ok most gays hate god? really? and so do straight,because the way humans thought the bible,they placed fear of god to ppl and condemt them,if church tells you,you are smoking,and god hates it and you will burn in hell......how will you feel?....why believe in a god who hates me?....well humans drove people away from god with their ignorance.
God is love, nothing but love. Love always overcomes HATE and HOMOPHOBIA, therefore God DOES NOT HATE GAYS anymore than he doe not hate these idiots who claim to follow God.
If you live by the old law then you will have to keep the old law and no one has kept the law for all have fallen short of the Glory of God, there for we are saved by GRACE and is a GIFT of God and no one can EARN their way into the Kingdom of God by WORKS or KEEPING THE LAW, All one has to do is to call upon the name of the Lord and you shall be SAVED, and you will not enter into the kingdom of God based on good works of the Law least any one should boast, for it is by faith and FAITH ALONE.
What is this? I was thaught that when you die, you will be asked ''Did you hate gays?'' And if you say ''Yes'', you will get to heaven and there is nothing else to it. No other requirements to get to Heaven. So all the gay supporters and gays will burn in Hell that was originally just a place where your soul was taken of out existence and you didn't exist anymore, but it didn't work to scare people enough so I guess the all knowing chruch decided to change it in the middle-ages.
@Ileko1 There's no hell in Judaism and the Jews wrote the Bible! You're correct that Christianity made several "innovations" which actually worked beautifully for recruitment. On the one hand what could be better for attracting followers than a free trip to heaven? On the other, what is more motivational to keep followers than an eternal trip to hell for leaving? Islam went further actully killing those who leave. That's why there are a billion Mulsims & a billlion Chrsitains & 14 million Jews.
@eth6706 It's taking you a long time to respond so I'll move this forward. You'd probably say the first word is "In" as in "In the Beginning". But in Hebrew (which the Bible was written in) those 3 English words are one word Barashona. But the interesting thing is that Barashona is NOT the 1st word in the Bible! It is Bereshit! And that word DOES NOT mean "In the beginning". I go into this in my book, but the point is that despite your joke, the Bible is unreadable without the Jewish tradition.
@eth6706 3D glasses are not needed, but studying the Jewish interpretive tradition is. For instance, did you know what the first word of the Bible is?
you made an interesting point, but just because that verse follows the Moloch verse, does not prove that the "anti-gay" verse was directed only to sexual intercourse in temples... very little of the Bible actually flows coherently. It seems much more likely that verse was against all anal sex, if not against homosexuality in general.
@YourRoadToHell You may be right but you may be wrong.How you can be sure it is "more likely" against anal or homosexuality? The way I look at the Bible, there's a tradition of how it's meant to be understood that was very carefully passed down by the sages. The best way to really know how a verse is meant to be understood is to research the tradition. The point I made in this video was something I picked up from an Orthodox rabbi. There are other "opinions" but none is more likely than another.
You're right about how people read the Bible and only use certain verses. If a christian says "homosexuality is an abomination, and you will die" and you ask them "so since we abide by the bible, its ok to have slaves, and ok to sell my kids," they will say no you're taking it out of context. Well they do the same thing with the man lying with men verse in Leviticus. Those verses were meant for those people of that time. No wonder people don't want to love God, thanks to ignorant christians.
@smurfboywv True but it's ignorant people of all backgrounds. To understand any piece of complex writing one must study it with experts in that field. Jews have always taught that the Bible is complex and multi dimensional, and takes years and years of education to understand. Christianity started the idea that the Bible is simple and one dimensional, the one dimension being their own narrow interpretation. Today, sadly, many others continue to view the Bible in the same narrow ignorant way.
Have you ever seen the documentary called "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan" (which focuses on the horror of 'pederasty' being used in the modern world)?
It is beyond horrific what these children are being put through.
THAT IS WHAT believe everyone from Moses to the prophets to the apostles WERE CONDEMNING (i.e. 'pederasty', 'sexual assault', & pagan 'temple-prostitution' rites) -- and they were, more than likely, NOT speaking of 'CONSENSUAL' sexual relations taking place between two ADULTS.
The European-translators (due to being unfamiliar with the cultural-context in which the verses were written) MISINTERPRETED the Hebrew & Greek words in those verses Bible that people falsely-claim are referring to homosexuality.
In reality, the verses were actually referring a strong condemnation of 1) pederasty / child molestation; 2) sexual assault / rape; AND 3) the pagan temple-prostitution (where, as a monetary tribute to their “gods”, pagan men paid for sex with male temple-prostitutes).
@EmailTubeYou What you call "the Bible" is the Christian Bible (aka New Testament). In the Jewish Bible there is no doctrine of original sin hence no saving needed. The J Bible is all about moral behavior. If you do what is right all will be well with you. There is no need for such an emphasis on belief and faith. In fact, by promoting belief as the be all and end all the encouragement to be a good person is short circuited, as is the need to study the Bible and learn what it means.
The professor of my comparative-religions class (a VERY learned RABBI who has taught & is an expert on the 5 major religions of the world) -- explained to us that (what 'you' refer to as "the Christian Bible", lol) is actually just a combination of The Jewish Torah & Prophecies (The Old Testament) & the Christian Gospels, Epistles & Prophecies -- thus it is a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN document (i.e. it's BOTH).
Geez --I'm neither a Christian or Jewish & even I can see that.
@EmailTubeYou What is this rabbi's name? I'd like to look him up and see just how much of an "expert" he really is. What he said a partially true. The Christians consider the Jewish Bible (which they label the "Old" Testament) and their Bible which they call the "New" Testament to be one book which they call the "Holy Bible". Jews do not consider these books to be the same or even related. But you only quoted from the New Testament and called it "the Bible" which ignores the common Jewish view.
It was Steinberg; the class was comparative-religions; & no (in case you are interested) I will not tell you the name of my school (this is the internet after all).
And the reason I quoted the New Testament -- and only made reference to the Old -- is because I am trying to get people to understand that the "religious-right" misunderstands the Old Testament (from a cultural and transliteration view) and misunderstands the New Testament (from a spiritual and transliteration view).
@EmailTubeYou In your first comment you were expressing the idea that people misinterpret the true meaning of the the Bible, but in your second you seemed to be promoting the Christian belief that faith in Jesus absolves one of sin and is therefore all that matters. I don't see how that second post helped clarify your first. It seemed to be off on a tangent.
Does Rabbi Steinberg teach that the Jewish and Christian Bibles are one? If so he may be a "Jew for Jesus" but not a bonafide rabbi.
No -- LOL -- he is definitely NOT one of the 'jews for jesus' folks -- in fact, our class studied that particular group under the 'sects and cults' segment.
LOL -- he would have probably gotten a real kick out of you mistaking him for a JFJ type (he seemed to see them as more of a 'sect' that sort of fence-straddled between two groups)
His personal beliefs, if i'm not mistaken, seemed more along the lines of 'reformed' -- but he never really got into what he 'personally' believed a lot -- he just covered the various major religious groups (as well as the more popular of the sects and cults).
@EmailTubeYou I thought he was probably Reform. I grew up in that movement but I came to see as I got more intense in my studies that the Orthodox have the more authentic tradition. The Reform movement is just over 100 years old but Orthodoxy goes back at least 2000 years, if not all the way back to Moses. And some in the Reform movement have ideas about Judaism that are not in line with the traditional writings.
Most of the people in my class really enjoyed it and felt that he was an extremely learned, intelligent and open minded person who had studied the belief systems of so many groups and, via helping people to have true understanding of other people's perspectives (religiously, culturally, etc.) really helped to build-bridges in the area of spirituality.
The class was one of the most interesting and intriguing that I have ever taken. :D
@EmailTubeYou My rabbi when I was a kid did a similar thing 40 years ago. Every Sunday he would invite leaders from other religions to talk about their beliefs. His teachings to us was that there are many different ideas out there and we should all be respectful of each others beliefs. The only time our Sunday session was ever tense was when a Protestant minister told us that we were all going to go to hell if we didn't believe in Jesus. He struck me as a very ignorant man.
He used to have coffee chats with students and other people over the topic of religion --- he was very open minded and laid back in these discussions (which were highly informative to observe these people of different religions talking to each other).
The world needs more people who are willing to dialogue.
@EmailTubeYou I think reaching out to other faiths is a part of Reform Judaism. Sometimes I wish they would extend the same courtesy to Jews in other denominations. But that problem aside, I agree with that approach. My rabbi eventually left the Reform movement feeling it was less authentic than orthodoxy. He is now unaligned with any movement and for a living he teaches Rabbinic Christianity in a church! He shows Christians that Jesus was a rabbi and probably more open minded than many believe.
@EmailTubeYou Not at all. It's the other way around. What he is teaching is not that Jews should be for Jesus but that followers of Jesus should realize that Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi! And therefore they should seek to understand how rabbis think. Christianity often proposes a very strict and narrow interpretation of scripture, yet Jews tend to see many possible interpretations. He argues that Jesus, being a rabbi, would have been more open to the Jewish way of looking at scripture.
@EmailTubeYou Furthermore your points about Christ, justification through faith, saved by grace, etc. are all solely from a Christian viewpoint. As I said, in the Jewish Bible these doctrines do not exist. To the contrary, the Jewish Bible says we are judged by our behavior and rewarded and punished accordingly. The emphasis is on good deeds, not faith. So when you proclaim Christian doctrines as what "the Bible" says, you should clarify that this is what the Christian Bible says not the Jewish.
The comparative-religions class I took (taught by an expert on world religions) made it clear that the 'Christian' religion is the one that focuses on the concept of "justification through faith" & THAT is why I presented that concept from their point of view.
If I were speaking of Law & Works, I would have noted Judaism; of Balance, I would have noted Buddhism...etc.
The (Works-based) Torah speaks of God's Laws & Rules -- the (Faith-based) Gospels speak of God's Grace & Mercy.
@EmailTubeYou Agreed, but my point is just that when you say "the Bible" it helps to clarify which Bible you are talking about. As you have explained the Christian view of the Bible is very different than the Jewish. And Jews don't consider the Christian writings to be part of the Bible.
@EmailTubeYou This is semantics. The Torah is a book from the Bible of the Jews. The Gospels are a book from the Bible of the Christians. I don't understand why you want to hide this obvious truth. It strikes me as "political correctness" run amok. The fact remains that Jews do not consider the Gospels, the Epistles, the New Testament, the Christian Bible... whatever you want to call it, the Bible! It is a set of books in a foreign language written from a foreign perspective.
Actually -- I was referring to semantics-based divisions -- not to what each group believed.
Beliefs are one thing -- but surely less divisive terminology can be used to describe various religious beliefs (especially concerning those of the three main monotheistic religions of the world_.
People need to build bridges (not moats) and look at similarities (not focus on differences) -- that was one of the key things I took away from my class.
Also -- it should NOT be FORGOTTEN that, the Bible also states that .....
-- “For GOD so LOVED the world, that he GAVE his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him SHOULD not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.” (John 3:16)
-- “For God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world; BUT THAT THE WORLD through him might BE SAVED.” (John 3:17)
-- “HE THAT BELIEVETH on him IS NOT CONDEMNED: …” (John 3:18)
@EmailTubeYou Once again you say "the Bible also states" and then you quote from the New Testament. Jews do not consider the New Testament to be part of the Bible. So it helps to specify that you are talking about the New Testament or as I call it the Christian Bible.
