Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2016, 08:10 PM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(02-03-2016 08:33 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Ezekiel prophecy is one of quite a number I can show you, but the real issue IMHO is you are trusting Aliza to lead you further away from Jesus Christ.
(02-03-2016 09:59 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I am trusting Aliza, as a Jew, to interpret Jewish scriptures more accurately than Christians with an agenda, who are known to twist the translation so as to see Jesus behind every burning bush. The Old Testament (i.e, the Jewish Tanakh) is about the relationship of Israel to their God. It has nothing to do with Jesus.


Yes!!!!!
I’m leading people away from Jesus! I am hereby declaring mission success.

Banana_zorroBanana_zorroBanana_zorro
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
04-03-2016, 10:03 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(02-03-2016 08:53 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 08:33 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Some issues here include:

You excerpted the prior verse in your recitation of what you think the verse under discussions says. You can call God the Father "mighty" and not "mighty Messiah" but the verses immediately prior say, "To us a son is born, a child is given..."

Both genealogies in the gospels are direct to David.

The Ezekiel prophecy is one of quite a number I can show you, but the real issue IMHO is you are trusting Aliza to lead you further away from Jesus Christ. Have you asked God to show you truth? If you have, even if you are on this forum for another decade, He will show you truth--you simply have the responsibility on your end to respond. I responded to this truth:

1. I'm imperfect.

2. Jesus, being divine, is perfect.

3. He substituted on the cross for us both.

4. I trusted Him and my imperfections were healed. I'm still not perfect now, I'd mess up Heaven today, but when that time comes, I'll be made ready/perfect.

5. Step five is for you...

All this about jesus and yet, there isn't a whole heap of proof outside of the bible that he ever had an earthly existence. There's no written evidence contemporary with jesus, even though he supposedly performed miracles and preached to crowds of 5,000. Yes, there's references and references to references about him after his supposed death but nothing contemporary.

Prior to Fitzgerald, Price and Carrier, scholars believed that at least jesus existed although the son of god bit was disputed. Now, more and more people are beginning to question whether jesus really did have an earthly existence. Fitzgerald, Price and Carrier are certainly of the opinion that he did not.

So, before claiming that jesus was this or that including being as mad as a box of frogs, perhaps we should start from the premise that he didn't exist unless it can be proved otherwise.

Perhaps, but most scholars 100% accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Why should you disagree with them? Actually, it's almost a universal acceptance among scholars, not just Bible scholars or historians.

And if it helps you to think in a non-linear fashion, let's say you don't exist unless you can prove otherwise.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(02-03-2016 09:59 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 08:33 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Some issues here include:

You excerpted the prior verse in your recitation of what you think the verse under discussions says. You can call God the Father "mighty" and not "mighty Messiah" but the verses immediately prior say, "To us a son is born, a child is given..."

That’s completely irrelevant. The child’s name is not Mighty God, Everlasting Father (and who has ever called Jesus “Everlasting Father” anyway?), Prince of Peace, etc. – his name is “Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, …”. All of those names that you are attaching to Jesus are names for God, not for the “child” in the previous verse. And again, as Aliza and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, this entire passage is about a sign for King Ahaz in his own time. It has nothing to do with events hundreds of years later.

Quote:Both genealogies in the gospels are direct to David.

But they are not direct to Jesus – only to Joseph, and both Gospels insist that he is not Jesus’s real father anyway. Therefore they are irrelevant. The Jewish Messiah was to be a direct descendant of David via Solomon – not a bastard stepson of someone who was somehow descended from David through two completely different lines (one of them not involving Solomon). And don’t give me this “Mary” crap. Neither genealogy says anything about Mary. They both go directly to Joseph, and they are different. They contradict each other. At least one of them is bogus. According to Aliza and her sources, they are both bogus.

Quote:The Ezekiel prophecy is one of quite a number I can show you, but the real issue IMHO is you are trusting Aliza to lead you further away from Jesus Christ.

