Jews or Christians, who's right?

[basics]

" For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon His shoulder : and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of is government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth forever and ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 9, vs 6-7.

The same person written of by Isaiah and shown to us by Boofhead. Now this some hundreds of years before Jesus actually came and written for us within the Jewish Scriptures, nothing to do with Gentiles, their involvement being many centuries hence.

So who can doubt the message for it was one of many given to that people so that they, instead of continually sacrificing animals that they might live holy for but short periods, would one day be covered by the real thing, the blood of Messias.

This is shown by the acts performed by God to Abraham and his response to these acts, even promises. That he was not a Jew, in fact Assyrian, shows that the promises were not to be confined to that race, yet through that race was the seal made and Messias come until the question must be asked and when it was they that were Jews on the whole rejected Him.

At the cross was the whole world from beginning to end judged and judged by the blood that saves, that some may not perish but have everlasting life. They were blinded by the Law never seeing the blood apart from what they wanted the Law to deliver and so it did just as the prophets foretold.

So has God abandoned the Jews? Certainly not, for out of each generation, just as in the past, He has reserved for Himself a number that stretches all the way to the eve of the last day. And when that day comes and they are gathered together with their Gentile brothers and sisters surely is all Israel saved.

So, when one considers the question of whose right one has to consider what certain among the religious of Israel want and they want to re-establish the things that were ineffectual then and will still be that now. The Temple and the sacrifices meaning the Law, for the one does not go without the other, putting them back where they started.

Re-establishing the Old Covenant, which of course will never happen, since God, the maker of both, would need to die again if the second be made null and void. But as Isaiah tells us His kingdom is from everlasting to everlasting so these things cannot happen.

[saglam2000]

if you look at a world perspective muslims are actually right because of this weird way i'm going to explain it.
THhe jews are a book, the original copy, now christians are the first edit of the book called judaism, and finally muslims are the final copy of the book that went out for distribution. this is what muslims believe in but the book stuff is the best way that i can think of to explain this.


i'm an atheist and my family is muslim

[Rush Limbaugh]

if you look at a world perspective muslims are actually right because of this weird way i'm going to explain it.

Funny I was just going to come here and say Islam is right

But heres the truth. None of them are right and all of them are right. Just not about everything

[Lord Condormanius]

But heres the truth. None of them are right and all of them are right. Just not about everything

I suppose I can swallow that.

@basics

...Just for kicks, try to answer the question without referring to scripture.

[Zenith Darksea]

Why, Christians are right, of course. Though I don't really see the point in making a debate out of it.

[roy34543]

So far all the so-called-messiahs have only brought pain and death to the world. An awful lot of prophets too, But for different reasons usually.
Not one of them hasnt brought death to others in their existance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_messiah

[Simetrical]

I think you refer to Isaiah 53

Well, that's the most convincing prefiguration I've yet seen, although that's not saying much. But still, look at what it actually says. What makes you (or anyone) think it refers to the Messiah, internally? The interpretation of Rashi, a medieval Jewish commentator, is that first of all, it begins with the last few verses of the previous chapter:

13 See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so will he sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Second of all, this interpretation runs, the one who suffers here is the nation of Israel, and the "we" is the other nations of the world. The other nations scorned Israel, and through their sin (i.e., attacking it) it was pierced and wounded. What the NIV translates (with a Christian bias) as "he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities" could equally be translated "he was pierced by our transgressions, he was crushed by our iniquities". The Lord placed upon Israel the transgressions of the nations, by allowing them to be scattered and conquered. The descendants of Israel will nevertheless be made mighty once more, and be "given a portion among the great".

This segues nicely into the next chapter, too, which tells Zion to sing and be glad. After all, she was just told of her own future salvation, according to this interpretation. The Christian interpretation would have this segment break away from the previous chapter's discussion of Zion's future redemption, to a discussion about the attributes of the Messiah, and then back again.

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. What I mean is that if we are trying to determine who is 'right' (i.e. truth) we need to look outside of the internal mechanism of said religion. Saying that the Bible is word of God because the Bible says so is not valid proof.

No, but you can argue that if Christianity's own Bible (which is considered by many Christians to be their ultimate religious authority) contradicts its teachings, then that makes Christianity internally inconsistent and so wrong.

Edit, missed last page:

So far more or less all the so-called-messiahs have only brought pain and death to the world. An awful lot of prophets too, But for different reasons usually.
Not one of them hasnt brought death to others in their existance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_messiah

What death was brought by, say, the Lubavitcher Rebbe?

[Lord Condormanius]

Not one of them hasnt brought death to others in their existance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_messiah

That's a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? What death did Jesus bring? I must have missed something.

No, but you can argue that if Christianity's own Bible (which is considered by many Christians to be their ultimate religious authority) contradicts its teachings, then that makes Christianity internally inconsistent and so wrong.