-- “For GOD so LOVED the world, that he GAVE his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him SHOULD not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.” (John 3:16)
-- “For God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world; BUT THAT THE WORLD through him might BE SAVED.” (John 3:17)
-- “HE THAT BELIEVETH on him IS NOT CONDEMNED:…” (John 3:18)
@EmailTubeYou Yes! That is my main point, not just to you, but to many people. I go into this in much more depth in my You Tube video "Peace Between Christians & Jews" watch?v=xwkewhdwyvk
Perhaps people (myself included) are so use to saying the phrase of "the Bible says ..." or "no, the Bible does not say ..." -- when referring to Jewish scripture or to Christian scripture -- that we often forget that those two groups do not consider each other's version to be the actual "Bible".
Perhaps from now on I will begin to say something along the lines of "the Jewish scriptures say ..." and "The Christian scriptures say ...."
@EmailTubeYou Yes! With 14 million Jews in the world and a billion Christians the Christian view of the Bible is the prevalent one, and most people don't even know what the Jewish view is. To me this is a travesty since the Bible (the Jewish one) is a Jewish book, of, by and for Jews, written by Jews, passed down by Jews, and lived by Jews. The ignoring or belittling of the Jewish point of view is a form of prejudice based in ignorance. It is a type of chauvinism that shouldn't be acceptable.
Most people (for example, myself) are not attempting to ignore or certainly not "belittle" anyone's beliefs -- it's just that the tendency their is a tendency to respond with the phrase of "The Bible says ..." and then quote scriptures from BOTH Judaism AND Christianity because we are used to responding to the "religious-right" (and thus, speaking to them in "their language").
It's of great help to us when people point out that they are NOT of that particular group. =D
@EmailTubeYou Good point but even when not responding to the Christian right most non-Jews believe the Jewish and Christian Bibles are interchangeable and essentially say the same thing. But they believe that Jesus said it better. This is simply not true but it is a myth or a societal belief that is found almost universally in our culture. Historically this developed because Jews would be killed for speaking out, and even today many Jews still feel uncomfortable about expressing Jewish ideas.
God does not HATE anyone- It is our sinful actions that He hates. All evil, sinful actions that we commit keep us separated from God, because evil, and SIN are not of God, but are of Lucifer. Right now
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. -Isaiah 45
Those who HATE God try to make every excuse they can to support their refusal to obey His laws. -I don't care what homosexuals choose, but I WILL NOT stand for them trying to preach lies. Thats called BLASPHEMY.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I mean you can't butter that up no matter how you translate it. You can't say that the bible is eternal and for all time periods and also say we must account for the context in time. It's a contradiction. This CLEARLY says homosexuality is punishable by death.
@PhilosoFighter2012 It absolutely does not say what you said it says! The word "homosexuality" is not found in that sentence! You are also assuming that the English translation is accurate. Even a shallow study of Bible translations shows that the translations are terrible and often totally twist what was originally written. Furthermore, the rabbis teach that we must always put things in context. You ripped one sentence out and twisted it. The context was about things that happen in temples!
@voncello um...i am pretty sure this was when the Lord was talking to moses. That chapter says nothing about temples...but okay I think we have established that the translations are messed up. I think the christian bible refers to homosexuals as "sodomites". I didn't twist anything...that is what it says. Anyway this is from a christian bible not the torah. It doesn't matter if it was in temples or not. It still says they would be put to death.
@PhilosoFighter2012 Lev. 18: 21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."
Sacrifices to Molek were done in temples so that's how we know this is about temples. And the very next sentence talks about men having sex. So in this context some rabbis say this referred to sexual religious rites where male priests would have sex with young boys. It is "detestable" for a priest to use his position for sex.
@PhilosoFighter2012 If a priest has sex with a boy perhaps he should be killed. This adult has permanently damaged this child and may very well have destroyed his connection to God. However, just because the Torah uses the phrase "put to death" doesn't mean it happened. Men, not God, were the interpreters of this law and the Talmud says the death penalty required the unanimous consent of 23 judges! Therefore almost no one was ever put to death. Thus it's pointless to read Torah without Talmud.
@voncello Boys? It says mankind.as in other men. Where did you get child from? And if i required the consent of 23 judges you would think that these oh so nice judges would want to kill a guy that had sex with a young child. I hate how people automatically assume that gay sex is between a olderman and a child. Mostly it is straight guys raping young girls. Most homosexual relationships are mutual. Question: How does sex destroy a relationship with God? I see this come up a lot.
@PhilosoFighter2012 "It says mankind.as in other men." I hope you realize that you are making up your own interpretation. You say mankind means other men, but its main definition is " the human race : the totality of human beings", so why couldn't it mean boys? Indeed, if they wanted to say "men" why didn't they just say that? But the reality is the Torah didn't use the word "mankind". It used a Hebrew word and you have no idea what that word really means. Trusting translations is illogical.
@voncello well that goes double.If they wanted to say boys or young men why didn't they just say boys or young men?Why be so cryptic?"you have no idea what that word really means"You keep telling me this. Why not try telling me what the word means then?Tell me what science is in the Jewish holy books. I am sure there is a book out there with a decent translation and since you are into this, do you know where I can find one? And if there isn't one...why the heck not?
@PhilosoFighter2012 "If they wanted to say boys or young men why didn't they just say boys or young men?" If they said boys you could ask whey they didn't specify teen boys, toddlers or babies. When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" why didn't he say women? Why didn't he say blacks? You can ask this about anything. The Torah is thought of like a newspaper with headlines. The only way to really understand it is to study it word by word for years and years with highly educated rabbis.
Also, if the verses were condemning homosexuality (instead of ‘pederasty’ & pagan ‘temple-prostitution’ rites) WHY do they ONLY single-out men (& NOT include the women)?
Both the Old & New Testament, speak clearly, definitively, specifically & in great detail on the expected behavior of women --– ex. menstrual cycles, sexual activity, childbirth, domestic duties, legal rights, etc. --– so WHY would these verses ONLY speak of men, IF 'homosexuality' were the focus?
@PhilosoFighter2012 You keep asking what science is in the Torah. Have you watched the 5 part video by Schroeder yet? It is amazing when you hear the whole thing. That will give you a taste of the kind of things that are hidden in the Torah in plain sight. But you need someone who knows about these things to bring them forth. My book got great praise from many rabbis for the way it brings forth so many topics and gives a beginner a taste, but there's only so much I could do in 554 pages.
@PhilosoFighter2012 There is no such thing as a "decent translation" of the Torah since it is really just a collection of headlines. For instance, Art Scroll publishes an annotated version but Genesis alone is so long it is divided into 3 books! And those 3 books still are just scratching the surface! Christianity passed down the idea that the Torah is just "history" and the important stuff is in the "New" Testament. This concept led the masses away from a true understanding of the Jewish Bible.
@PhilosoFighter2012 What I never got to say is the reason some think this verse is about priests having sex with boys is because it comes right after another verse (Lev. 18:21) that discusses sacrificing children for Moloch. This pagan ritual was done in temples. The question is asked, why in a chapter about sexual immorality is a sacrifice mentioned? Some say to change the context from acts done at home to acts done in temples - sacrifices, sexual rites with priests (and animals). Hence "boys".
@voncello That seems like a very jumpy analysis to me (and very apologist sounding). When I am asking about what science is in the holy books I just want the main reason...your biggest focus,your greatest deduction, and what convinced YOU personally of the science in the torah. The video you keep telling people only tries to verify the 6 days of creationism. Did only that convince you? Assuming that his science is correct, is that still enough to trust the entire book?There has to me more...
@PhilosoFighter Did the fact that the author of the Torah 3500 years ago knew how many days had passed at the center of the universe and then divided the 15 billion years in our corner of the universe into 6 days by an algorithm that accounted for the theory of relativity and then put all of the major geological events into their correct time periods convince me that the Torah is not just a book like other so called "holy" books? ... yeah! That along with hundreds of other similar amazing items.
@voncello Alrighty. So I think I understand your position on this or at least your defense for this position. In another video, you say that you do not believe in anything or at least you don't want to label yourself . What does the Torah/ Talmund mean to you then? What do you think people should get from it?
@PhilosoFighter it's an incredibly complex work that takes years of study to understand. This is how Orthodox Jews, who live by it, see it. So who are we to think that we can just read it in an English translation and understand what it is really saying? That is my main point! I would like people to get past the societal "belief" that the Bible is easily understood and easily dismissed, and was superseded by a New (& improved) Testament or Koran or secular belief system. Let's go Beyond Faith!
@PhilosoFighter2012 Let's go Beyond Faith! I.e. let's actually study the Torah... in the manner the ones who wrote it and passed it down said it must be studied. Let's not accept on faith that the English translations are correct or even close to the original Hebrew. Let's not accept on faith that we can just read the English and have any idea of what this book is really saying. Let's respect the science of Torah as we would any other science and search for evidence and not rush to judgement.
@PhilosoFighter2012 And really, the point of my book goes beyond the Bible. It is about life in general. There are many ways in which people live in faith-based realities. For instance, most people believe what they hear on television news shows. Most Americans believe that the debate on issues doesn't go beyond what the Republicans and Democrats have to say. Most people refuse to really question their leaders, whether in church, school, government, etc. Most refuse to move Beyond Faith.
@PhilosoFighter In the end it doesn't matter if Torah explication "sounds" apologetic to you. This is the way Jews have studied the Torah for thousands of years. They do not read it as prose. They look for all kinds of clues as to the true meanings. Very often contexts are changed by intervening sentences. If this was the only case of this, you'd have a point, but this happens all the time! There is a whole hierarchy of things to look at when interpreting that the layman just doesn't understand.
@PhilosoFighter Historically speaking the Christians created a new religion to move people away from the Torah. They created a story that the rabbis were blind and stubborn, so much so that they couldn't even realize that God Himself (Jesus) was among them. The "New" Testament was a tool to discredit the rabbis and turn the masses away from Torah and the Jewish way of thinking. Thus the rabbis were just "apologists" for an outdated book that is just "history" but the "truth" is in the new book!
@voncello The New testement doesnt "discredit" anything, its just a way to live a good moral life. Im not saying your religeon is wrong, but if we all listened to Jesus message, like the quotes hese said: love your enemies, those who live by the sword die by the sword, if your left hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away..... some good shit, even if he wasnt the son of God.
@RecBookHero We don't know what Jesus actually said. But according to the NT he said "anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So he acknowledged his debt to the Torah. But elsewhere he is quoted as insulting Jewish sages. I assume this is Roman propaganda that the authors put into his mouth. But who knows?
@RecBookHero I wonder why do you single out Jesus as one we should listen too? Is he not supposed to be the son of God? Why not then listen to God? God said "Do not steal". Is "if your left hand causes you to sin cut it off" any better? Does Jesus really want us to cut off our hand? And what if your right hand sins? Frankly the first is much more direct and clear. "Love your enemies" is also unclear. How exactly do we do this? God said to help an enemy in need, which is clear and realistic.
@voncello I see what you mean, but the New Testement is different in ways then the Old. For instance, Jesus NEVER condones violance, ever. Any war fought in Gods name, at least in Catholisism, is heresy. The Crusades for instance, were illegal. You also must take account of the fact he was talking to crowds, parables were a good way of teaching. Now, I dont single Jesus out as the one we should listen to. Catholic teachings dictate that both the Old and the New are important, and both have,
@RecBookHero Jesus is not the most peaceful of religious figures. After all he did whip the money changers, which objectively speaking is a violent crime. True he seems to have rarely gotten violent but the violent language he used against Jews ex. "You belong to your father, the devil", etc. led to violence against Jews over the centuries. Crusades, legal or not, were an outgrowth of the cult of Jesus. The followers of Moses never went around the world killing non-believers.
@voncello Just to add something to that, Jesus also told his disciples to buy swords, and sell their cloaks if necessary, and the implication is that sword is what Peter used to cut off the ear of the Roman in the garden. It's tradition only that Peter took the Roman's sword, the Bible just says Peter took a sword. The implication would be that he had the sword because Jesus had told him to buy it a few chapters earlier. /shrug. Just throwing that in there.
