| In a letter titled "You Asked", Jude wrote:
for research: Marcion Roman myth [ Mithras also called Phanes The Sun Myth The Origins Of Mithraic Mysteries Chaldaean Oracles The Astrogical Foundation Of The Christ Myth Cult Of The Sun Myth The Doctrine Of Trinity-Christanity Self Infected Wound [Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting} Sites: karaites@yahoo groups.com am-yhwh@yahoogroups.com tovia singer[ put this name in to search] What if you should find out that Jesus was only a human ? Bible: Many scriptures, old and new was changed. Go to the Hebrew for truth ! Example: Psalm 22:16 does not read, they pierced my hands and my feet....it reads in the Hebrew: like lions they maul my hands and feet. [talking about David} There are so many more. Pope Leox 1513-1521 How we know what a profitable superstition this fable of christ has been for us. Bishop Eusebuis 260-339 said: it is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted. It took Christianity 800 years after the fact to put a man on a cross in pictures or as a statue. Paul, in all his writings never mentioned the virgin birth or any miracles by the messiah. In Matthew we are given the genealogy of Jesus but in 1:11 it gives the name Jeconiah/Conia/Eliakim, all one and the same person. This is a cursed line from David that would never be king or sit on the throne. The church says, Luke 3:23-38 is Mary's line but that is not true, it is Joseph's line and again with the cursed line. Jeremiah 22:28-30 No where in the Hebrew scriptures can you find this Christian Messiah, even Daniel was changed by the church. Amos 3:7 Surely Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. Atonement is so beautiful and I would love to tell you more but I may be wasting my time but just in case, look these up: atonement is for a sin unintentional..animal sacrifice was only for the temple and it is coming back when the true, human Messiah comes to set up the kingdom. Numbers 15:27-31 Lev. 4:5-12 when you read this one, you will notice these things were not done for the murdered human sacrifice, Jesus
1. the blood is taken to the temple
1 Kings 8:46-52 Read the story of Jonah...all were saved because of repentance
No man can atone for another...Exodus 32:31-33...Numbers 35:33-34...Deut
24:16 God does not change ! We follow YHWH [Yahweh ] and there is no other. His name is the only name to be praised and in His name we pray, Halleluyah. Let us cry out as in 1 Kings 18:39 YAHWEH IS ELOHIM YAHWEH IS ELOHIM I have just come out of Xanity and I only gave you a tip of what I have found. The one God I worship never died. He does not slumber nor sleeps. He is One and there is none other. He is the redeemer and savor. I have scriptures to back up this. Jeremiah 16:19-21 says we have inherited nothing but lies. These lies go deeper than I ever thought possible. May YHWH be blessed ! May you be blessed ! Love, Jude |
| My response (Jude's points and questions are in italics, my responses
are not)
Jude, Thanks so much for writing. I'm still learning about God (aren't we all?) and always welcome questions or opportunities to learn more. Would it be okay if I put your letter on my web site? I'll leave off your E-mail address unless you want me to include it. I don't have time to respond to each and every passage you mentioned, but I'll address your major concerns, and feel free to write back if I skipped something you wanted me to take a closer look at. for research: Marcion I did a little research on Marcion. He was a very wealthy man who essentially wanted to rid the New Testament books of anything he personally disagreed with. He also wanted to forbid marriage and children within his church. I don't take him too seriously. Roman myth [ Mithras also called Phanes
I have a website about the supposed Jesus/Mithra comparisons at
hometown.aol.com/KingDavid10/Copycat/JesusMithra.html
The Sun Myth See my page at Hometown.aol.com/KingDavid10/Copycat/JesusSun.html Chaldaean Oracles I'm not familiar with the Chaldaean oracles, but have done a little online research. What significance am I supposed to be seeing? The Astrogical Foundation Of The Christ Myth Cult Of The Sun Myth Again, see the Jesus/Sun page above. The Doctrine Of Trinity-Christanity Self Infected Wound [Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting} There's a very good response to Buzzard & Hunting at http://www.tektonics.org/unitresp.html
