JesusismyLord

Cornelius Tacitus was not a contempory of Jesus, he was born 20 after Christ death, and his writings date to 110 A.D. or so. PLus his information is coming from others that either heard of Jesus, he wasn't an eye witness to Jesus, so if a person told him why christians die for Jesus, this doesnt mean thats the truth. I do believe A person names Jesus did walk this earth, was a jew and a teacher, the rest is blurred because the discples wrote it and the apostle Paul. But Cornelius Tacitus writings may prove Jesus existed, but not described in the NT. There is a shortage of the many miracles he did on earth and all the other stuff in the NT, he raised how many people from the dead, the little girl Jairus daughther, Lazarus and even the book of Acts says Paul and Peter healed and brought back people to life but this isnt recorded anywhere either.

Is there evidence of Daniel being mentioned in the historical Babylonian records or writings about Babylon - considering the prominant role that Daniel played to both Babylonian and Medo-Persian kings? Your sidestepping the question, but daniels incident was one time and no there is no historical proof. That doesnt answer my question. Daniel was alos not credited with doing so many things that the whole world would be filled with books by what he did.

From doing some little research, it says he was leader of the Pharisees of Jerusalem before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, afterward founder of the Jewish academy at Jamnia , biblical Jabneel and Jabneh . He emphasized the study of the Torah as the primary religious duty for which humankind was created. After A.D. 70 he taught that deeds of loving kindness might replace sacrifice in achieving atonement. It doesnt say that they didn;t follow torah before this, but that it now became the primary religious duty and he replaced the sacrifice with deeds of loving kindess. Christainity also has changed through the years, you had the catholic church from possibley 200 A.D. till 1515 when protestants came out. Within this 1300 years it was all catholics. There is no difference from Johanan ben Zakkai than Martin Luther. I would somewhat agree with your statement about Torah law after the destruction, but I wouldnt agree that it is totally non existant either.

At the end of the book of John, John says Jesus did many other things as well, If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25 This sounds like an huge number of things he did, but this goes back to only 1 or 2 proofs outside of the NT that even speak of Jesus of Nazareth. Again this sounds like the most amazing man in the world, wether you like him or not, but it is baffling that so little is mentioned about him. King Herod has much more written about him in world history. There were earlier posts saying he was in a small town, but feeding the 4,000 and the 5,000 men not including woman and chidren is another tremendous miracle that isn;t spoken of anywhere.

I have seen no truth posted. Please show me where any truth has been posted and I will answer it, but dont just throw words out there. I want it backed with a non biased website saying that the information is true or most scholars agree that it is true. You want ubiased "truth" but you base your so-called "problems" with Christianity on a flawed and false religion like Judaism which as a very strong bias against Christianity.You lean on sources heavily biased against Christianity, so it is completely hypocritical for you to demand "unbiased sources" from us when you won't even use them yourself. I lean on the Tanach, it's the foundation of christainity. There would be no christians if it weren't for the jews. It is there messiah that the whole argument is over. Whatever the Tanach says is what I base everything from.

I have seen no truth posted. Please show me where any truth has been posted and I will answer it, but dont just throw words out there. I want it backed with a non biased website saying that the information is true or most scholars agree that it is true.

Massive holes? How many "massive holes" were put into that Jesus that you call "Lord"? You can't just say yes, I will challenge my faith and see if what I believe is real. You have to try to change the subject and aviod the challenges. Why not? You ignored mine and others' challenges to re-examine your commitment to the Christ you call Lord, but whom also you obviously reject as being so! I have examined christianity, I have been a christian for 10 years , I know everything about christainity doctrines and beliefs.

you missed the first part of the question. Shiloh stated that Judiasm as we know now it wasn't created till after the destruction of the 2nd temple. Torah Judiasm wasn;t around before 72 A.D., I had asked for some kind of proof from a non bias website stating that.

Massive holes? How many "massive holes" were put into that Jesus that you call "Lord"? You can't just say yes, I will challenge my faith and see if what I believe is real. You have to try to change the subject and aviod the challenges.