@voncello for the most part, the same message. However, Im simply saying that the New testement may reach out better to those who arent open minded enough to see past things like, "rape the Philistines." Also, from the New Testement came Catholic tradition, and if your a Catholic like I am, its very important. The Bible never says anything about Abortion or Stem cell research does it? Nevertheless, Im indifferent towards this, you have good reasons to believe the New testement is unecissary.
@RecBookHero Christians constantly bring up God's commands to the Jews to violence. They often throw in the word "rape" though there is nowhere that God commands rape! The wars God commanded were only in one place for one reason: He said He gave Israel to the Jews and those who wanted to prevent them from returning to God's holy land had to be overpowered. But Jews never fought over any other piece of land and never killed others for not being Jewish. It's actually a very peaceful religion.
@voncello I know that. We agree, but others dont think so. And by the way, Christians, at least the ones I know, are freindly to Jews. Ive debated people using your very logic before, the bible only commands to destroy those who threaten Isreal, its why modern Isreal hasnt expanded despite its better military then those in the Middle East.
I always defend the Old Testement too, its just as much of a part of my religeon as it is yours.Atheists are usually the ones who attack the old testement.
@RecBookHero Thanks. I think Christians are getting more & more friendly to Jews which is great. I've run into some that still want to convert Jews and talk about the Jewish Bible as being old and obsolete. I know you don't mean any harm but even the calling of the Jewish Bible the "Old" makes it appear that it is less important than the "New". In many ways the two testaments have similar messages but they differ on some points. Each should be respected and understood from its own point of view.
People should also STOP using terms like "The Christian Bible" and "The Jewish Bible".
Such minute divisions are what put so many groups at conflict.
It seems much more logical to say something like "The Torah" (which, technically, refer to the 1st 5 books of Moses -- but many mentally add the 'songs' & the 'prophecies' as well) AND "The Gospels" (which, technically, refer to the 1st 4 books of the Disciples -- but many mentally add the 'epistles' & the 'prophecies' as well).
@EmailTubeYou There is no need for conflict where the truth is concerned. The fact is that the Christian Bible is a different set of books than the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible contains the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. It doesn't contain the "New Testament". The Christians wrote a new set of books in a foreign language (Greek) and claimed that it was a continuation of the Jewish books. THAT is where the conflict began and denying the truth will only further the conflict.
@EmailTubeYou If I were teaching a college course I might do the same as your professor. In that role you want to impart information with as little controversy as possible. So if avoiding a truth that could cause tension is helpful in that cause, then so be it. But I'm sure one on one he would admit that the Torah is of the Jews and the Gospels are of the Christians. And trying to hide this is not a long term prescription for peace. Confronting the truth is the only long term solution for peace.
Actually -- he was very open about the Torah being the scriptures used in Judaism and the Gospels being the scriptures used in Christianity.
He just (to my recollection) never used phrases like ... "The Christian Bible" or ... "The Jewish Bible".
The way he presented it --- there seemed to be no reason both groups should not be able to simply come to the same table and simply agree on similar points and agree-to-disagree on the dissimilar points. =D
@EmailTubeYou I agree that both groups should "be able to simply come to the same table and simply agree on similar points and agree-to-disagree on the dissimilar points." But I don't see how recognizing that the two Bibles are different and acknowledging that one is from the Jewish religion and the other from the Christian prevents this. You seem to find it offensive but I don't understand why. It seems to me it is just being forthright.
Actually -- I do not find it to be offensive -- but rather -- I just think the way the professor used the terms seemed much more harmonious and less divisive.
@EmailTubeYou Maybe its the New Yorker in me but I'd rather have someone say "F you" to my face then have them smile and talk about me behind my back. So I prefer the direct approach, but I can understand in certain situations, like in a college course, it would be more politic to use less obvious terms to describe certain things. I suppose there is a certain shock value in saying Jewish and Christian Bibles, but what I find offensive is calling the Jewish one the "Old" which is a pejorative.
The term may be used because many Christians believe there are 2 Covenants at work – the Original One (found in Jewish/Hebrew scriptures) and a Updated One (found in Christian/Greek scriptures).
From what I understand, it's seen in the Christian faith as being no different to an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (i.e. it does not ‘cancel’ out anything – it just expands on and further clarifies things).
I doubt that their intention is to offend anyone in their beliefs or verbage.
@EmailTubeYou The difference is this "amendment" was added on by a foreign people (Romans) in a foreign language (Greek)! The least the Christians could have done, if they wanted to amend the Torah, was to write the amendment in the same language. Would we amend the Constitution in Arabic or Chinese? How offensive would that be? Furthermore, you don't amend a Constitution without the approval of the country it was written for. If you do, they will never accept it, and the Jews never have.
@EmailTubeYou That's only if you believe everything you read. There was a Council of Nicea where a group of Romans decided what would be passed down as the "New Testament" and they destroyed every other version that they could find. There is no evidence whatsoever that what we are reading was written by Jews. But if it were, it was clearly written by Jews who knew very little about the Jewish Bible as I show in great detail in my book. They made a myriad of mistakes and misinterpretations.
From what I have heard, there a whole 'Jewish Roots' movement (possibly inspired by the JFJ sect) wherein devout jewish people teach the christians that all the original christians started off as members of the jewish religion.
It's practically sweeping parts of the u.s. -- are you saying they are mistaken as well?
@EmailTubeYou Certainly the New Testament claims that the original disciples and Jesus himself were Jews but there is no evidence that what the New Testament claims is true. What is true is that Romans at the Council of Nicea came up with their final version and destroyed all the others. Just objectively that doesn't seem to bode very well for taking the New Testament literally, whether or not a movement is sweeping the country.
If you question whether Jesus and the disciples were originally of the jewish ethnicity – do you feel that your old rabbi and these other devout jewish people are doing anything wrong in teaching such a thing to the Christian churches that being visited?
Also -- how do you feel about your old rabbi not following any one particular branch or teaching of judaism?
@EmailTubeYou I can see the value in assuming for argument's sake that Jesus existed and that he and his original followers were Jewish as long as one admits (if asked) that the New Testament is not reliable as an historic document.
In my book I have a chapter called, "Will the Real Jews Please Stand Up?" In it I argue that there should be no such thing as sects of Judaism. People have the right to their views but codifying dissent into movements limits a person's ability to think for himself.
BUT -- let's remember that (other than the book of 'Acts', that recorded the events of 1st Century "church") the New Testament was not written as ‘an historical document’.
Other than the 4 synoptic-Gospels (reviewing the life of Christ) & the book of 'Revelation' (which is written in metaphor as a prophecy), the New Testament is largely composed of a series of Letters (Epistles) to the encourage the 1st Century Christians who were suffering from persecution by the Roman government.
@EmailTubeYou You can say that the NT wasn't written as an historical text, but many Christians believe it to be the "word of God" and as such they believe it is honest and accurate. But when you start to look at it in depth you start to see the flaws. For instance, the 4 Gospels have many conflicting narratives. Christians say one fills in details that others leave out, but there are out and out conflicts like the 2 genealogies of Jesus, how many asses he rode on when he came to Jerusalem, etc.
@EmailTubeYou Call it what you will but when Jesus has two different paternal grandfathers, that is a problem. What you need to do is get a book that compares the accounts in the different gospels and you will see irreconcilable differences. I do this in my book but there are books that only deal with this topic.
@EmailTubeYou "it’s solely being non-historical may make it seem all the more ‘inspired’ by God". Non-historical is one thing. Mistakes and conflicts in the reporting are another. If one is to claim that a book is "inspired by God" or even more extreme that it is the "word of God" then one must have some means of proving this. Certainly if mistakes or conflicts are found in the text it becomes extremely unlikely that God had anything to do with it as we would expect perfection of God.
But don't you see how much easier it is to get people to adhere to a non-"historical" document (ex. psalms, letters, prophecies, etc.) and see it as being more "spiritual" (as it were) than an "historical" one?
Perhaps if it were "historical"(in whole or part) a person's belief in it would not be as strong.
@EmailTubeYou My approach is evidence based. That's why my book is called Beyond Faith. If it all comes down to faith, who's to say whose beliefs are true? And since various faiths are in conflict with each other it seems necessary - if we ever want peace - to examine these faiths and determine if there is any evidence to prove that one is more valid than another. One easy way to separate the trustworthy from the false is to see if there are mistakes, misinterpretations, conflicts, in the text.
An ex-catholic friend told me that as a child any questions (even if for clarity) received the knee-jerk response of "faith" & that's why they are now a non-catholic.
My belief is also to examine the religions (ex. their beliefs; the basis of the belief & it's overall impact) & that such exams help reduce conflict.
Also, your comment of “One easy way to separate the trustworthy from the false is to see if there are mistakes, misinterpretations, conflicts, in the text” is so true.
@EmailTubeYou Seems to me whether or not God loves everyone off topic. But I certainly feel that that mentality is much more peaceful than those who believe that God only loves people who convert to their religion, which is a belief shared by many Christians. In fact, since you know so much about the New Testament, you must know that Jesus is quoted saying no one can get to the father but through him. That was a divisive statement considering that the Jews agreed with your statement above!
@EmailTubeYou I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that there is a strain of Christianity that teaches that God only loves Christians. This stems from the quote of Jesus that the "only" way to get to the father is through him, in other words, the only way to get to heaven (and receive God's love) was to believe in Jesus. But Judaism said that God loves all His creatures as was demonstrated in the book of Jonah. Thankfully more Christians today are agreeing there are many paths.
No, I don't think that train of thought "stems from" any "quote of Jesus".
It's more likely that it stems from cultural-biases misinterpreting what Christ said.
Christ described himself as 'The Door' or 'The Way' (i.e. the Mediator between God & man -- who advocated for any seeker to get into heaven).
The purpose of a 'Door' is to serve as an 'Entryway' -- not a Blockade -- thus -- Christ never claimed to "block" anyone from God, but rather he offer himself as 'The Portal Way' to God.
Ex. in the book "What About Those Who've Never Heard' (by Gabriel Fackre), it's noted that when Christ called himself "The Door' & 'The Way' to salvation, he was essentially stating that he was serving as Mediator between God & mankind and that God, in His MERCY, would accept Christ mediation (no matter the person's actual faith, as long as they were true to that faith & worked to obey God)
@EmailTubeYou That is Gabriel Fackre's opinion. If all Christians agreed with him that would be great. But I have met Christians who told me that if I didn't "accept Jesus as my savior" I was going to go to hell and that my "acts" didn't matter. We are saved by "grace" is what they said, and anything you do is of no affect, except to believe in Jesus as he said, "No one gets to the father but through me". Certainly this was the belief of the crusaders and is still sadly common in many sects.
@EmailTubeYou Of course from a Jewish point of view the question would be what does Christ have to do with God? It is God who accepts or rejects people and the Bible told us long before Jesus was born that we are all God's children and like any good parent He will punish and reward us according to how we behave, but His love will never depart from His children.
The Christian teaching is that Christ is The Mediator between God & mankind & serves as humanity's Advocate (thus, calling himself 'The Door' & 'The Way'); that Christ is & always has been God; that Christ loved mankind so much that (being God) he offered himself as the (only acceptable) sacrifice to Himself; & thus, he "cleared the path" (or paths, as it were) for mankind to be fully-reconciled to God.
Also, some Christians believe in a Trinity others believe God revealed himself in 3 ways.
@EmailTubeYou Yes, but from where do the Christians get the authority to overrule what God said? "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God. 13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he."
How much clearer could it be that God is God and "no other". The Jews are called to be God's witnesses against those who would alter this.