Sites: karaites@yahoo groups.com I don't have time to join and participate in these groups, but thanks for the recommendation. tovia singer[ put this name in to search] I went to his site and read some of his FAQ's, and most of his points I already responded to between my own FAQs site (hometown.aol.com/KingDavid10/FAQs/Home.html) or my Contradictions site (hometown.aol.com/KingDavid10/Contradictions/Home.html) What if you should find out that Jesus was only a human? It all boils down to the resurrection for me. If He wasn't resurrected, then He was merely human and not worthy of worship. If He was (as I believe He was), then that validates all that is said about Him. Bible: Many scriptures, old and new was changed. Go to the Hebrew for truth ! Example: Psalm 22:16 does not read, they pierced my hands and my feet....it reads in the Hebrew: like lions they maul my hands and feet. [talking about David} There are so many more. I agree that we need to go back to the original texts to see what they say, when the translations are in doubt. Pope Leo x 1513-1521 How we know what a profitable superstition this fable of christ has been for us. Leo X never said that. That quote came from a playwright named John Bale, who had Leo X saying that in a work of fiction called "The Pageant of Popes", a satire of the Catholic Church. The exact quote Bale wrote was "All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie:" after which the ceiling collapses on Leo X and kills him. Somehow people got confused that thought that Leo X really said that, but he didn't. Bishop Eusebuis 260-339 said: it is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted. What's your source for this? I've searched the internet and haven't found this quote attributed to Eusebius, only to Mosheim, a non-Christian German historian. It took Christianity 800 years after the fact to put a man on a cross in pictures or as a statue. So? Are you claiming that the crucified Jesus was unknown to Christians until the 9th century? Paul, in all his writings never mentioned the virgin birth or any miracles by the messiah. He mentions the resurrection (an obvious miracle) in Romans 1:4, Romans 6:5, 1 Corinthians 15:12-13, Hebrews 6:2, among other places. In Matthew we are given the genealogy of Jesus but in 1:11 it gives the name Jeconiah/Conia/Eliakim, all one and the same person. This is a cursed line from David that would never be king or sit on the throne. The church says, Luke 3:23-38 is Mary's line but that is not true, it is Joseph's line and again with the cursed line. Jeremiah 22:28-30 How could they both be Joseph's line, unless Joseph had two fathers? Luke is clearly telling Mary's story, so this is Mary's line. Heli was her father, and Joseph's father-in-law. Joseph's genealogy was in Matthew, giving a cursed line, but since Jesus wasn't Joseph's actual son, this is unimportant. No where in the Hebrew scriptures can you find this Christian Messiah, Many Old Testament prophecies clearly point to Jesus. See my page at hometown.aol.com/KingDavid10/MessiahProph.html even Daniel was changed by the church. How so? I should point out that I'm not so big a fan of the 'church'. They've done some things that are clearly wrong, though I believe that the church is ultimately more good than bad. My faith is in the Lord, not those who worship Him. Atonement is so beautiful and I would love to tell you more but I may be wasting my time but just in case, look these up: atonement is for a sin unintentionall..animal sacrifice was only for the temple and it is coming back when the true, human Messiah comes to set up the kingdom. Forgive my ignorance, but why aren't Jewish people practicing animal sacrifice now? What changed to stop them from practicing it?
Numbers 15:27-31
1. the blood is taken to the temple The problem is that there were no human sacrifices (at least ordained by God) in the Old Testament, so there's no OT pattern to follow. Are you saying that all OT animal sacrifices were done in this pattern, with no exceptions? Because I can easily show you otherwise. There were valid sacrifices made outside of the temple.