I am trusting Aliza, as a Jew, to interpret Jewish scriptures more accurately than Christians with an agenda, who are known to twist the translation so as to see Jesus behind every burning bush. The Old Testament (i.e, the Jewish Tanakh) is about the relationship of Israel to their God. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

Quote:Have you asked God to show you truth? If you have, even if you are on this forum for another decade, He will show you truth--you simply have the responsibility on your end to respond. I responded to this truth:

1. I'm imperfect.

2. Jesus, being divine, is perfect.

3. He substituted on the cross for us both.

4. I trusted Him and my imperfections were healed. I'm still not perfect now, I'd mess up Heaven today, but when that time comes, I'll be made ready/perfect.

5. Step five is for you...

I trust none of that, and I arrived at that conclusion on my own long before I ever encountered Aliza or anyone else on this forum. The whole concept of God sacrificing himself to himself in atonement for our shortcomings (shortcomings that he knew full well we would have when he created us) makes no sense whatsoever. It is a crazy fairy tale dreamed up by people who had a tradition of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement. Both concepts are barbaric and have been rightfully abandoned by reasonable people as the human race matured. When are you going to catch up with them?

Interesting concept. How do you know to parse verses 5 and 6 like that? Because if you DO parse them as you have in your post, then you are saying God the Father is in verse 6 but some different child is in verse 5. Who is that child, do you think?

And while I appreciate the Hitchens like of thought you "created" there, "atonement is foolish", I will ask you if you are willing to sacrifice your life for another person, or say, a group of them. If you could crash a 9/11 plane into the ground and kill yourself and 20 persons, would you have done so to save 1,500 first responders in one of the Twin Towers?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(03-03-2016 08:10 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 08:33 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Ezekiel prophecy is one of quite a number I can show you, but the real issue IMHO is you are trusting Aliza to lead you further away from Jesus Christ.


Yes!!!!!
I’m leading people away from Jesus! I am hereby declaring mission success.

Banana_zorroBanana_zorroBanana_zorro

You missed, however, where the post writer points out in error that the OT has to do with only the relationship of Israel to God. It also many words for the Gentiles, and particularly regarding Messianic mission.

PS. Do you consider posting at an atheist forum mission success also? Are you here to learn, proselytize...?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 10:11 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(04-03-2016 10:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 08:53 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  All this about jesus and yet, there isn't a whole heap of proof outside of the bible that he ever had an earthly existence. There's no written evidence contemporary with jesus, even though he supposedly performed miracles and preached to crowds of 5,000. Yes, there's references and references to references about him after his supposed death but nothing contemporary.

Prior to Fitzgerald, Price and Carrier, scholars believed that at least jesus existed although the son of god bit was disputed. Now, more and more people are beginning to question whether jesus really did have an earthly existence. Fitzgerald, Price and Carrier are certainly of the opinion that he did not.

So, before claiming that jesus was this or that including being as mad as a box of frogs, perhaps we should start from the premise that he didn't exist unless it can be proved otherwise.

Perhaps, but most scholars 100% accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Why should you disagree with them? Actually, it's almost a universal acceptance among scholars, not just Bible scholars or historians.

WHAT!!!

No, no and thrice no.Weeping

FFS.

Dr Richard Carrier doesn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

Neither does one of the world's authorities on the bible Dr Robert Price.

Neither does Dr David Fitzgerald.

... and now nor does an ever growing number of scholars and historians as a result of the work done by the above 3 scholars.

For pity's sake, please keep up with progress. You are beginning to embarrass yourself (again, I suspect).

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(04-03-2016 10:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 09:59 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  That’s completely irrelevant. The child’s name is not Mighty God, Everlasting Father (and who has ever called Jesus “Everlasting Father” anyway?), Prince of Peace, etc. – his name is “Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, …”. All of those names that you are attaching to Jesus are names for God, not for the “child” in the previous verse. And again, as Aliza and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, this entire passage is about a sign for King Ahaz in his own time. It has nothing to do with events hundreds of years later.


But they are not direct to Jesus – only to Joseph, and both Gospels insist that he is not Jesus’s real father anyway. Therefore they are irrelevant. The Jewish Messiah was to be a direct descendant of David via Solomon – not a bastard stepson of someone who was somehow descended from David through two completely different lines (one of them not involving Solomon). And don’t give me this “Mary” crap. Neither genealogy says anything about Mary. They both go directly to Joseph, and they are different. They contradict each other. At least one of them is bogus. According to Aliza and her sources, they are both bogus.