Im sorry, but the OT teaches origional sin, in that the OT teaches that sin is common to all people. The Bible does not say that we are born with good and evil inclinations. That is Judaic myth. The OT teaches that sin and rebellion against God is wrapped up in humanity. If sin was not passed on to mankind, then mankind would not die. Not only that, but the punishments that God pronounced on Adam and Eve would not have been passed down, either. Yet, the ground continues to bring forth weeds and thorns if left to its own, women still have immense pain, in childbirth, etc. Everything about the present human conditiona and human experience matches precisely with the punishments against man's character representatives, Adam and Eve. IT does not teach original sin, show me were satan was in the garden. He wasn;t there, its a christian teaching You continually show your ignorance of the Bible, and demonstrate that you are not born again despite your attempt to lie to us and claim that you are born again. I would guess I know just as much about the bible as you do, what makes you say I'm so ignorant. because I read the tanach in context and don;t look at what christians say it says, but the read for what the word means. You are probably a Jew who is masquarading as a Christian and pretending to have some doubts about Jesus as a sneaky way of dialoging with us. You don't have the integrity to be honest about who and what you really are. You are NOT a Christian, and you have NOT been born again, and your posts demonstrate it. You reject everything the New Testament says, but claim to be a Christian. You claim that Paul and Jesus contradict each other (a typical Jewish arguement). That alone sends up red flags. You are using a false and flawed religion like Judaism to judge the New Testament. Read my posts before, I am a christian Your responses would be easier to respond to, if I did not have the feeling that we are simply being played for fools. I won't argue with dishonest, and deceitful debators. Im still waiting for the proof that judiasm as we know it now was made up in 72 A.D.

Read my posts previous to this July or so and you will find that I am a believer. I too have had expeirences, were mine all fake? did I not expeirence Jesus? Does anyone who has a spiritual awakening wrong, unless they say Jesus? I am not trying to convert anyone just telling the truth, I feel so dupped for years by christainity, because you believe it because thats what everyone says, but if you are willing to test what christainity says then you will find massive holes in it, but the question are you willing to look at it with an open mind or deny any and all evidence because thats what you think is right no matter what anybody says.

de 32:22, Ps.9:17, Ps 55:15.......... That's just for openers. e 31 time does the word Sheol appear, but this does not mean hell as is taught in the NT, its the place of the dead. Its a place of conscience existence after death. Youre reading into the text more thasn you should. check the hebrew study book for the word sheol and you won't find anyhting about eternal suffering.

Judaism is a flawed religion and cannot be used as a standard against which to judge any other religion, much less Christianity. You have apparently not learned much except what a bunch of ignorant Rabbis were able to fool you into believing. You are completely ignorant where Judaism is concerned, and even if you did know anything about it, Judaism has so many errors in its handling of Scripture, it is not even funny. As for taking things out context, Judaism does that all of the time, and they create elaborate explanations in the Talmud to justify themselves. Hillel argued that a person could defiled if a dead gnat was found in a mikveh. He based that ruling on Leviticus 11:33,36 which is concerned with the laws of consumption of clean and unclean animals, and has nothing to do with mikvaot. Furthermore, context had to be violated as well as every other sound rule of interpretation in order to make Deut. 14:21 a prohibition against eating milk and meat together in the same meal. I have seen Jewish hermeneutics in action. It is funny how they use the "context" argument when it suits their purposes, and then ignore the rule when it comes to their own interpretations. I could go on and on about Judaism's flawed approach to the Bible, and why that disqualifies Judaism as a standard against which to judge the New Testament. You have only been studying this for six months, which means you know just enough to be dangerous. A good example of how you have been duped is your assertion that Paul and Jesus taught contradictory doctrines. That demonstrates your lack of skill in handling the Scriptures. It is therefore, not surprising that you mishandle Judaism as well. Judaism is based upon several unbiblical points: 1. In Judaism man is seen as being a partner with God in the continuing creative process. According to Judaism, the creation of the world did not end on day six, but is an ongoing eternal process, and man is helping God by engaging in "Tikkun" which is basically the concept of the "fixing the universe." This is done through charity and other good works. 2. In Judaism, man is a free moral agent and is complete control of his destiny. Is free to shape his destiny as he sees fit. 3. Judaism teaches that man is basically good, and rejects the New Testament concept of original sin. It rejects the notion that Adam's sin has been transferred to mankind, hence they reject the idea that they are in need of a Savior to redeem them from sin. Judaism teaches that man has a good and evil inclination and that our purpose is to not rid ourselves of evil, but to balance the world by bringing evil and good into harmony with each other. 4. Discussion or speculations about the afterlife does not concern Judaism. Judaism teaches that the Bible talks about this life, and therefore, "worldliness" is not seen in the same way as it seen in Christianity. Judaism sees "worldliness" as a virtue. Judaism does approach the Scriptures from an eternal perspective in terms of an afterlife where we will be accountable to God for our actions and behavior. Again, they do not see themselves as sinners. 5. In Judaism there is no concept of individual salvation. Judaism teaches that salvation is based upon the betterment of society through charity and other good works. Judaism views the Messiah as a man who will usher in a golden era of peace and societal salvation/redemption. They see "salvation" as entirely corporate relating to all mankind. It is of course up to mankind to make the world better in order to be worthy of the Messiah. Messiah will not come, according to the Rabbis until he world is worthy of his return, therefore we must make the world better. It is a logical contradiction in Judaism. In order for Messiah to come, the believe we must rid the world of the woes which the coming of Messiah was supposed to remedy in the first place. If that were true, then what need would the world have of a Messiah if the problems the Messiah was supposed to fix had to be eliminated by mankind in order to make the world worthy of the coming of the Messiah? It simply does not work. I know what you have posted and if looking at the OT it meshes more with Judiasm than christianity. Look at original sin, this is a christian teaching that needs this in order to have the once for all sin sacrifice of Jesus. But read Genisis again, this is merily a serpant, an "advesary" as the hebrew says, there is no angellic being here, there is leader of the demons here. This is merily a serpant. The sin of Adan and Eve isn;t a terrible sin, How do we know that the sin wasn