No man can atone for another...Exodus 32:31-33...Numbers 35:33-34...Deut
24:16 No man can atone for the sins of another, because all men are sinners. Only Jesus was sinless, so only Jesus can atone for man's sins. The one God I worship never died. He does not slumber nor sleeps. He is One and there is none other. He is the redeemer and savior. I have scriptures to back up this. God is omnipotent, and can do whatever He pleases. To say that God cannot manifest Himself into a human form (as I believe He did with Jesus) would be to limit Him. If you're saying He could do this, but chooses not to, then I can see where you're coming from. I would just disagree with it. Again, thanks for writing, and feel free to write back. God bless, David |
| Jude responded:
Shalom,me again [Jude]....The difference between you and me is, I believe our guide line is the old testament and any writings that would be contrary to that is false. Jesus said many times, "it is written." He taught from the old. The old is all we can rely upon. You responded to so many things I said. To answer a few for now...the sacrifice is only for the temple and there is no temple yet. It is even written about a day when there would be no sacrifice. It was in the scriptures I sent you, The prophets foretold that day, the day we are in now . Some of the things I wrote was from books in the library. See Catholic history ! The messiah according to the prophets was to be in the line of David. Jesus is not in the line of David. 87 times the name, messiah is in the hebrew scriptures but in the Christian Bible, it is found only twice. The rest of the scriptures were changed by the church to say, anointed. Messiah has a different meaning in hebrew. There are many messiahs/anointed ones. David for one was a messiah. The kings were anointed ones. You are so right, God can do anything He wants but he does not go against what was already written. The scriptures teach who and what He is. The messiah to come will do all the things Jesus never did and yes I know the church teaches, it is Jesus coming back a second time but, you will not find that in hebrew scripture. The idea of two messiahs come from Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism. I have found to believe in Jesus, one would have to only stick with the new testament and it is full of errors. Examples: Matthew 13:33 Jesus likens his kingdom of heaven to leaven [leaven is likened to sin ] Luke 6:27 love your enemies Luke 19:27 these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. Luke14:26 hate family...mother, brother, etc. 1 John 2:9-11 if you hate your brother, you are in darkness a man was rebuked for calling Jesus, good Luke 18:18-19 John 5:31 Jesus says, "If I alone bear witness of mysef, my testimony is not true. John 8:14 Jesus said, "even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true. There is so much more but I am closing off, a storm approaches. More later ! Blessings, Jude |
| I responded (again, Jude's words are in italics)
The difference between you and me is, I believe our guide line is the old testament and any writings that would be contrary to that is false. Jesus said many times, "it is written." He taught from the old. The old is all we can rely upon. Actually, I'd say our guideline is neither the Old Testament or the New Testament, but God Himself. I love the Bible, and believe it is inspired by God from beginning to end, but I don't worship the Bible. I only worship, and rely upon, the God the Bible is about. I've never met anyone, Jewish or Christian, who follows all of the Biblical laws, or even attempts to. As for the New Testament being contrary to the Old Testament, I don't believe that it is. I've researched almost 400 claims of contradiction in the Bible. I believe that someone purposefully seeking contradictions will find them, whether it's contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, between separate books of the New Testament, or separate books of the Old Testament. But I've found that a good, hard look at these 'contradictions' (often going back to the original Hebrew or Greek) almost always shows that no true contradiction exists. the sacrifice is only for the temple and there is no temple yet. It is even written about a day when there would be no sacrifice. It was in the scriptures I sent you, The prophets foretold that day, the day we are in now. Fair enough, but I guess my question is - how are the sins of the Jewish people forgiven? I believe you said that atonement is for unintentional sins, so am I correct in saying that animal sacrifice is for intentional sins (if not, what were they for?). But if Jewish people today don't sacrifice animals, how are their sins forgiven? Are they saved through past or future sacrifices? Some of the things I wrote was from books in the library. See Catholic history! Again, I'm not a big fan of the church. While I'd say the Catholics have done more good than bad in the world, they've certainly done some awful things (as have most religions). The messiah according to the prophets was to be in the line of David. Jesus is not in the line of David. He most certainly was. See Luke 3:23-31 (this is Mary's genealogy, and it includes David) I have found to believe in Jesus, one would have to only stick with the new testament and it is full of errors. Examples: Matthew 13:33 Jesus likens his kingdom of heaven to leaven [leaven is likened to sin] That was simply metaphorical. They're similar because they grow without being seen. Luke 6:27 love your enemies Luke 19:27 these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. Starting with verse 12, Jesus is telling a parable about a nobleman. In verse 27, Jesus is stating what the nobleman said, not commanding His followers to slay anyone. In fact, He leaves immediately after finishing the parable, which would make it impossible for anyone to bring someone there and slay them in His presence. Luke14:26 hate family...mother, brother, etc. 1 John 2:9-11 if you hate your brother, you are in darkness In Luke, Jesus is clearly not telling people to actually hate their family, but is using extreme language to say that they should put Him before them (meaning if you have to choose between the will of your family and the will of the Lord, you must choose the will of the Lord). It corresponds to Luke 16:13 which says, "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." There's no reason someone serving two masters must actually hate or despise one of them, but he will always end up favoring one over the other, so Jesus is using the words 'love' and 'hate' to show the difference. Another example of extreme language is in Genesis 29:30-31. Jacob is said to "love Rachel more than Leah", and then it says that "Leah was hated". Clearly Jacob had no reason to hate Leah, but extreme language is used here to point out the fact that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. a man was rebuked for calling Jesus, good Luke 18:18-19 He was not rebuked for merely stating that Jesus was good, but for stating that Jesus was good while not actually believing He was. This man did not believe that Jesus was God, but called him 'good'. Jesus is saying that since only God is good, this man should not be calling Jesus 'good' unless he actually believes that Jesus is God. John 5:31 Jesus says, "If I alone bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true. John 8:14 Jesus said, "even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true." In both passages, Jesus is referring to the Hebrew law stating that a person's testimony about himself is not 'true' (in the sense of being valid legal proof) unless someone else can confirm it. In 5:31, he's simply stating this law (he again states it in John 8:17, just a few verses after the second statement). Surely you don't think Jesus is saying 'I'm lying', do you? In 8:14, He is stating that, despite what the law may say, what He is saying is true. In other words that although His testimony may not be valid legal proof, it's true nonetheless. There is man's 'truth' (5:31) and God's truth (8:14). God's truth is above man's truth. God does not need other people to support His testimony in order for it to be valid. What God says is true no matter what anyone else says. Thanks again for writing, and God bless you. David |
| Jude wrote:
Me Again, Jude....I love what we are doing. You said the Old Testament or the New Testament is not our guideline but God Himself..... Does He speak to you ? He speaks through Takak [ His scriptures] to me. I am sorry in your walk in life. you have never met anyone Jewish or Christian, who followers all of God's laws. Christians for sure do not and some Jews do not but there are some, small in number I might add that do follow. You have to know some can not be followed until the temple is built. Ecekiel talks about this.How beautiful are the laws of God and easy to keep. We are all on different levels, learning as we go. How merciful is our God. I have been where you are, I understand more than you can know at this time but if you are a lover of truth and seek it, you will find it. Sometimes the truth can hurt real bad at first but the spirit of God lifts you into a new world of thought , reason and [emet] truth. Only a remnant will return. I know Hebrew and that is what I use but Greek, not so good. The English [Christian Bibles] in many places reads different from the Hebrew and most that was changed, by the church to confirm or make it look like it is talking about Jesus. You asked, how sins are forgiven ? I sent you most of those scriptures already. If you can not find them, let me know and I will send them again. Your New Testiment never once says Luke 3:23-31 is Mary's genealogy. This is a church teaching, In Luke 1:5 gives Mary's bloodline. "Zacharias, of the division of Abijah and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elizabeth" verse 36....[angel talking to Mary]...behold your relative Elizabeth has also conceived. So here we see, Zacharas and Elizebeth was Aaron's line and Mary was kin. Luke 3:30 the cursed line through David. There are soooooo many errors. Geneology is always through the fathers, NEVER from the mothers. In Numbers 36:6... Even Zelophehad's daughters had to marry in their own tribe, even their uncle's sons. verse 7...so no inheritance can be transferred from tribe to tribe. Joseph , Jesus's supposedly, father married outside his tribe, so he broke the law of God. Joseph was of the cursed line of David. Mary was of Aaron, unless none of this ever really happened. Why would the kingdom of heaven grow like leven ? It has always been, nothing new. So sad, Jesus used extreme language, to choose between the family since it would be breaking one of the big 10 to not honor mother and father. Excuse me, but the Hebrew in Genesis 29:30-31, never says hate, all it says is Leah was unloved. Again, a man was rebuked for calling Jesus good... Luke 18:18-19. That whole chapter stinks of the church of Rome. Give up your things, leave your children, your wife...all these things are against the Torah, the Hebrew scriptures. Be a nun or a monk...no family and own nothing. Please wake-up ! Take the blinders off! I was in your shoes for 55 years. I am going to try and send you some information from another person I am in contact with. See what you think ! Love, Jude |
| I wrote:
Hi, Jude I'm also enjoying our conversations and am glad that you are. It's always good to try to see things from a different point of view. I've debated about Jesus with people before, but never with a Jewish person who is arguing that Jesus goes against the Old Testament, so it's a new way of looking at, and questioning, what I believe. You said the Old Testament or the New Testament is not our guideline but God Himself..... Does He speak to you? He speaks through Takak [ His scriptures] to me. I've certainly never heard an audible voice from God, but I do believe that God speaks to us in other ways besides just the scriptures. I've had experiences in my life in which I've seen God's influence. I've also felt God's presence in my heart. In fact, I guess you could say that the reason I accept the Bible as true is that I recognize the truth within it. I was once an atheist and can't recall ever having even touched a Bible until I was about twenty. But when I finally got into the Bible, it just made sense in a way that's hard to explain, like a hole in my spirit was being filled. I am sorry in your walk in life. you have never met anyone Jewish or Christian, who followers all of God's laws. Christians for sure do not and some Jews do not but there are some, small in number I might add that do follow. I've got to say that I find that a little hard to believe. Some Old Testament laws say to stone disobedient children, adulterers and homosexuals to death. Do these people follow those laws as well? I do believe that those laws were directed by God, but were meant only for those people at that time, and (correct me if I'm wrong) some laws applied only to certain tribes and not others. I have been where you are, I understand more than you can know at this time but if you are a lover of truth and seek it, you will find it. Sometimes the truth can hurt real bad at first but the spirit of God lifts you into a new world of thought , reason and [emet] truth. Only a remnant will return. I believe that our ultimate obligation is to the truth. I can honestly say that if the Jesus story isn't true, then I don't want to believe in it. But Jesus has been confirmed in my life so many times and in so many ways, that it would take a lot to change my mind about it. I know Hebrew and that is what I use but Greek, not so good. The English [Christian Bibles] in many places reads different from the Hebrew and most that was changed, by the church to confirm or make it look like it is talking about Jesus. I only know English, but I do make good use of my concordances when I am in doubt about the accuracy of a translation. Your New Testiment never once says Luke 3:23-31 is Mary's genealogy. This is a church teaching, I really can't see anyway around the idea that Luke gives Mary's genealogy. While you're right that it's not explicit, it's certainly implied. It can't be Joseph's, since Joseph's is given in Matthew and it's different, clearly giving Jacob as Joseph's father. Unless the impossible happens and Joseph has two biological fathers, Luke's could not be Joseph's genealogy. One of those fathers must be his father-in-law, thus Mary's father. Also, Luke tells the whole birth story from Mary's point of view, so it would be strange to have the genealogy of someone else here. Are we to believe that Luke got nothing from Joseph, except his genealogy? Of course, they can't say outright that it's Mary's genealogy because the paternal bias would require them to use her husband's name instead. In Luke 1:5 gives Mary's bloodline. "Zacharias, of the division of Abijah and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elizabeth" verse 36....[angel talking to Mary]...behold your relative Elizabeth has also conceived. So here we see, Zacharas and Elizebeth was Aaron's line and Mary was kin. Luke 3:30 the cursed line through David. There are soooooo many errors. Geneology is always through the fathers, NEVER from the mothers. In Numbers 36:6... Even Zelophehad's daughters had to marry in their own tribe, even their uncle's sons. verse 7...so no inheritance can be transferred from tribe to tribe. Luke 1:5 is Elizabeth's bloodline, not Mary's. Mary having a relative of the Aaronic line doesn't mean that Mary herself is of the same line. She would only have to be of the same line if they were full sisters. The most common belief is that they were cousins. If so, then the only reason that they would have to be of the same bloodline is if they were cousins through having fathers who were brothers. If they were cousins through a pair of sisters, or a brother and sister, then the line could well be different for them. If, for example, Elizabeth's mother was Mary's aunt, then she could have married someone of the Aaronic line, and then Elizabeth herself would be Aaronic. Or if Mary's mother was Elizabeth's aunt, then Mary's mother could have married someone of the Davidic line, making Mary Davidic. There are many ways that Mary and Elizabeth could be related without necessarily being of the same line. Why would the kingdom of heaven grow like leven? It has always been, nothing new. Again, this is metaphorical. The more believers there are, the more 'Heaven' there is in this world. Jesus is clearly talking about there being more knowledge about Heaven in this world, and how our understanding of God grows through our learning. So sad, Jesus used extreme language, to choose between the family since it would be breaking one of the big 10 to not honor mother and father. So are you saying that if, hypothetically, your parents wanted you to turn your back on God, you would? Excuse me, but the Hebrew in Genesis 29:30-31, never says hate, all it says is Leah was unloved. I'll have to take your word for that. My Strong's concordance says the Hebrew word 'sane' used there means "to hate, enemy, foe" Again, a man was rebuked for calling Jesus good... Luke 18:18-19. That whole chapter stinks of the church of Rome. Give up your things, leave your children, your wife...all these things are against the Torah, the Hebrew scriptures. Be a nun or a monk...no family and own nothing. Jesus never gave a general command to His followers to give up material possessions and family. The command to the ruler to give away his possessions was a specific command to one man, not a general command to all followers. Jesus only gave it because this man loved his possessions more than God, and giving up his possessions was the only way for God to be primary in his life. And are you saying that if a man is willing to give up his family if God so demands, that this goes against the Torah? Because if so, Abraham himself went against the Torah. God commanded Abraham to kill his beloved son, Isaac, and Abraham agreed to do so. Wouldn't you call that putting the will of God before your own family? You might respond that this was different, since God did not actually intend for Abraham to go through with it, but only wanted Abraham to be WILLING to go through with the killing of his son. You'd be right, except that's exactly what Jesus wanted as well when he spoke the words in Luke 18! Jesus doesn't want us to actually leave our families any more than God wanted Abraham to actually kill Isaac. Jesus just wants followers to have the same kind of hearts that Abraham had, one which puts God before anything else in your life. God must come before our material possessions. God must come before our own families. Yes, God must come before our own lives. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament agree on that. Please wake-up! Take the blinders off! I was in your shoes for 55 years. I am going to try and send you some information from another person I am in contact with. See what you think ! I got those texts and will respond to that information separately in a few days. I know I've seen the argument that Jesus and Paul teach different things, and I've already responded to some of the points made on my contradictions site. I feel that this is once again a situation where someone purposefully seeking contradictions will find them, but a more in-depth look will show that no real contradictions exist. God bless, David |
| (NOTE: The letters from here on are going to be edited slightly, since
Jude and I have written about personal information that doesn't belong on
the internet)
Jude wrote: David, you are so right about some things, like stoning. Keep in mind, we are scattered among the nations. We are in a type of slavery. Yes, you are right about some things being done at certain times. Living outside of the land, we do not or can not follow all the law of YHWH [God ]. We need the Messiah from David's line to gather us to the land, and once again all things will be in order. I might add, some of us believe it is a resurrection of King David. The genealogy in Matthew and Luke differ, as do many other things. This has been a problem to many people.They are not in complete agreement, have you ever noticed ? No, I would never turn from God for parents, but I would not hate them. Throw away your Strongs Concordance, it is only for the english, put into Hebrew by the church. The best is Brown Driver-Briggs Bible: New JPS Translation. God is unchangable...He would never command you to give up your family unless you took a wife outside the faith and nation of Israel. When I say Israel, I do not mean the land of promise but I am speaking of the nation from the man Israel/Jacob. In scripture, I do not think the land is called, Israel. Christians, not understanding the hebrew, would not know that God was showing Abraham the error of human sacrifice as well as the test. Human sacrifice is not allowed. In the account of Abraham and Isaac, the Christian Bible says, "take your only son." In the Hebrew, it says, "take your son, your favored one, Isaac. It even sounds better because Isaac was not his only son. Yes, Jesus wanted men to follow him and leave the family. Indeed he wanted the man to give up his riches. our material possessions are a gift. Life from God is blessings and cursings. Read about it in Deuteronomy chapters 27...28....29 Read it carefully ! The warm feeling you feel in the Christian walk sometimes brings tears. You may feel joy and want to laugh. This is in all religions.Some of these feelings can be, when you watch your child in a play at school, the spirit of Xmas, love of country, when you have done a good deed etc. Human emotions can deceive you. Been there..done that ! Love and Shalom, Jude |