I am trusting Aliza, as a Jew, to interpret Jewish scriptures more accurately than Christians with an agenda, who are known to twist the translation so as to see Jesus behind every burning bush. The Old Testament (i.e, the Jewish Tanakh) is about the relationship of Israel to their God. It has nothing to do with Jesus.


I trust none of that, and I arrived at that conclusion on my own long before I ever encountered Aliza or anyone else on this forum. The whole concept of God sacrificing himself to himself in atonement for our shortcomings (shortcomings that he knew full well we would have when he created us) makes no sense whatsoever. It is a crazy fairy tale dreamed up by people who had a tradition of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement. Both concepts are barbaric and have been rightfully abandoned by reasonable people as the human race matured. When are you going to catch up with them?

Interesting concept. How do you know to parse verses 5 and 6 like that? Because if you DO parse them as you have in your post, then you are saying God the Father is in verse 6 but some different child is in verse 5. Who is that child, do you think?

And while I appreciate the Hitchens like of thought you "created" there, "atonement is foolish", I will ask you if you are willing to sacrifice your life for another person, or say, a group of them. If you could crash a 9/11 plane into the ground and kill yourself and 20 persons, would you have done so to save 1,500 first responders in one of the Twin Towers?

Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? God the Father is part of a larger phrase that is the name of the child in verse 6. It doesn't matter who the child is -- his name is not "God the Father". This is clear if you read a Jewish translation rather than a Christian one.

Also, sacrificing my life for others is nothing like sacrificing my life "for their sins". If I was in a position to sacrifice my life for others and chose to do so, it would be because I loved them, or thought their collective lives were worth more than my single life, or something like that. It would have absolutely nothing to do with "their sins". That is quite simply a very silly concept. The examples you give have nothing to do with atonement, and meaningful atonement can only be done by the guilty person. Someone else dying for something wrong that I did does nothing at all to lessen my guilt -- if anything, it would increase my guilt. The whole concept is stupid. Period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
04-03-2016, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2016 11:15 AM by Aliza.)
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(04-03-2016 10:14 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 10:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Interesting concept. How do you know to parse verses 5 and 6 like that? Because if you DO parse them as you have in your post, then you are saying God the Father is in verse 6 but some different child is in verse 5. Who is that child, do you think?

And while I appreciate the Hitchens like of thought you "created" there, "atonement is foolish", I will ask you if you are willing to sacrifice your life for another person, or say, a group of them. If you could crash a 9/11 plane into the ground and kill yourself and 20 persons, would you have done so to save 1,500 first responders in one of the Twin Towers?

Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? God the Father is part of a larger phrase that is the name of the child in verse 6. It doesn't matter who the child is -- his name is not "God the Father". This is clear if you read a Jewish translation rather than a Christian one.

Also, sacrificing my life for others is nothing like sacrificing my life "for their sins". If I was in a position to sacrifice my life for others and chose to do so, it would be because I loved them, or thought their collective lives were worth more than my single life, or something like that. It would have absolutely nothing to do with "their sins". That is quite simply a very silly concept. The examples you give have nothing to do with atonement, and meaningful atonement can only be done by the guilty person. Someone else dying for something wrong that I did does nothing at all to lessen my guilt -- if anything, it would increase my guilt. The whole concept is stupid. Period.

Human sacrifice was one of the primary goals that Jews tasked themselves with eradicating.

WHY WOULD THEY WANT A HUMAN TO SACRIFICE HIMSELF FOR THEM?!

Claiming that G-d is a human, and then sacrificing that human is the ultimate slap in the face to Jewish values. It's like the president of PETA holding a banquet with a delicious prime rib dinner and dogfighting as the main entertainment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
07-03-2016, 10:54 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(04-03-2016 10:11 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 10:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Perhaps, but most scholars 100% accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Why should you disagree with them? Actually, it's almost a universal acceptance among scholars, not just Bible scholars or historians.