Again, the Christian belief is that Christ IS God & offered himself to himself out of love for mankind
They don’t claim Christ replaced God -- they say he is and always has been God
It gets a bit into the topic of the Trinity (which some christians view as God being a literal 3-in-1-entity and others view as being figurative language for how God ‘reveals’ himself to mankind -- as the ‘Father’ in Hebrew scriptures; the ‘Son’ in Greek scriptures; & the holy ‘Spirit’ in today’s world)
@EmailTubeYou What if I were to say I am you? You would say no you are not. But then I could say, "I always was you!" And would that make it any better?
God said "I, even I am the Lord". Why the double phrase? To make it abundantly clear that God as He was revealed to the Jews is God. And then He says, "and apart from me there is no savior". Get it? No Christ! No 3 in 1, no door monitor, God is God. He even has a name (which Jews don't pronounce) and it isn't Christ. Jews are to be His witness.
Many Christians believe God referred to the idea of the Trinity in the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures when he said "Let US make man in OUR own image" (Genesis 1 :26) AND also made a prophetic reference to Christ’s crucifixion & resurrection in noting he’d “bruise” the serpents’ (Satan’s) “head” and the serpent would “bruise” his “heel” (Genesis 3 : 15)
Thus, the teachings of Christianity sees NO conflict – as they feel the Christian/Greek scriptures are a ‘fulfillment' of the Jewish/Hebrew ones.
@EmailTubeYou There is no such thing as "fulfillment"! Suppose I said that Von Cello's law was the fulfillment of American law. What does that mean? The Christian interpretations you mention... what is their source? Jews never passed this down as the meaning of those verses! God was speaking to the universe when He said "Let US make man in OUR image" because man has a spirit from God but is also made of the physical elements of the universe. The Christians had no authority to change this.
@EmailTubeYou Jews feel that they misinterpret Jewish prophecies. I run down many of these Christian interpretations in my book. Often they completely mistranslate a word, such as the place where they mistranslate the phrase "the young woman will conceive" to "a virgin shall conceive". The central biblical prophecy describes a time when there will be peace on earth. See Isaiah 2 and tell me objectively if you think this is anywhere near "fulfilled". And Christians also claim Judaism is obsolete.
Even the apostle / disciple James openly stated (James 2:26) that ANY type of "faith" that does NOT include "works" (i.e. an outward-display or show of that faith) is / was "dead".
Thus -- this seems to me to be an example were the Christians may find themselves at the same table as those who practice Judaism.
@EmailTubeYou Yes, Christianity isn't consistent on whether or not "works" are important. Judaism is totally consistent and clear that we are judged by our actions. And this is what leads to moral behavior. There is no "get out of jail free" pass.
But it seems to me that the Christian religion actually IS quite "consistent on whether or not "works" are important" -- afterall -- not a single one of the Christians can deny that (right there in the Christian scriptures -- ex. James 2 : 26) it quite clearly says that .... ANY type of "faith" that does NOT include "works" (i.e. an outward-display or show of that faith) is / was simply "dead".
There's no getting around that ... it's right there for them in black and white.
James 2 : 26 adds to that verse on 'faith' (noted in Ephesians 2 :8) when it states the following:
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." -- AND -- the Jewish / Hebrew scriptures seem to support both of these Christian / Greek scriptures where it states -- “… the JUST shall LIVE by his FAITH” (Habakkuk 2 : 4)
Again – the issue of ‘faith’ AND ‘works’ seems to be on which the two religions share more in common than many seem to realize.
@EmailTubeYou I saw Habakkuk 2 translated as " “See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness" NOT faith! He will be faithful to the law of God and not seek riches through crime. As it goes on to say, "Woe to him who piles up stolen goods and makes himself wealthy by extortion!" Yes, have faith that the law of God is good. But no, this doesn't tell you that you are "saved through faith" as Ephesians does.
Good point on Habakkuk 2: 4 – BUT – note that the ORIGINAL Hebrew word used was ‘'Emuwnah’ -- which essentially means ‘fidelity’ & it is derived from ‘ 'Emuwn’ (which means “faithful”) which is based on the ROOT word of ‘'Aman’ -- which means "to trust" (as in "to trust” in God for His mercy, love, justice, fairness, etc.) -- which, in and of itself, is an expression of one's "Faith".
All of which back up James 2: 26 & Ephesians 2: 8.
@EmailTubeYou I just checked rabbinic commentary which explains that this prophecy was about King Nebechadnezzar. He was lawlessly conquering people in the middle east. Habakkuk councils people to have faith in God that Nebechadnezzar will be destroyed by his own greed. Again, the theme is that we are rewarded and punished by our works. We should have faith that this is true. We shouldn't have faith that a man became God or a virgin gave birth or Judaism has been fulfilled. "I, even I am God".
The rabbi in my religious studies class said that much of scripture was used as a "typology” – wherein an actual event, person, etc. that existed was used to represent a ‘spiritual” condition or state of being.
For example, 'Joshua’s' name referred to 'God’s salvation' & his existence (as well as his actual ‘name’ as a “typology”) served as a spiritual-reminder of such.
Perhaps the same can be said of the reference used of the events in Habakkuk?
@EmailTubeYou Orthodox Judaism teaches that there are many levels of Bible interpretation. One level is the surface, another is the moral teaching, another is the spiritual teaching. Often there is a spiritual level to a conflict between people. This doesn't mean the event didn't occur, but that it also represented something higher. But in the case of the prophets it is agreed that generally they were making prophecies that the people they were talking to would understand and see occur.
@EmailTubeYou What Christians often do is take a prophecy that is clearly about a certain event i.e. Nebechadnezzer, and say that this actually was about Jesus (who wasn't born until 500 - 1500 years later. My question is, how do they know? Did Jesus whisper this in someone's ear? You know, the Muslims did the same 1000 years later coming up with their interpretations. Today groups like the Black Hebrews and other "cults" do the same. Anyone can say anything but that doesn't make it valid.
Wow -- the adamant mentality some of the people that we all encounter have --- still shocks (and oftentimes, amuses) me.
In one of our classes a student talked about how in his family some people "debated" on whether they should get 'baptized' via a "sprinkling" (as a baby) or an "immersion" (as an adult).
Another talked of how they were told "dancing" to rock music was bad, but "skating" to it was OK,
LOL -- the tiny issues that left people so greatly separated were shocking.
@voncello And as for Dr.Gerald Schroeder. He spent 20 minutes talking about why the book is a parable. Another 20 minutes trying to use relativity to describe why 6 days isn't the 6 days we perceive. And then he wraps it up in revealing that the bible was saying that the earth was 15.7 billion years all along! All his assumptions make it seem like he was searching for the evidence to match his answer rather then the evidence lead to it's own answer. And that is corrupted subjective science.
@PhilosoFighter Schroeder is an MIT professor with 2 doctorates and a nuclear physicist. IMO you misunderstood his points. He is speaking scientifically and proves through mathematical calculations that at the center of the universe 6 days have passed during the 15 billion years in our part. This is simply a fact. Then he uses a formula to show how long each of the 6 days breaks out on earth and shows that the Bible put all events into the right days. Clear evidence of a superior intelligence.
@voncello The Schroeder MIT stuff is great, Im going to do some research and find out more about so I can use it in arguments. Take this atheist bastards!
Also, in Leviticus20:13 where it says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (just like many other places in the Old Testament) in Hebrew, the 1st word for "man" used here is "IYSH" (referring to an ADULT male) & the 2nd word for man is “ZAKAR” (referring to a ‘Male’ of ANY age, including a ‘child’) – so it is clearly ‘PEDARASTY’ (child molestation) AND / OR pagan ‘TEMPLE PROSTITUTION-RITES' that's being condemned here.
@EmailTubeYou Very interesting point! This is the type of thing that I keep trying to get people to understand - namely that we are dealing with a Hebrew text from thousands of years ago that was translated several different times before it became English so to really understand it you have to go back to the original Hebrew and analyze every word carefully. Those who read it in English and make sweeping statements about how "evil" it is are acting in an ignorant manner.
It amazes me how people will condemn the Jewish scriptures (&/or the Christian scriptures) w/ having actually made any attempt to read or 'study' those scriptures at all.
Many online athiest and agnostic sites make sweeping generalizations about the Jewish scriptures and falsely claim they advocate all manner of evil -- based on nothing more than the scriptures simply 'mentioning' that a given historical event occurred.
That's like condemning ABC news for 'reporting' a war.
@PhilosoFighter I assume it meant boys because priests generally don't have sex with married men and people married in the early teens back then. Of course if we researched the religious sexual rites that existed in that region 3500 yrs. ago we'd have a better chance of being correct. Now, you said that the "oh so nice judges would want to kill a guy that had sex with a young child" but Israel like the US rarely used capital punishment except for murder. But the threat was a deterrent.
ok most gays hate god? really? and so do straight,because the way humans thought the bible,they placed fear of god to ppl and condemt them,if church tells you,you are smoking,and god hates it and you will burn in hell......how will you feel?....why believe in a god who hates me?....well humans drove people away from god with their ignorance.
mariadc075 2 weeks ago
God is love, nothing but love. Love always overcomes HATE and HOMOPHOBIA, therefore God DOES NOT HATE GAYS anymore than he doe not hate these idiots who claim to follow God.
GayWorldOrder 3 weeks ago
i dont know, but i saw that most of gays hates God
trifulquita15 1 month ago
@trifulquita15 How many have you met?
voncello 1 month ago
@trifulquita15
Not in my circles, you pathetic homophobe.
GayWorldOrder 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you live by the old law then you will have to keep the old law and no one has kept the law for all have fallen short of the Glory of God, there for we are saved by GRACE and is a GIFT of God and no one can EARN their way into the Kingdom of God by WORKS or KEEPING THE LAW, All one has to do is to call upon the name of the Lord and you shall be SAVED, and you will not enter into the kingdom of God based on good works of the Law least any one should boast, for it is by faith and FAITH ALONE.
PaulGeoffreySmith 3 months ago
What is this? I was thaught that when you die, you will be asked ''Did you hate gays?'' And if you say ''Yes'', you will get to heaven and there is nothing else to it. No other requirements to get to Heaven. So all the gay supporters and gays will burn in Hell that was originally just a place where your soul was taken of out existence and you didn't exist anymore, but it didn't work to scare people enough so I guess the all knowing chruch decided to change it in the middle-ages.
Ileko1 6 months ago
@Ileko1 There's no hell in Judaism and the Jews wrote the Bible! You're correct that Christianity made several "innovations" which actually worked beautifully for recruitment. On the one hand what could be better for attracting followers than a free trip to heaven? On the other, what is more motivational to keep followers than an eternal trip to hell for leaving? Islam went further actully killing those who leave. That's why there are a billion Mulsims & a billlion Chrsitains & 14 million Jews.
voncello 6 months ago
NEED A LIFE OR LOVER ( GUY OR GIRL) ANY THING TO GET U OFF THIS FUCKIN VIDEO !
D3IONT317 6 months ago
@voncello thanks for proving that 3d glasses are needed. I'll make sure to wear them next time I read. Jews rule!
eth6706 7 months ago
I believe that's a trick question. There's more than one bible sir.
eth6706 7 months ago
@eth6706 It's not a trick. I am talking about the Jewish Bible, the book of Genesis. Do you know what the first word is?
voncello 7 months ago
@eth6706 It's taking you a long time to respond so I'll move this forward. You'd probably say the first word is "In" as in "In the Beginning". But in Hebrew (which the Bible was written in) those 3 English words are one word Barashona. But the interesting thing is that Barashona is NOT the 1st word in the Bible! It is Bereshit! And that word DOES NOT mean "In the beginning". I go into this in my book, but the point is that despite your joke, the Bible is unreadable without the Jewish tradition.
voncello 7 months ago
@voncello I'm pretty sure you don't have to wear 3d glasses to read the bible.
eth6706 7 months ago
@eth6706 3D glasses are not needed, but studying the Jewish interpretive tradition is. For instance, did you know what the first word of the Bible is?
voncello 7 months ago
you made an interesting point, but just because that verse follows the Moloch verse, does not prove that the "anti-gay" verse was directed only to sexual intercourse in temples... very little of the Bible actually flows coherently. It seems much more likely that verse was against all anal sex, if not against homosexuality in general.