| I responded:
Hi, Jude. Thanks again for writing. It's sounding like we may be getting to the point where we agree to disagree, but if there's anything else you'd like me to take a look at, please do let me know. Also, is it okay for me to put these letters on my website? I'll remove some of the more personal stuff in the recent letters, but the more debate-like stuff I'd like to have on the site. The genealogy in Matthew and Luke differ, as do many other things. This has been a problem to many people. They are not in complete agreement, have you ever noticed? Of course the genealogies aren't in complete agreement. That's because they aren't for the same person. If they were both Joseph's genealogies, then this would be impossible. This, among other reasons, is why myself, and many Christians, are convinced that Luke's genealogy is for Mary. As for other things in the Gospels differing, that's because each is an independent account of the same events. People remember things differently. If they matched up to each other detail for detail, this would be evidence that the story was fabricated. As far as the details being truly contradictory, I've dealt with many of those claims on my contradictions site. Speaking of which, maybe you can help me with an apparent contradiction that I cannot find a way to reconcile. It's in the Old Testament, so maybe your understanding of the Hebrew texts will show you things I can't see. In 2 Kings 23:29-30, Josiah dies in Meggido and his dead body is carried to Jerusalem. But in 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 it says that Josiah was wounded in Meggido and was taken to Jerusalem, then he died in Jerusalem. So which city did he actually die in? Any help would be appreciated. No, I would never turn from God for parents, but I would not hate them. I agree, and I've never met or even heard of a Christian who thinks that Jesus actually wants us to hate or leave our families. In fact, the New Testament says not to leave your spouse except in the case of adultery. The only people I've seen who think Jesus is saying to turn our families away are non-Christians. Christians understand that Jesus doesn't want us to hate our families any more than God wanted Abraham to slay Isaac. Christians, not understanding the hebrew, would not know that God was showing Abraham the error of human sacrifice as well as the test. Human sacrifice is not allowed. I completely agree. I have had non-believers show me passages in the Old Testament which they claim shows that God favors human sacrifice (including the passages about Abraham and Isaac, of course), but they're clearly misunderstanding or twisting what the texts actually say. In the account of Abraham and Isaac, the Christian Bible says, "take your only son." In the Hebrew, it says, "take your son, your favored one, Isaac. It even sounds better because Isaac was not his only son. Even the Christian Bibles are clear that Abraham had other sons, like Isaac, Zimran, etc. Yes, Jesus wanted men to follow him and leave the family. Indeed he wanted the man to give up his riches. our material possessions are a gift. Life from God is blessings and cursings. Read about it in Deuteronomy chapters 27...28....29 Read it carefully! I agree that family and wealth are blessings. But where man often stumbles is when he favors the blessings over the one who blesses. Jesus never gave any general command to His followers to leave their families or give up their wealth. In fact, two of Jesus' followers in the Bible, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, were quite wealthy, but Jesus never told them to give up their wealth. That was because He knew they favored God over their wealth. They favored the blessor over the blessings. But some people (like that rich young ruler) don't. Jesus wants us to keep our priorities straight, to know what is most important, to not attempt to serve two masters. We can have wealth, but God must be more important to us. God bless, David |
| Jude wrote:
David, do you believe Jesus is God in the flesh? About your web site, I can not stop you from doing what ever you like but I do not want to promote pagan worship. We have some information that talks about Jesus being a Jewish man, a good man of his day. He was wanting to correct the Hellenistic Jews of his day. I have parts of the book of Matthew from the dead sea scrolls and it shoots down the Christian faith. Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary and was full human, did not come back from the dead, no virgin birth etc. I will try and find this information. It is hidden away in masses and stacks of papers. It is different from the Matthew in the Christian Bible. It is only part of Matthew. Have you heard of this ? There is a group of Jews in Jerusalem, Nazrites. They have this information. Maybe you could find them on a site when you have the time. Please let me know if you find out about what I have told you ! I went ahead and looked up 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. There is no problem. It depends on how you read it but I did not look it up in the English. All 2 Kings is saying...Pharaoh Neco caused the death of Josiah. Josiah's servants took him away and he was buried. [ when he died] Now with 2 Chronicles this gives the full account...Josiah tells his servants to get him away from there because he was badly wounded. Verse 24....His servants carried him out of his chariot and put him in a wagon of his second-in-command and conveyed him to Jerusalem. There he died, and was buried in the grave of his fathers................ I see no problem. Ok, before I sent this I read the account in the English..enough difference to make it look like an error. Get you a JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh and compare all things. [if you want to, that is ] Jude |
| I responded:
David, do you believe Jesus is God in the flesh? Yes. David, about your web site, I can not stop you from doing what ever you like but I do not want to promote pagan worship. Me, either. We have some information that talks about Jesus being a Jewish man, a good man of his day. He was wanting to correct the Hellenistic Jews of his day. I've seen information saying that. I've also seen information saying Jesus was a space alien, a con man, and a pair of identical twins. But overall, I'll believe the Bible. I have parts of the book of Matthew from the dead sea scrolls and it shoots down the Christian faith. Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary and was full human, did not come back from the dead , no virgin birth etc. I will try and find this information. It is hidden away in masses and stacks of papers. It is different from the Matthew in the Christian Bible. It is only part of Matthew. Have you heard of this ? There is a group of Jews in Jerusalem, Nazrites. They have this information. Maybe you could find them on a site when you have the time. Please let me know if you find out about what I have told you! I would very much like to see this text, but it would take a lot to convince me that this text is true and the Bible is false. It's not impossible to convince me, but it would pretty much have to be proven that the apostle Matthew truly wrote this text. I'm also very skeptical of the idea that such a text could have been found among the dead sea scrolls. I've heard from many sources that no texts mentioning Jesus by name were found among them. In fact, many atheists have used the absence of any texts referencing Jesus among the dead sea scrolls as evidence that He was unknown in the first century. You'd think that if there was a text which "shoots down the Christian faith", the atheists would be parading it for all the world to see, not denying its existence. If it exists, let scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) examine in in order to determine if it's genuine or a forgery. Just because it says Jesus wasn't resurrected, doesn't make it true. Until its true origin can be determined it would be ridiculous to give it more credence than the Biblical texts. How could we know that the person who wrote this didn't just make it up out of thin air? How do we know it wasn't written hundreds of years after Jesus walked the Earth in an attempt to discredit the Gospels? People have scrutinized the Gospels for thousands of years, and they've stood up to the scrutiny. So this text would also have to stand up to at least SOME kind of scrutiny before any rational person would favor it over the Gospels. I went ahead and looked up 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. There is no problem. It depends on how you read it but I did not look it up in the English. All 2 Kings is saying...Pharaoh Neco caused the death of Josiah. Josiah's servants took him away and he was buried. [ when he died] Now with 2 Chronicles this gives the full account...Josiah tells his servants to get him away from there because he was badly wounded. Verse 24....His servants carried him out of his chariot and put him in a wagon of his second-in-command and conveyed him to Jerusalem. There he died, and was buried in the grave of his fathers................ I see no problem. Ok, before I sent this I read the account in the English..enough difference to make it look like an error. Get you a JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh and compare all things. [if you want to, that is ] Thanks so much! I agree with what you said in your other letter that this isn't really all that important. An error or contradiction in such a minor detail isn't something that should cause one to reject the spiritual authority of the Bible. But some non-believers make a big deal out of them, so it's good to prove that no contradiction really exists. |