WHAT!!!

No, no and thrice no.Weeping

FFS.

Dr Richard Carrier doesn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

Neither does one of the world's authorities on the bible Dr Robert Price.

Neither does Dr David Fitzgerald.

... and now nor does an ever growing number of scholars and historians as a result of the work done by the above 3 scholars.

For pity's sake, please keep up with progress. You are beginning to embarrass yourself (again, I suspect).

3 of thousands of scholars doesn't change the almost universal, near 100%-accepted historicity of Jesus.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(04-03-2016 10:14 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 10:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Interesting concept. How do you know to parse verses 5 and 6 like that? Because if you DO parse them as you have in your post, then you are saying God the Father is in verse 6 but some different child is in verse 5. Who is that child, do you think?

And while I appreciate the Hitchens like of thought you "created" there, "atonement is foolish", I will ask you if you are willing to sacrifice your life for another person, or say, a group of them. If you could crash a 9/11 plane into the ground and kill yourself and 20 persons, would you have done so to save 1,500 first responders in one of the Twin Towers?

Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? God the Father is part of a larger phrase that is the name of the child in verse 6. It doesn't matter who the child is -- his name is not "God the Father". This is clear if you read a Jewish translation rather than a Christian one.

Also, sacrificing my life for others is nothing like sacrificing my life "for their sins". If I was in a position to sacrifice my life for others and chose to do so, it would be because I loved them, or thought their collective lives were worth more than my single life, or something like that. It would have absolutely nothing to do with "their sins". That is quite simply a very silly concept. The examples you give have nothing to do with atonement, and meaningful atonement can only be done by the guilty person. Someone else dying for something wrong that I did does nothing at all to lessen my guilt -- if anything, it would increase my guilt. The whole concept is stupid. Period.

You do realize you are saying your life is worth sacrificing for collective lives, but that Jesus's sacrifice for the eternal lives of millions or billions wasn't worth it? That has to do more with your disbelief in heaven than in pure logic. Do you disagree?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: was marry asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(04-03-2016 10:31 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 10:14 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? God the Father is part of a larger phrase that is the name of the child in verse 6. It doesn't matter who the child is -- his name is not "God the Father". This is clear if you read a Jewish translation rather than a Christian one.

Also, sacrificing my life for others is nothing like sacrificing my life "for their sins". If I was in a position to sacrifice my life for others and chose to do so, it would be because I loved them, or thought their collective lives were worth more than my single life, or something like that. It would have absolutely nothing to do with "their sins". That is quite simply a very silly concept. The examples you give have nothing to do with atonement, and meaningful atonement can only be done by the guilty person. Someone else dying for something wrong that I did does nothing at all to lessen my guilt -- if anything, it would increase my guilt. The whole concept is stupid. Period.

Human sacrifice was one of the primary goals that Jews tasked themselves with eradicating.

WHY WOULD THEY WANT A HUMAN TO SACRIFICE HIMSELF FOR THEM?!

Claiming that G-d is a human, and then sacrificing that human is the ultimate slap in the face to Jewish values. It's like the president of PETA holding a banquet with a delicious prime rib dinner and dogfighting as the main entertainment.

Where in the scriptures (or Talmud or anywhere you like) were Jews tasked with the eradication of human sacrifice (among Gentiles)?

Claiming that God became human and died as a sacrifice is not a slap in the face to Jewish values, it's a rebuke to Jewish revisionist thought on the nature of the Messiah's mission. In Jesus's day, the people knew the Messiah-ben-Yosef would suffer for the people. They just didn't get that Jesus was also the Messiah-ben-David who would lead the people to ultimate victory in this world.

Modern Jewish thought (by modern, I mean post ANE/post written Talmud) decries having a human sacrifice for us. You should read the NT, though--it has immense volumes of apologetics within that will address most of your concerns.

But again, I'm not sure why you're at TTA. I admit I proselytize my faith here. I haven't seen you ask people to convert to Judaism, so why the interest in atheism? Are you thinking of abandoning Judaism for atheism, and if so, would you then cease on reproving my Christian worldview based on Jewish beliefs and practices?

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: