conclusion....your missing link is Ye-shu'a hoo ha-ma-shi'ach "Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)"!

[big shmooz]

To put it simply and in conclusion....your missing link is Ye-shu'a hoo ha-ma-shi'ach "Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)"!

Or yours is in trying to see one that isn't there

This is why we disagree. I always say, it is not about me or the person I am discussing this with. it is about G-D's word. I let it decide. & I think this is what I have done.

[lautrec]

big schmooz,

First of all, you are far more learned and smarter than me. You make some exeedingly great points. But, I believe that they are made from a wholly Jewish perspective. This is quite normal.

I will not argue with you. I simply believe that the New Testament is the fullfillment of the Law in the form of Christ Jesus. Keep in mind that I also believe that Jesus IS God, was there during the Old Testament times, was present at Creation and has been with God since the beginning.

Yes, I agree that good works and deeds were part of the culture that God had gracefully allowed for His people BEFORE Jesus paid for the sin Himself. However, David did ask what good were his deeds, and he knew God was not interested in good works but a relationship.

THESE ARE THE THINGS I, ME, MYSELF BELIEVE.... Big Schmooz, I am NOT trying to debate with you, merely, letting you know WHY I believe what I believe.

I love your posts...SUPER intelligent and well written. Thank you.

[DJEagles]

I truly have enjoyed reading this thread. It has given me many different perspectives on different religions. Just wanted to say thanks.

[rickel2]

the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself though love.

[timzeig]

Or yours is in trying to see one that isn't there

This is why we disagree. I always say, it is not about me or the person I am discussing this with. it is about G-D's word. I let it decide. & I think this is what I have done.

Or yours is NOT seeing the One that is there

Yes, it is about "all" of God's word, "Old and New Testaments" in which I have total and complete faith in. And what is faith?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

And there is much much more I can reveal to you, but time doesn't permit.

I love the Jewish people and do support them.

As it is written in Psalms 122:6......Sha'alu Sh'lom Yerushalayim

Yish'layu Ohavayich. (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.)

And I can truly say, that God's word doesn't go back to Him void!

[krawhitham]

how much would it cost me to get this thread locked?

[philliesphan18]

the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself though love.

Wow I heard something a lot like that recently. Like when I was reading 1 Corinthians 13 or something like that. But what do you mean about that?

[big shmooz]

big schmooz,

First of all, you are far more learned and smarter than me. You make some exeedingly great points. But, I believe that they are made from a wholly Jewish perspective. This is quite normal.

I will not argue with you. I simply believe that the New Testament is the fullfillment of the Law in the form of Christ Jesus. Keep in mind that I also believe that Jesus IS God, was there during the Old Testament times, was present at Creation and has been with God since the beginning.

Yes, I agree that good works and deeds were part of the culture that God had gracefully allowed for His people BEFORE Jesus paid for the sin Himself. However, David did ask what good were his deeds, and he knew God was not interested in good works but a relationship.

THESE ARE THE THINGS I, ME, MYSELF BELIEVE.... Big Schmooz, I am NOT trying to debate with you, merely, letting you know WHY I believe what I believe.

I love your posts...SUPER intelligent and well written. Thank you.

I have indeed learned & been involved in these ideas quite a while. I don't know if I am more learned than you or not. But that doesn't really matter. & I for sure do not know who is the smarter between us & that even more so does not matter. What does in fact matter is the truth. For in the end that is the only thing that counts.

I too am not looking to argue but rather to merely show you & others a different perception on things. Perhaps you or others have never heard the Jewsh perspective on this matter. This is why I speak here. To show people that there is a different viewpoint regarding all this.

The interesting thing I find is, that the Christians admit that the Jews have the correct viewpoint. (meaning that the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed correct) However the Jews do not see the Christians as having the correct viewpoint because we see the new test as an addition which was added on later & was not representing G_D's truth. I say this not to insult any Christians here, but rather to merely make an observation on how the situation is viewed.

I also understand that you see jesus as god. But this is in fact part of the discussion here. The points I am bringing forth from Scripture are intended to show that this can't be so. For G_D I am sure you will admit would not contradict His Own Self. So if my points are valid, then jesus can't be G-D.

I am glad you agree that good deeds were indeed the way before jesus came. Now let me ask you this... why would you think that G_D would come along with an entirely new concept thereby abrogating what He had told was His was till then? If G_D had meant it to be that jesus was to die for people's sins, why would G_D not have done this from the very beginning? E

ven more than this, why would G_D have said the explicit opposite of this both in Deut. & Ezekiel & Jeremiah when G_D says "each man shall die for his OWN sin"?

Deut chapter 24.... 16. Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.

Ezekiel chapter 18 says thus...

20. The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

21. And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22. All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live.

23. Do I desire the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Is it not rather in his repenting of his ways that he may live?

In here we see three things that are of consideration to our discussion.

1) the person who sins is held repsonsible. Another can not take on his sin.

2) We find that people can repent & live by good deeds & thereby have eternal life based on the way they live. (good deeds)

3) We find that a person can indeed live a righteous life.

In addition we Jeremiah 31 where it is talking post jesus (since this is yet to be in he future even from now...

This is what it says...

26. Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts.

27. And it shall be, as I have watched over them to uproot and to break down, to demolish and to destroy and to afflict, so will I watch over them to build and to plant, says the Lord.

28. In those days, they shall no longer say, "Fathers have eaten unripe grapes, and the teeth of the children shall be set on edge."

29. But each man shall die for his iniquity; whoever eats the unripe grapes- his teeth shall be set on edge.

So here we clearly see that "post jesus" people will still die for their own sins. If jesus was in fact one who takes away sins, then it would have been incumbent upon G_D to speak through Jeremiah saying that this statement He is making is only the case when a person does not accept jesus as their savior. Since this is being spoken about a time after jesus came.

You say King David asked, "what good were his own deeds". May I ask where King David says this? I think you may mean Isaiah. However Isaiah when saying this, was not meaning to say that his deeds are in fact worthless because in that case he would be contradicting G_D who said otherwise. It was in fact a form of confession. In fact Jews today use the same words in confession of our sins. However this doesn't literally mean that our deeds are worthless. It is just that G_D is so great that there is no actual possibility that one can actually do anything for G_D. This is all that it means.

I understand you are not trying to debate. But this forum is being used for a discussion on this topic. I am trying to show you (& others) that there is a different point of view in regards to this & it is based on the word of G_D.

Btw.. I have enjoyed this discussion & please do not put yourself down.