YourRoadToHell 7 months ago
@YourRoadToHell You may be right but you may be wrong.How you can be sure it is "more likely" against anal or homosexuality? The way I look at the Bible, there's a tradition of how it's meant to be understood that was very carefully passed down by the sages. The best way to really know how a verse is meant to be understood is to research the tradition. The point I made in this video was something I picked up from an Orthodox rabbi. There are other "opinions" but none is more likely than another.
voncello 7 months ago
You're right about how people read the Bible and only use certain verses. If a christian says "homosexuality is an abomination, and you will die" and you ask them "so since we abide by the bible, its ok to have slaves, and ok to sell my kids," they will say no you're taking it out of context. Well they do the same thing with the man lying with men verse in Leviticus. Those verses were meant for those people of that time. No wonder people don't want to love God, thanks to ignorant christians.
smurfboywv 7 months ago
@smurfboywv True but it's ignorant people of all backgrounds. To understand any piece of complex writing one must study it with experts in that field. Jews have always taught that the Bible is complex and multi dimensional, and takes years and years of education to understand. Christianity started the idea that the Bible is simple and one dimensional, the one dimension being their own narrow interpretation. Today, sadly, many others continue to view the Bible in the same narrow ignorant way.
voncello 7 months ago
@voncello I agree, and the more people see how the bible is misused, the more they will understand their mistakes. God Bless!
smurfboywv 7 months ago
Have you ever seen the documentary called "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan" (which focuses on the horror of 'pederasty' being used in the modern world)?
It is beyond horrific what these children are being put through.
THAT IS WHAT believe everyone from Moses to the prophets to the apostles WERE CONDEMNING (i.e. 'pederasty', 'sexual assault', & pagan 'temple-prostitution' rites) -- and they were, more than likely, NOT speaking of 'CONSENSUAL' sexual relations taking place between two ADULTS.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
The European-translators (due to being unfamiliar with the cultural-context in which the verses were written) MISINTERPRETED the Hebrew & Greek words in those verses Bible that people falsely-claim are referring to homosexuality.
In reality, the verses were actually referring a strong condemnation of 1) pederasty / child molestation; 2) sexual assault / rape; AND 3) the pagan temple-prostitution (where, as a monetary tribute to their “gods”, pagan men paid for sex with male temple-prostitutes).
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
Per the Bible, it’s one’s FAITH (not one’s sexual-orientation) based on GOD’S MERCY (offered THRU CHRIST) that brings “SALVATION” to ANYONE.
-- "… there is now NO CONDEMNATION for those who are IN CHRIST Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
-- “Therefore having been JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, we have PEACE WITH GOD THROUGH our Lord Jesus CHRIST … (Romans 5:1-2)
-- “For by-GRACE are ye SAVED through-FAITH; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the GIFT OF GOD.” (Ephesians 2:8)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
Comment removed
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
A few good books we read in our religious studies/comparative-religions class were:
-- Letters from a Skeptic (Gred Boyd)
-- What About Those Who've Never Heard (Gabriel Fackre)
-- 20 Hot Potatoes the Christians are Afraid to Touch (Tony Campolo)
-- Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou What you call "the Bible" is the Christian Bible (aka New Testament). In the Jewish Bible there is no doctrine of original sin hence no saving needed. The J Bible is all about moral behavior. If you do what is right all will be well with you. There is no need for such an emphasis on belief and faith. In fact, by promoting belief as the be all and end all the encouragement to be a good person is short circuited, as is the need to study the Bible and learn what it means.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Wrong.
The professor of my comparative-religions class (a VERY learned RABBI who has taught & is an expert on the 5 major religions of the world) -- explained to us that (what 'you' refer to as "the Christian Bible", lol) is actually just a combination of The Jewish Torah & Prophecies (The Old Testament) & the Christian Gospels, Epistles & Prophecies -- thus it is a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN document (i.e. it's BOTH).
Geez --I'm neither a Christian or Jewish & even I can see that.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou What is this rabbi's name? I'd like to look him up and see just how much of an "expert" he really is. What he said a partially true. The Christians consider the Jewish Bible (which they label the "Old" Testament) and their Bible which they call the "New" Testament to be one book which they call the "Holy Bible". Jews do not consider these books to be the same or even related. But you only quoted from the New Testament and called it "the Bible" which ignores the common Jewish view.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
It was Steinberg; the class was comparative-religions; & no (in case you are interested) I will not tell you the name of my school (this is the internet after all).
And the reason I quoted the New Testament -- and only made reference to the Old -- is because I am trying to get people to understand that the "religious-right" misunderstands the Old Testament (from a cultural and transliteration view) and misunderstands the New Testament (from a spiritual and transliteration view).
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou In your first comment you were expressing the idea that people misinterpret the true meaning of the the Bible, but in your second you seemed to be promoting the Christian belief that faith in Jesus absolves one of sin and is therefore all that matters. I don't see how that second post helped clarify your first. It seemed to be off on a tangent.
Does Rabbi Steinberg teach that the Jewish and Christian Bibles are one? If so he may be a "Jew for Jesus" but not a bonafide rabbi.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
No -- LOL -- he is definitely NOT one of the 'jews for jesus' folks -- in fact, our class studied that particular group under the 'sects and cults' segment.
LOL -- he would have probably gotten a real kick out of you mistaking him for a JFJ type (he seemed to see them as more of a 'sect' that sort of fence-straddled between two groups)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
His personal beliefs, if i'm not mistaken, seemed more along the lines of 'reformed' -- but he never really got into what he 'personally' believed a lot -- he just covered the various major religious groups (as well as the more popular of the sects and cults).
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I thought he was probably Reform. I grew up in that movement but I came to see as I got more intense in my studies that the Orthodox have the more authentic tradition. The Reform movement is just over 100 years old but Orthodoxy goes back at least 2000 years, if not all the way back to Moses. And some in the Reform movement have ideas about Judaism that are not in line with the traditional writings.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Most of the people in my class really enjoyed it and felt that he was an extremely learned, intelligent and open minded person who had studied the belief systems of so many groups and, via helping people to have true understanding of other people's perspectives (religiously, culturally, etc.) really helped to build-bridges in the area of spirituality.
The class was one of the most interesting and intriguing that I have ever taken. :D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou My rabbi when I was a kid did a similar thing 40 years ago. Every Sunday he would invite leaders from other religions to talk about their beliefs. His teachings to us was that there are many different ideas out there and we should all be respectful of each others beliefs. The only time our Sunday session was ever tense was when a Protestant minister told us that we were all going to go to hell if we didn't believe in Jesus. He struck me as a very ignorant man.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Your rabbi sounds like my professor.
He used to have coffee chats with students and other people over the topic of religion --- he was very open minded and laid back in these discussions (which were highly informative to observe these people of different religions talking to each other).
The world needs more people who are willing to dialogue.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I think reaching out to other faiths is a part of Reform Judaism. Sometimes I wish they would extend the same courtesy to Jews in other denominations. But that problem aside, I agree with that approach. My rabbi eventually left the Reform movement feeling it was less authentic than orthodoxy. He is now unaligned with any movement and for a living he teaches Rabbinic Christianity in a church! He shows Christians that Jesus was a rabbi and probably more open minded than many believe.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
So -- does that mean he joined the JFJ group that I learned about in my class?
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Not at all. It's the other way around. What he is teaching is not that Jews should be for Jesus but that followers of Jesus should realize that Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi! And therefore they should seek to understand how rabbis think. Christianity often proposes a very strict and narrow interpretation of scripture, yet Jews tend to see many possible interpretations. He argues that Jesus, being a rabbi, would have been more open to the Jewish way of looking at scripture.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Oh -- I thought maybe he was in the JFJ group that we had studied in the 'cults and sects' segment.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Furthermore your points about Christ, justification through faith, saved by grace, etc. are all solely from a Christian viewpoint. As I said, in the Jewish Bible these doctrines do not exist. To the contrary, the Jewish Bible says we are judged by our behavior and rewarded and punished accordingly. The emphasis is on good deeds, not faith. So when you proclaim Christian doctrines as what "the Bible" says, you should clarify that this is what the Christian Bible says not the Jewish.
voncello 9 months ago
The comparative-religions class I took (taught by an expert on world religions) made it clear that the 'Christian' religion is the one that focuses on the concept of "justification through faith" & THAT is why I presented that concept from their point of view.
If I were speaking of Law & Works, I would have noted Judaism; of Balance, I would have noted Buddhism...etc.
The (Works-based) Torah speaks of God's Laws & Rules -- the (Faith-based) Gospels speak of God's Grace & Mercy.
That's it. =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Agreed, but my point is just that when you say "the Bible" it helps to clarify which Bible you are talking about. As you have explained the Christian view of the Bible is very different than the Jewish. And Jews don't consider the Christian writings to be part of the Bible.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
My professor often used used like "Torah" when referring to Jewish scriptures and "Epistles" (or "Gospels") when referring to Christian scriptures.
He did not seem to keen on using terms like "the Christian Bible" or "the Jewish Bible".
His class was absolutely fascinating -- in learning about all of these perspectives.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou This is semantics. The Torah is a book from the Bible of the Jews. The Gospels are a book from the Bible of the Christians. I don't understand why you want to hide this obvious truth. It strikes me as "political correctness" run amok. The fact remains that Jews do not consider the Gospels, the Epistles, the New Testament, the Christian Bible... whatever you want to call it, the Bible! It is a set of books in a foreign language written from a foreign perspective.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Actually -- I was referring to semantics-based divisions -- not to what each group believed.
Beliefs are one thing -- but surely less divisive terminology can be used to describe various religious beliefs (especially concerning those of the three main monotheistic religions of the world_.
People need to build bridges (not moats) and look at similarities (not focus on differences) -- that was one of the key things I took away from my class.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
Comment removed
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
Comment removed
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also -- it should NOT be FORGOTTEN that, the Bible also states that .....
-- “For GOD so LOVED the world, that he GAVE his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him SHOULD not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.” (John 3:16)
-- “For God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world; BUT THAT THE WORLD through him might BE SAVED.” (John 3:17)
-- “HE THAT BELIEVETH on him IS NOT CONDEMNED: …” (John 3:18)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Once again you say "the Bible also states" and then you quote from the New Testament. Jews do not consider the New Testament to be part of the Bible. So it helps to specify that you are talking about the New Testament or as I call it the Christian Bible.
voncello 9 months ago
That's a GOOD POINT!
To avoid causing any
confusion, the preface I used
should have probably said...
"The Christian scriptures state that:
-- “For GOD so LOVED the world, that he GAVE his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him SHOULD not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.” (John 3:16)
-- “For God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world; BUT THAT THE WORLD through him might BE SAVED.” (John 3:17)
-- “HE THAT BELIEVETH on him IS NOT CONDEMNED:…” (John 3:18)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Yes! That is my main point, not just to you, but to many people. I go into this in much more depth in my You Tube video "Peace Between Christians & Jews" watch?v=xwkewhdwyvk
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Perhaps people (myself included) are so use to saying the phrase of "the Bible says ..." or "no, the Bible does not say ..." -- when referring to Jewish scripture or to Christian scripture -- that we often forget that those two groups do not consider each other's version to be the actual "Bible".