Before the cross sins were only temporarily forgiven by the scarifice of animals. Sins were not permanently remitted until after the sacrifice at calvary David's sin was not fully remitted until after the crucifiction. At least that's what I understand. Take penfold's advice and read the whole chapter of hebrews.10. e read the OT and understand it fully before going to the NT. Why do christians just skip the OT and think the NT is the book. Read how many times God says he will forgive the sins of people forever in the OT without a sin sacrifice. Its in there but so many christians only know the presrcibed OT verses that have to support the NT, the verses that don't fit into NT thinking they just sweep under the rug.

well put, its not just sacrifice. the christian teaches so much about sacrifice and jesus and not enough on actions, because once saved always saved is just good enough. Read the OT, its all about actions and how you life, not sacrifice and judging like all christians do, they try to live a lifestyle that can't be done, and judge everyone because they think they are so good. I dont want to hear the old line of its God thru me, its not me, yes it is you, who makes the choices, you or God. You do, God doesn't force you to do anything. Its great to have faith and believe, but christians are so wound up on believing in Jesus that nothing else matters.

So, when David sinned with Bathsheba and that whole saga, he never had his sin atoned for? Is that scriptural? Explain with from the Law how this could be so. please. What was the purpose of the Temple sacrifices? was a there a temple at the time of King David for sacrifices? No, but sacrifices were made in various places in Israel, even during the life of Samuel. Samuel had a yearly circuit from Bethel, to Gilgal, and then to Mizpeh. He also built an altar in Ramah, according to 1 Sam 7:17. So, to claim that no sacrifices were possible prior to the Temple is incorrect. Temple sacrifices were no fundamentally, no different than what was offered prior to the Temple in Mishkan, (Tabernacle). If you read the OT, it's not just sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrfice, christians teach this is the most important thing to know God, but it's not. Read the OT without the christian glasses on and see just how the people talked to God and associated with him.

Sacrifices were being made long before the temple was built. Even Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his own son on an altar,which was all that was needed before the temple e Abraham didn't sacrfice his son did he? Thats not all that's needed, read the Tanach and just see how they had a relationship with God, it's not just sacrifice. There is prayer, repentance, and charity. If you read There are several verses that indicate that God is against child sacrifice. God expressly forbids it: Deuteronomy 12:31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. and its practice is described as condemnable: 2 Kings 16:3: He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. Psalm 106:38: They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood. Jeremiah 19:4-5: For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

So, when David sinned with Bathsheba and that whole saga, he never had his sin atoned for? Is that scriptural? Explain with from the Law how this could be so. please. What was the purpose of the Temple sacrifices? I have posted numerous times that I am a born aagin christian. I know the Bible inside and out, I know what christians believe. I said I'mtired of that excuse, give a christian some facts and there only reply is not facts, but this and that about God and christianity being true. Reread the post again, before you say i rejected the holy spirit.

So, when David sinned with Bathsheba and that whole saga, he never had his sin atoned for? Is that scriptural? Explain with from the Law how this could be so. please. What was the purpose of the Temple sacrifices? was a there a temple at the time of King David for sacrifices?

I have learned enough to see the problems with christianity. problem 1 is the book of Matthew. This has to be the worst book written in the NT. The use of alleged prophecies, I went through the prophecies and read them in context and they are just misused and mistranslated. Plus when you look at what matthew author was taking these propheces from, it was the Greek OT, the Septugiant LXX. This book is a translated book of the Hebrew language, we all know translating from one language to another is and can be a big problem, you miss what some things may mean, and many other problems from translating. Being that the hebrew bible is in hebrew and who knows the language and understanding better than jews who can read amd write in hebrew. The NT times hebrew was not the main language, it was aramaic. Which also leads to the question, then why is the bible mainly greek transcripts if the main language of Jesus time was aramiac. Going through these prophecies one at a time and reading them in the OT, I was shocked to see how these veres had really nothing to do about a messiah, but were just used out of context. As a christian, whenever we have other religions who try to use the NT against us and try to show this and that, we say what"read the scripture in context" so read all the scriptures in context, not just the NT.

Well my freind, this all started like 6 months ago or so. I was studing all religions to defend christainity and Jesus, Islam, mormoms, Witness's, Catholic's, and others, but the one religion that I never looked at was Judiasm. When I first starting gathering facts about what the Jews believed I soaked it all in, I went looking for answers searching for the truth to defend what I believed to be the truth, Christ Jesus as Lord. After a month or 2 of looking at Judiasm, I had seen and heard, and read enough to see some big holes in what I believed as a christian, so I just swept it under the rug and said I will never deny Jesus. As time went on, this still bothered me, so with some circumstances that were happening in my life at the time, I said the heck with it, I'm going to search for the truth no matter what it is, if it means denying what I know to be true based on the evidence then that's what i will do. Here we are many months later and I am continuing to learn about Judiasm and find more and more holes in christainity. I can't say I have completely denied Jesus, but I am pretty close. I am still searching for where the evidence lies. I post my objections to christainity looking for possible answers to my challenging skeptiscm towards christainity. Thanks you

speaking of Satan, we can see satan in the OT, first christians are taught that satan is this poweful enemy that is very rebellious against God and wants to be God. Thus he trcisk humans into sinning against God. Lets look at the OT to see what it says about satan. Genesis 3 is not satan, is satan livestoc, is satan a wild animail, is stan crawling on his belly, is satan eating dust all the days of his life? Its clear that this is not satan but a serpant, read the text for what it is. But if satan was so eveil towards god we can see that in 2 samuel 24:1 God incited David to take a census of Israel and Judah, which resulted in a sin by David. If we turn to 1 Chronicles 21:1 it now satan who incites david to take the census that is a sin against God. If satan works against god then why in this story does satan do exactly what god did?then we can go to Job, we see that in verse 8 it is God who asks satan if he has considered his servant Job? and again we satan do exactly as God says, he obeys God, but is not seen rebelling towards God and sinning against him, then we can see in Zechariah 3:1-2 satan standing at the right side of an angel of the Lord. The Lord says to him rebuke you satan, we dont see satan rebel towards god or disobey. This brings me to the explaination of "Lucifer". Some say that Isaiah 14:12. "How are you fallen from heaven, O bright star [or shining one], son of the morning [or son of dawn]! how are you cut down to the ground, you who ruled the nations!" is about the "devil". Part of this is due to the fact that the term bright star or shining one is translated in Latin to lucifer, which means shining one. Now, the context of the verse and a bit of knowledge of history reviels that this is about the Babylonian empire. One of the main dieties of Babylon was "Ishtar", who was the "god" who was the morning star. Shining one, son of dawn is the morning star. The prophet was avoiding the use of the name of the not-god Ishtar. Reading verse 4, "That you shall take up this proverb against the **king of Babylon,** and say, How has the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!", it becomes clear that this is the king of Babylon and his nation that is being spoken of here. There is no Lucifer, no devil in the Tanach, but there are many, many adversaries and accusers of the Jewish people. "Satan" in Biblical Hebrew is not a proper name like Bob or Frank or Tom. It is a noun meaning "adversary." The word "satan" (adversary) is used in an awful lot of places where no one thinks it means what Christians would now call Satan. E.g., Num 22:22 (the angel blocking Balaam's path -- from this week's Torah portion), 1 Sam. 29:4 (referring to David!), 2 Sam. 19:22 (referring to Avishai b. Zeruiah, one of David's hotheaded servants). The only place in the OT is Ezekiel 28:12 that would fit the christian view of satan. But then verses 17 through 19 don't add up. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never [shalt] thou [be] any more.

Everything you posted. Either way when you say whatever the Rabbis said was true, isn;t that the same way we have the 21 century christian pastor? Isn't anything they teach the right way? Or are they all perverters of a false religion. I don;t see what's wrong with the statement about Rabbis teaching the Jews.