Perhaps from now on I will begin to say something along the lines of "the Jewish scriptures say ..." and "The Christian scriptures say ...."
Thanks for pointing that out.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Yes! With 14 million Jews in the world and a billion Christians the Christian view of the Bible is the prevalent one, and most people don't even know what the Jewish view is. To me this is a travesty since the Bible (the Jewish one) is a Jewish book, of, by and for Jews, written by Jews, passed down by Jews, and lived by Jews. The ignoring or belittling of the Jewish point of view is a form of prejudice based in ignorance. It is a type of chauvinism that shouldn't be acceptable.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Most people (for example, myself) are not attempting to ignore or certainly not "belittle" anyone's beliefs -- it's just that the tendency their is a tendency to respond with the phrase of "The Bible says ..." and then quote scriptures from BOTH Judaism AND Christianity because we are used to responding to the "religious-right" (and thus, speaking to them in "their language").
It's of great help to us when people point out that they are NOT of that particular group. =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Good point but even when not responding to the Christian right most non-Jews believe the Jewish and Christian Bibles are interchangeable and essentially say the same thing. But they believe that Jesus said it better. This is simply not true but it is a myth or a societal belief that is found almost universally in our culture. Historically this developed because Jews would be killed for speaking out, and even today many Jews still feel uncomfortable about expressing Jewish ideas.
voncello 9 months ago
thank you for this and all the back ground
k9dog1000 9 months ago
God does not HATE anyone- It is our sinful actions that He hates. All evil, sinful actions that we commit keep us separated from God, because evil, and SIN are not of God, but are of Lucifer. Right now
TheWayandWordofLife 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. -Isaiah 45
I didn't see any mention of Lucifer.
voncello 10 months ago
If you love God you OBEY God.
Those who HATE God try to make every excuse they can to support their refusal to obey His laws. -I don't care what homosexuals choose, but I WILL NOT stand for them trying to preach lies. Thats called BLASPHEMY.
MajorAmosStoddar 10 months ago
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I mean you can't butter that up no matter how you translate it. You can't say that the bible is eternal and for all time periods and also say we must account for the context in time. It's a contradiction. This CLEARLY says homosexuality is punishable by death.
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 It absolutely does not say what you said it says! The word "homosexuality" is not found in that sentence! You are also assuming that the English translation is accurate. Even a shallow study of Bible translations shows that the translations are terrible and often totally twist what was originally written. Furthermore, the rabbis teach that we must always put things in context. You ripped one sentence out and twisted it. The context was about things that happen in temples!
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello um...i am pretty sure this was when the Lord was talking to moses. That chapter says nothing about temples...but okay I think we have established that the translations are messed up. I think the christian bible refers to homosexuals as "sodomites". I didn't twist anything...that is what it says. Anyway this is from a christian bible not the torah. It doesn't matter if it was in temples or not. It still says they would be put to death.
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 Lev. 18: 21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."
Sacrifices to Molek were done in temples so that's how we know this is about temples. And the very next sentence talks about men having sex. So in this context some rabbis say this referred to sexual religious rites where male priests would have sex with young boys. It is "detestable" for a priest to use his position for sex.
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello
Exactly.
It was 'pederasty'; 'sexual assault / exploitation'; & pagan temple-prostitution rites that Moses, the hebrew prophets & the apostles condemned.
They were not referring to same-gender sexual activity taking place between two 'consensual' adults.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 If a priest has sex with a boy perhaps he should be killed. This adult has permanently damaged this child and may very well have destroyed his connection to God. However, just because the Torah uses the phrase "put to death" doesn't mean it happened. Men, not God, were the interpreters of this law and the Talmud says the death penalty required the unanimous consent of 23 judges! Therefore almost no one was ever put to death. Thus it's pointless to read Torah without Talmud.
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello Boys? It says mankind.as in other men. Where did you get child from? And if i required the consent of 23 judges you would think that these oh so nice judges would want to kill a guy that had sex with a young child. I hate how people automatically assume that gay sex is between a olderman and a child. Mostly it is straight guys raping young girls. Most homosexual relationships are mutual. Question: How does sex destroy a relationship with God? I see this come up a lot.
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 "It says mankind.as in other men." I hope you realize that you are making up your own interpretation. You say mankind means other men, but its main definition is " the human race : the totality of human beings", so why couldn't it mean boys? Indeed, if they wanted to say "men" why didn't they just say that? But the reality is the Torah didn't use the word "mankind". It used a Hebrew word and you have no idea what that word really means. Trusting translations is illogical.
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello well that goes double.If they wanted to say boys or young men why didn't they just say boys or young men?Why be so cryptic?"you have no idea what that word really means"You keep telling me this. Why not try telling me what the word means then?Tell me what science is in the Jewish holy books. I am sure there is a book out there with a decent translation and since you are into this, do you know where I can find one? And if there isn't one...why the heck not?
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 "If they wanted to say boys or young men why didn't they just say boys or young men?" If they said boys you could ask whey they didn't specify teen boys, toddlers or babies. When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" why didn't he say women? Why didn't he say blacks? You can ask this about anything. The Torah is thought of like a newspaper with headlines. The only way to really understand it is to study it word by word for years and years with highly educated rabbis.
voncello 10 months ago
Agreed.
Also, if the verses were condemning homosexuality (instead of ‘pederasty’ & pagan ‘temple-prostitution’ rites) WHY do they ONLY single-out men (& NOT include the women)?
Both the Old & New Testament, speak clearly, definitively, specifically & in great detail on the expected behavior of women --– ex. menstrual cycles, sexual activity, childbirth, domestic duties, legal rights, etc. --– so WHY would these verses ONLY speak of men, IF 'homosexuality' were the focus?
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 You keep asking what science is in the Torah. Have you watched the 5 part video by Schroeder yet? It is amazing when you hear the whole thing. That will give you a taste of the kind of things that are hidden in the Torah in plain sight. But you need someone who knows about these things to bring them forth. My book got great praise from many rabbis for the way it brings forth so many topics and gives a beginner a taste, but there's only so much I could do in 554 pages.
voncello 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 There is no such thing as a "decent translation" of the Torah since it is really just a collection of headlines. For instance, Art Scroll publishes an annotated version but Genesis alone is so long it is divided into 3 books! And those 3 books still are just scratching the surface! Christianity passed down the idea that the Torah is just "history" and the important stuff is in the "New" Testament. This concept led the masses away from a true understanding of the Jewish Bible.
voncello 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 What I never got to say is the reason some think this verse is about priests having sex with boys is because it comes right after another verse (Lev. 18:21) that discusses sacrificing children for Moloch. This pagan ritual was done in temples. The question is asked, why in a chapter about sexual immorality is a sacrifice mentioned? Some say to change the context from acts done at home to acts done in temples - sacrifices, sexual rites with priests (and animals). Hence "boys".
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello That seems like a very jumpy analysis to me (and very apologist sounding). When I am asking about what science is in the holy books I just want the main reason...your biggest focus,your greatest deduction, and what convinced YOU personally of the science in the torah. The video you keep telling people only tries to verify the 6 days of creationism. Did only that convince you? Assuming that his science is correct, is that still enough to trust the entire book?There has to me more...
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter Did the fact that the author of the Torah 3500 years ago knew how many days had passed at the center of the universe and then divided the 15 billion years in our corner of the universe into 6 days by an algorithm that accounted for the theory of relativity and then put all of the major geological events into their correct time periods convince me that the Torah is not just a book like other so called "holy" books? ... yeah! That along with hundreds of other similar amazing items.
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello Alrighty. So I think I understand your position on this or at least your defense for this position. In another video, you say that you do not believe in anything or at least you don't want to label yourself . What does the Torah/ Talmund mean to you then? What do you think people should get from it?
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter it's an incredibly complex work that takes years of study to understand. This is how Orthodox Jews, who live by it, see it. So who are we to think that we can just read it in an English translation and understand what it is really saying? That is my main point! I would like people to get past the societal "belief" that the Bible is easily understood and easily dismissed, and was superseded by a New (& improved) Testament or Koran or secular belief system. Let's go Beyond Faith!
voncello 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 Let's go Beyond Faith! I.e. let's actually study the Torah... in the manner the ones who wrote it and passed it down said it must be studied. Let's not accept on faith that the English translations are correct or even close to the original Hebrew. Let's not accept on faith that we can just read the English and have any idea of what this book is really saying. Let's respect the science of Torah as we would any other science and search for evidence and not rush to judgement.
voncello 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter2012 And really, the point of my book goes beyond the Bible. It is about life in general. There are many ways in which people live in faith-based realities. For instance, most people believe what they hear on television news shows. Most Americans believe that the debate on issues doesn't go beyond what the Republicans and Democrats have to say. Most people refuse to really question their leaders, whether in church, school, government, etc. Most refuse to move Beyond Faith.
voncello 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter In the end it doesn't matter if Torah explication "sounds" apologetic to you. This is the way Jews have studied the Torah for thousands of years. They do not read it as prose. They look for all kinds of clues as to the true meanings. Very often contexts are changed by intervening sentences. If this was the only case of this, you'd have a point, but this happens all the time! There is a whole hierarchy of things to look at when interpreting that the layman just doesn't understand.
voncello 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter Historically speaking the Christians created a new religion to move people away from the Torah. They created a story that the rabbis were blind and stubborn, so much so that they couldn't even realize that God Himself (Jesus) was among them. The "New" Testament was a tool to discredit the rabbis and turn the masses away from Torah and the Jewish way of thinking. Thus the rabbis were just "apologists" for an outdated book that is just "history" but the "truth" is in the new book!
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello The New testement doesnt "discredit" anything, its just a way to live a good moral life. Im not saying your religeon is wrong, but if we all listened to Jesus message, like the quotes hese said: love your enemies, those who live by the sword die by the sword, if your left hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away..... some good shit, even if he wasnt the son of God.
RecBookHero 10 months ago
@RecBookHero We don't know what Jesus actually said. But according to the NT he said "anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So he acknowledged his debt to the Torah. But elsewhere he is quoted as insulting Jewish sages. I assume this is Roman propaganda that the authors put into his mouth. But who knows?
voncello 9 months ago
@RecBookHero I wonder why do you single out Jesus as one we should listen too? Is he not supposed to be the son of God? Why not then listen to God? God said "Do not steal". Is "if your left hand causes you to sin cut it off" any better? Does Jesus really want us to cut off our hand? And what if your right hand sins? Frankly the first is much more direct and clear. "Love your enemies" is also unclear. How exactly do we do this? God said to help an enemy in need, which is clear and realistic.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello I see what you mean, but the New Testement is different in ways then the Old. For instance, Jesus NEVER condones violance, ever. Any war fought in Gods name, at least in Catholisism, is heresy. The Crusades for instance, were illegal. You also must take account of the fact he was talking to crowds, parables were a good way of teaching. Now, I dont single Jesus out as the one we should listen to. Catholic teachings dictate that both the Old and the New are important, and both have,
RecBookHero 9 months ago
@RecBookHero Jesus is not the most peaceful of religious figures. After all he did whip the money changers, which objectively speaking is a violent crime. True he seems to have rarely gotten violent but the violent language he used against Jews ex. "You belong to your father, the devil", etc. led to violence against Jews over the centuries. Crusades, legal or not, were an outgrowth of the cult of Jesus. The followers of Moses never went around the world killing non-believers.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello Just to add something to that, Jesus also told his disciples to buy swords, and sell their cloaks if necessary, and the implication is that sword is what Peter used to cut off the ear of the Roman in the garden. It's tradition only that Peter took the Roman's sword, the Bible just says Peter took a sword. The implication would be that he had the sword because Jesus had told him to buy it a few chapters earlier. /shrug. Just throwing that in there.
punchdrunkatheist 9 months ago
@voncello for the most part, the same message. However, Im simply saying that the New testement may reach out better to those who arent open minded enough to see past things like, "rape the Philistines." Also, from the New Testement came Catholic tradition, and if your a Catholic like I am, its very important. The Bible never says anything about Abortion or Stem cell research does it? Nevertheless, Im indifferent towards this, you have good reasons to believe the New testement is unecissary.
RecBookHero 9 months ago
@RecBookHero Christians constantly bring up God's commands to the Jews to violence. They often throw in the word "rape" though there is nowhere that God commands rape! The wars God commanded were only in one place for one reason: He said He gave Israel to the Jews and those who wanted to prevent them from returning to God's holy land had to be overpowered. But Jews never fought over any other piece of land and never killed others for not being Jewish. It's actually a very peaceful religion.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello I know that. We agree, but others dont think so. And by the way, Christians, at least the ones I know, are freindly to Jews. Ive debated people using your very logic before, the bible only commands to destroy those who threaten Isreal, its why modern Isreal hasnt expanded despite its better military then those in the Middle East.
I always defend the Old Testement too, its just as much of a part of my religeon as it is yours.Atheists are usually the ones who attack the old testement.
RecBookHero 9 months ago
@RecBookHero Thanks. I think Christians are getting more & more friendly to Jews which is great. I've run into some that still want to convert Jews and talk about the Jewish Bible as being old and obsolete. I know you don't mean any harm but even the calling of the Jewish Bible the "Old" makes it appear that it is less important than the "New". In many ways the two testaments have similar messages but they differ on some points. Each should be respected and understood from its own point of view.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
People should also STOP using terms like "The Christian Bible" and "The Jewish Bible".
Such minute divisions are what put so many groups at conflict.
It seems much more logical to say something like "The Torah" (which, technically, refer to the 1st 5 books of Moses -- but many mentally add the 'songs' & the 'prophecies' as well) AND "The Gospels" (which, technically, refer to the 1st 4 books of the Disciples -- but many mentally add the 'epistles' & the 'prophecies' as well).
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou There is no need for conflict where the truth is concerned. The fact is that the Christian Bible is a different set of books than the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible contains the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. It doesn't contain the "New Testament". The Christians wrote a new set of books in a foreign language (Greek) and claimed that it was a continuation of the Jewish books. THAT is where the conflict began and denying the truth will only further the conflict.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
My professor generally just used phrases like ...
"The Torah" or "The Gospels"
or "The Epistles" and so forth.
He really seemed to be into building-bridges
among groups and not letting unnecessary
barriers (semantics, etc.) creep or seep in. =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou If I were teaching a college course I might do the same as your professor. In that role you want to impart information with as little controversy as possible. So if avoiding a truth that could cause tension is helpful in that cause, then so be it. But I'm sure one on one he would admit that the Torah is of the Jews and the Gospels are of the Christians. And trying to hide this is not a long term prescription for peace. Confronting the truth is the only long term solution for peace.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Actually -- he was very open about the Torah being the scriptures used in Judaism and the Gospels being the scriptures used in Christianity.
He just (to my recollection) never used phrases like ... "The Christian Bible" or ... "The Jewish Bible".
The way he presented it --- there seemed to be no reason both groups should not be able to simply come to the same table and simply agree on similar points and agree-to-disagree on the dissimilar points. =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I agree that both groups should "be able to simply come to the same table and simply agree on similar points and agree-to-disagree on the dissimilar points." But I don't see how recognizing that the two Bibles are different and acknowledging that one is from the Jewish religion and the other from the Christian prevents this. You seem to find it offensive but I don't understand why. It seems to me it is just being forthright.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Actually -- I do not find it to be offensive -- but rather -- I just think the way the professor used the terms seemed much more harmonious and less divisive.
But -- to each his own , I guess. =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Maybe its the New Yorker in me but I'd rather have someone say "F you" to my face then have them smile and talk about me behind my back. So I prefer the direct approach, but I can understand in certain situations, like in a college course, it would be more politic to use less obvious terms to describe certain things. I suppose there is a certain shock value in saying Jewish and Christian Bibles, but what I find offensive is calling the Jewish one the "Old" which is a pejorative.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
The term may be used because many Christians believe there are 2 Covenants at work – the Original One (found in Jewish/Hebrew scriptures) and a Updated One (found in Christian/Greek scriptures).
From what I understand, it's seen in the Christian faith as being no different to an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (i.e. it does not ‘cancel’ out anything – it just expands on and further clarifies things).
I doubt that their intention is to offend anyone in their beliefs or verbage.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou The difference is this "amendment" was added on by a foreign people (Romans) in a foreign language (Greek)! The least the Christians could have done, if they wanted to amend the Torah, was to write the amendment in the same language. Would we amend the Constitution in Arabic or Chinese? How offensive would that be? Furthermore, you don't amend a Constitution without the approval of the country it was written for. If you do, they will never accept it, and the Jews never have.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
But most of the ORIGINAL Christians were of the Jewish Ethnicity / Culture.
Paul, for example, was a devout Pharisee who eventually came to view Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew / Jewish prophetic scriptures.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou That's only if you believe everything you read. There was a Council of Nicea where a group of Romans decided what would be passed down as the "New Testament" and they destroyed every other version that they could find. There is no evidence whatsoever that what we are reading was written by Jews. But if it were, it was clearly written by Jews who knew very little about the Jewish Bible as I show in great detail in my book. They made a myriad of mistakes and misinterpretations.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
From what I have heard, there a whole 'Jewish Roots' movement (possibly inspired by the JFJ sect) wherein devout jewish people teach the christians that all the original christians started off as members of the jewish religion.
It's practically sweeping parts of the u.s. -- are you saying they are mistaken as well?
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Certainly the New Testament claims that the original disciples and Jesus himself were Jews but there is no evidence that what the New Testament claims is true. What is true is that Romans at the Council of Nicea came up with their final version and destroyed all the others. Just objectively that doesn't seem to bode very well for taking the New Testament literally, whether or not a movement is sweeping the country.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
If you question whether Jesus and the disciples were originally of the jewish ethnicity – do you feel that your old rabbi and these other devout jewish people are doing anything wrong in teaching such a thing to the Christian churches that being visited?
Also -- how do you feel about your old rabbi not following any one particular branch or teaching of judaism?
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I can see the value in assuming for argument's sake that Jesus existed and that he and his original followers were Jewish as long as one admits (if asked) that the New Testament is not reliable as an historic document.
In my book I have a chapter called, "Will the Real Jews Please Stand Up?" In it I argue that there should be no such thing as sects of Judaism. People have the right to their views but codifying dissent into movements limits a person's ability to think for himself.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
BUT -- let's remember that (other than the book of 'Acts', that recorded the events of 1st Century "church") the New Testament was not written as ‘an historical document’.
Other than the 4 synoptic-Gospels (reviewing the life of Christ) & the book of 'Revelation' (which is written in metaphor as a prophecy), the New Testament is largely composed of a series of Letters (Epistles) to the encourage the 1st Century Christians who were suffering from persecution by the Roman government.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou You can say that the NT wasn't written as an historical text, but many Christians believe it to be the "word of God" and as such they believe it is honest and accurate. But when you start to look at it in depth you start to see the flaws. For instance, the 4 Gospels have many conflicting narratives. Christians say one fills in details that others leave out, but there are out and out conflicts like the 2 genealogies of Jesus, how many asses he rode on when he came to Jerusalem, etc.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Good point --but-- it doesn’t seem to me that it’d take much of a stretch for them to view a non-historical document as being “the word of God”
In fact, for some, it’s solely being non-historical may make it seem all the more ‘inspired’ by God
(For instance, a document seen as being “prophecy” would likely be taken as “more spiritual” than one written as “the evening news”. ;D)
By the way, our professor referred to the accounts in the Gospels as "Synoptic”, not “conflicting”. =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Call it what you will but when Jesus has two different paternal grandfathers, that is a problem. What you need to do is get a book that compares the accounts in the different gospels and you will see irreconcilable differences. I do this in my book but there are books that only deal with this topic.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Actually -- it's what the professor called it.
For me -- it really was not a major issue. =)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou "it’s solely being non-historical may make it seem all the more ‘inspired’ by God". Non-historical is one thing. Mistakes and conflicts in the reporting are another. If one is to claim that a book is "inspired by God" or even more extreme that it is the "word of God" then one must have some means of proving this. Certainly if mistakes or conflicts are found in the text it becomes extremely unlikely that God had anything to do with it as we would expect perfection of God.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
But don't you see how much easier it is to get people to adhere to a non-"historical" document (ex. psalms, letters, prophecies, etc.) and see it as being more "spiritual" (as it were) than an "historical" one?
Perhaps if it were "historical"(in whole or part) a person's belief in it would not be as strong.
Your thoughts?
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou My approach is evidence based. That's why my book is called Beyond Faith. If it all comes down to faith, who's to say whose beliefs are true? And since various faiths are in conflict with each other it seems necessary - if we ever want peace - to examine these faiths and determine if there is any evidence to prove that one is more valid than another. One easy way to separate the trustworthy from the false is to see if there are mistakes, misinterpretations, conflicts, in the text.
voncello 9 months ago
Good point.
An ex-catholic friend told me that as a child any questions (even if for clarity) received the knee-jerk response of "faith" & that's why they are now a non-catholic.
My belief is also to examine the religions (ex. their beliefs; the basis of the belief & it's overall impact) & that such exams help reduce conflict.
Also, your comment of “One easy way to separate the trustworthy from the false is to see if there are mistakes, misinterpretations, conflicts, in the text” is so true.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@voncello
Maybe we should avoid the issue of geographical politics here -- and stick with the subject at hand -- which is GOD LOVES EVERYONE !!!
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Seems to me whether or not God loves everyone off topic. But I certainly feel that that mentality is much more peaceful than those who believe that God only loves people who convert to their religion, which is a belief shared by many Christians. In fact, since you know so much about the New Testament, you must know that Jesus is quoted saying no one can get to the father but through him. That was a divisive statement considering that the Jews agreed with your statement above!
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you here.
The people of the Christian faith do not hold the gamut on believing that 'God loves everyone'.
My upbringing was w/out any formal religion, yet I was taught that God loved everyone (so, that belief is not "unique" to the Christians).
Nearly every religion and philosophy which believes in a higher power teaches that 'God loves everyone'.
[By the way, my class focused more on Hebrew-Jewish scriptures, than on the Greek-Christian ones.]
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that there is a strain of Christianity that teaches that God only loves Christians. This stems from the quote of Jesus that the "only" way to get to the father is through him, in other words, the only way to get to heaven (and receive God's love) was to believe in Jesus. But Judaism said that God loves all His creatures as was demonstrated in the book of Jonah. Thankfully more Christians today are agreeing there are many paths.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
No, I don't think that train of thought "stems from" any "quote of Jesus".
It's more likely that it stems from cultural-biases misinterpreting what Christ said.
Christ described himself as 'The Door' or 'The Way' (i.e. the Mediator between God & man -- who advocated for any seeker to get into heaven).
The purpose of a 'Door' is to serve as an 'Entryway' -- not a Blockade -- thus -- Christ never claimed to "block" anyone from God, but rather he offer himself as 'The Portal Way' to God.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou ...still don't get why we needed him to be the door. The entryway is and always has been wide open.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Christ, himself, said that in his father's "house" there were "many mansions".
Some Christians took that statement to mean "people grouping" others took it to mean "paths".
It seemed to depend on which of the 3 schools of thought they followed.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@voncello
Actually, that's NOT a "divisive" statement.
Ex. in the book "What About Those Who've Never Heard' (by Gabriel Fackre), it's noted that when Christ called himself "The Door' & 'The Way' to salvation, he was essentially stating that he was serving as Mediator between God & mankind and that God, in His MERCY, would accept Christ mediation (no matter the person's actual faith, as long as they were true to that faith & worked to obey God)
A Mediator 'advocates', he does not 'divide' =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou That is Gabriel Fackre's opinion. If all Christians agreed with him that would be great. But I have met Christians who told me that if I didn't "accept Jesus as my savior" I was going to go to hell and that my "acts" didn't matter. We are saved by "grace" is what they said, and anything you do is of no affect, except to believe in Jesus as he said, "No one gets to the father but through me". Certainly this was the belief of the crusaders and is still sadly common in many sects.
voncello 9 months ago
Actually, we found Christianity has 3 beliefs views on Christ being the 'Door' or 'Way' (ie. the Mediator between God & mankind)
-- Exclusivism: says one 'has to definitely ACCEPT' Christ (& that very few will go to heaven)
-- Inclusivism: says one ‘has to simply NOT REJECT ‘ Christ (& that many people will go to heaven);
-- Universalism: says it’s Christ who ‘ACCEPTS’ everyone who tries to be decent & true their own beliefs (& that almost everyone goes to heaven)
It's 3 schools of thought
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Of course from a Jewish point of view the question would be what does Christ have to do with God? It is God who accepts or rejects people and the Bible told us long before Jesus was born that we are all God's children and like any good parent He will punish and reward us according to how we behave, but His love will never depart from His children.
voncello 9 months ago
The Christian teaching is that Christ is The Mediator between God & mankind & serves as humanity's Advocate (thus, calling himself 'The Door' & 'The Way'); that Christ is & always has been God; that Christ loved mankind so much that (being God) he offered himself as the (only acceptable) sacrifice to Himself; & thus, he "cleared the path" (or paths, as it were) for mankind to be fully-reconciled to God.
Also, some Christians believe in a Trinity others believe God revealed himself in 3 ways.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Yes, but from where do the Christians get the authority to overrule what God said? "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God. 13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he."
How much clearer could it be that God is God and "no other". The Jews are called to be God's witnesses against those who would alter this.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Again, the Christian belief is that Christ IS God & offered himself to himself out of love for mankind
They don’t claim Christ replaced God -- they say he is and always has been God
It gets a bit into the topic of the Trinity (which some christians view as God being a literal 3-in-1-entity and others view as being figurative language for how God ‘reveals’ himself to mankind -- as the ‘Father’ in Hebrew scriptures; the ‘Son’ in Greek scriptures; & the holy ‘Spirit’ in today’s world)
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou What if I were to say I am you? You would say no you are not. But then I could say, "I always was you!" And would that make it any better?
God said "I, even I am the Lord". Why the double phrase? To make it abundantly clear that God as He was revealed to the Jews is God. And then He says, "and apart from me there is no savior". Get it? No Christ! No 3 in 1, no door monitor, God is God. He even has a name (which Jews don't pronounce) and it isn't Christ. Jews are to be His witness.
voncello 9 months ago
Many Christians believe God referred to the idea of the Trinity in the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures when he said "Let US make man in OUR own image" (Genesis 1 :26) AND also made a prophetic reference to Christ’s crucifixion & resurrection in noting he’d “bruise” the serpents’ (Satan’s) “head” and the serpent would “bruise” his “heel” (Genesis 3 : 15)
Thus, the teachings of Christianity sees NO conflict – as they feel the Christian/Greek scriptures are a ‘fulfillment' of the Jewish/Hebrew ones.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou There is no such thing as "fulfillment"! Suppose I said that Von Cello's law was the fulfillment of American law. What does that mean? The Christian interpretations you mention... what is their source? Jews never passed this down as the meaning of those verses! God was speaking to the universe when He said "Let US make man in OUR image" because man has a spirit from God but is also made of the physical elements of the universe. The Christians had no authority to change this.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
When they say 'fulfillment' -- they are referring to the 'prophecies' spoken on in the Hebrew / Jewish scriptures of a Messiah.
That's the way I understood them to mean by the term.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Jews feel that they misinterpret Jewish prophecies. I run down many of these Christian interpretations in my book. Often they completely mistranslate a word, such as the place where they mistranslate the phrase "the young woman will conceive" to "a virgin shall conceive". The central biblical prophecy describes a time when there will be peace on earth. See Isaiah 2 and tell me objectively if you think this is anywhere near "fulfilled". And Christians also claim Judaism is obsolete.
voncello 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@voncello
All of the Christians don't make that claim.
Many seem to feel the 2 religions are like pieces to a puzzle and actually match well.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@voncello
Good point!
Even the apostle / disciple James openly stated (James 2:26) that ANY type of "faith" that does NOT include "works" (i.e. an outward-display or show of that faith) is / was "dead".
Thus -- this seems to me to be an example were the Christians may find themselves at the same table as those who practice Judaism.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Yes, Christianity isn't consistent on whether or not "works" are important. Judaism is totally consistent and clear that we are judged by our actions. And this is what leads to moral behavior. There is no "get out of jail free" pass.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
But it seems to me that the Christian religion actually IS quite "consistent on whether or not "works" are important" -- afterall -- not a single one of the Christians can deny that (right there in the Christian scriptures -- ex. James 2 : 26) it quite clearly says that .... ANY type of "faith" that does NOT include "works" (i.e. an outward-display or show of that faith) is / was simply "dead".
There's no getting around that ... it's right there for them in black and white.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" Ephesians 2.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
James 2 : 26 adds to that verse on 'faith' (noted in Ephesians 2 :8) when it states the following:
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." -- AND -- the Jewish / Hebrew scriptures seem to support both of these Christian / Greek scriptures where it states -- “… the JUST shall LIVE by his FAITH” (Habakkuk 2 : 4)
Again – the issue of ‘faith’ AND ‘works’ seems to be on which the two religions share more in common than many seem to realize.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I saw Habakkuk 2 translated as " “See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness" NOT faith! He will be faithful to the law of God and not seek riches through crime. As it goes on to say, "Woe to him who piles up stolen goods and makes himself wealthy by extortion!" Yes, have faith that the law of God is good. But no, this doesn't tell you that you are "saved through faith" as Ephesians does.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Good point on Habakkuk 2: 4 – BUT – note that the ORIGINAL Hebrew word used was ‘'Emuwnah’ -- which essentially means ‘fidelity’ & it is derived from ‘ 'Emuwn’ (which means “faithful”) which is based on the ROOT word of ‘'Aman’ -- which means "to trust" (as in "to trust” in God for His mercy, love, justice, fairness, etc.) -- which, in and of itself, is an expression of one's "Faith".
All of which back up James 2: 26 & Ephesians 2: 8.
Another “table” moment for the 2 religions.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou I just checked rabbinic commentary which explains that this prophecy was about King Nebechadnezzar. He was lawlessly conquering people in the middle east. Habakkuk councils people to have faith in God that Nebechadnezzar will be destroyed by his own greed. Again, the theme is that we are rewarded and punished by our works. We should have faith that this is true. We shouldn't have faith that a man became God or a virgin gave birth or Judaism has been fulfilled. "I, even I am God".
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
The rabbi in my religious studies class said that much of scripture was used as a "typology” – wherein an actual event, person, etc. that existed was used to represent a ‘spiritual” condition or state of being.
For example, 'Joshua’s' name referred to 'God’s salvation' & his existence (as well as his actual ‘name’ as a “typology”) served as a spiritual-reminder of such.
Perhaps the same can be said of the reference used of the events in Habakkuk?
What are your thoughts? =D
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Orthodox Judaism teaches that there are many levels of Bible interpretation. One level is the surface, another is the moral teaching, another is the spiritual teaching. Often there is a spiritual level to a conflict between people. This doesn't mean the event didn't occur, but that it also represented something higher. But in the case of the prophets it is agreed that generally they were making prophecies that the people they were talking to would understand and see occur.
voncello 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou What Christians often do is take a prophecy that is clearly about a certain event i.e. Nebechadnezzer, and say that this actually was about Jesus (who wasn't born until 500 - 1500 years later. My question is, how do they know? Did Jesus whisper this in someone's ear? You know, the Muslims did the same 1000 years later coming up with their interpretations. Today groups like the Black Hebrews and other "cults" do the same. Anyone can say anything but that doesn't make it valid.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Wow -- the adamant mentality some of the people that we all encounter have --- still shocks (and oftentimes, amuses) me.
In one of our classes a student talked about how in his family some people "debated" on whether they should get 'baptized' via a "sprinkling" (as a baby) or an "immersion" (as an adult).
Another talked of how they were told "dancing" to rock music was bad, but "skating" to it was OK,
LOL -- the tiny issues that left people so greatly separated were shocking.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@voncello And as for Dr.Gerald Schroeder. He spent 20 minutes talking about why the book is a parable. Another 20 minutes trying to use relativity to describe why 6 days isn't the 6 days we perceive. And then he wraps it up in revealing that the bible was saying that the earth was 15.7 billion years all along! All his assumptions make it seem like he was searching for the evidence to match his answer rather then the evidence lead to it's own answer. And that is corrupted subjective science.
PhilosoFighter2012 10 months ago
@PhilosoFighter Schroeder is an MIT professor with 2 doctorates and a nuclear physicist. IMO you misunderstood his points. He is speaking scientifically and proves through mathematical calculations that at the center of the universe 6 days have passed during the 15 billion years in our part. This is simply a fact. Then he uses a formula to show how long each of the 6 days breaks out on earth and shows that the Bible put all events into the right days. Clear evidence of a superior intelligence.
voncello 10 months ago
@voncello The Schroeder MIT stuff is great, Im going to do some research and find out more about so I can use it in arguments. Take this atheist bastards!
RecBookHero 10 months ago
Exactly!
Also, in Leviticus20:13 where it says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (just like many other places in the Old Testament) in Hebrew, the 1st word for "man" used here is "IYSH" (referring to an ADULT male) & the 2nd word for man is “ZAKAR” (referring to a ‘Male’ of ANY age, including a ‘child’) – so it is clearly ‘PEDARASTY’ (child molestation) AND / OR pagan ‘TEMPLE PROSTITUTION-RITES' that's being condemned here.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@EmailTubeYou Very interesting point! This is the type of thing that I keep trying to get people to understand - namely that we are dealing with a Hebrew text from thousands of years ago that was translated several different times before it became English so to really understand it you have to go back to the original Hebrew and analyze every word carefully. Those who read it in English and make sweeping statements about how "evil" it is are acting in an ignorant manner.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
Agreed!
It amazes me how people will condemn the Jewish scriptures (&/or the Christian scriptures) w/ having actually made any attempt to read or 'study' those scriptures at all.
Many online athiest and agnostic sites make sweeping generalizations about the Jewish scriptures and falsely claim they advocate all manner of evil -- based on nothing more than the scriptures simply 'mentioning' that a given historical event occurred.
That's like condemning ABC news for 'reporting' a war.
EmailTubeYou 9 months ago
@PhilosoFighter I assume it meant boys because priests generally don't have sex with married men and people married in the early teens back then. Of course if we researched the religious sexual rites that existed in that region 3500 yrs. ago we'd have a better chance of being correct. Now, you said that the "oh so nice judges would want to kill a guy that had sex with a young child" but Israel like the US rarely used capital punishment except for murder. But the threat was a deterrent.
voncello