Inconsistency is not necessarily the same thing as "wrong". All religions that I have encountered are guilty of at least some inconsistency.

My point was that if we are trying to determine what is "truth" we need to look outside of the closed circle of said religion.

[roy34543]

That's a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? What death did Jesus bring? I must have missed something.

Thats rather obvious isnt it?
His own. But apart from that theres the whole crusades/inquisition and religous persuction over time .

What death was brought by, say, the Lubavitcher Rebbe?

Ive never heard of him but wikipedia directs me to the chasidim. As far as i know Baal Shem tov never said he was the messiah.

[Lord Condormanius]

Thats rather obvious isnt it?
His own.

lol...well, we all die...

But apart from that theres the whole crusades/inquisition and religous persuction over time .

Jesus had nothing to do with those things.

[roy34543]

Jesus had nothing to do with those things.

No. Not directly. And he probably didnt want them to happen. But he did bring about their happening one way or another.

[Lord Condormanius]

But he did bring about their happening one way or another.

No, he didn't. No person can be held accountable for something that happens over 1000 years after his death. Those were political maneuvers that had little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.

That's like saying that Paul McCartney is responsible for the murder of Sharon Tate.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

but it was done in his name, so he is somewhat responsible

[Lord Condormanius]

but it was done in his name, so he is somewhat responsible

That makes absolutely no sense. So if I were to go and kill someone and say that I did it in your name, would that mean you are responsible?

[basics]

Lord Condormanius,

How does one discuss religion without referring to the Bible? Jews use it, Muslims use it to decry it, Christians use it to advance their faith, whilst atheists use it to promote their theories. Would it not be true to say that most use it in some form or another?

But because all these do use it, it doesn't follow that the way they use it is right and by that I mean the understanding of it. Now you are not Spirit affiliated so what gives you the right to discuss what you know nothing of?

Or put it another way, I do not know you yet from what I read I could infer many things that may or may not be true just as you do with them that know God in a way that probably you never will. Get the point?

The story of the Bible is about Jesus Christ from beginning to end. This is told over two legal Covenants. It finishes with a book that defines the end of time through John being commanded in the Spirit to write it all down for our benefit.

To understand it all is not for men or women who are not regenerate, even about to be regenerate, because it is by revelation of that Spirit what in fact it's deeper meaning is. That is what it says and that is what it does. So how can anyone who is Christian not refer to it since to us it is the word of God?

What is this " just for kicks " thing? I never play around with God but in answer to the question the Jews that still reject Jesus Christ are wrong just as any other religion outside of Christianity is wrong and my Bible happens to be closed.

But since you are happy to tell us of all the wrongs about it, perhaps you might tell us the good about the others or would that stretch your imagination too much?

[Lord Condormanius]

Lord Condormanius,
How does one discuss religion without referring to the Bible? Jews use it, Muslims use it to decry it, Christians use it to advance their faith, whilst atheists use it to promote their theories. Would it not be true to say that most use it in some form or another?

Very easily. There are many was do discuss religion without using the scriptures. By only using scripture to discuss religion, one gets only a very limited perspective.

But because all these do use it, it doesn't follow that the way they use it is right and by that I mean the understanding of it. Now you are not Spirit affiliated so what gives you the right to discuss what you know nothing of?

Spirit affiliated? Are you kidding? I'm not even going to dignify that remark with a response. What gives me the right? Well, as a human being, I have just as much right to discuss anything as you have. For a so-called Christian, you certainly seem to like to judge people.

Or put it another way, I do not know you yet from what I read I could infer many things that may or may not be true just as you do with them that know God in a way that probably you never will. Get the point?

I certainly am picking up the veiled insult that you are making, although I must say that you have absolutely no clue. I grew up on the Bible, and as such, I am quite familiar with it. I also studied the Bible a bit more extensively in college. I'm not quite sure what you are accusing me of as your sentence is just about completely incoherent. From what I can tell, however, you are way off-base.

The story of the Bible is about Jesus Christ from beginning to end. This is told over two legal Covenants. It finishes with a book that defines the end of time through John being commanded in the Spirit to write it all down for our benefit.

Well, that is how the Christian Bible was framed when it was compiled and edited...many, many years after the death of Christ...with a certain purpose in mind. That was certainly not the intent as it was written...the Old Testament in particular.

To understand it all is not for men or women who are not regenerate, even about to be regenerate, because it is by revelation of that Spirit what in fact it's deeper meaning is. That is what it says and that is what it does. So how can anyone who is Christian not refer to it since to us it is the word of God?

Well, just as long as you understand it. That is really all that is important. That way, we get the pleasure of having you condescendingly explain it to the rest of us poor souls. I always wondered why born again Christians feel the need to go out of their way to tell everyone else how much better they think they are.

What is this " just for kicks " thing? I never play around with God but in answer to the question the Jews that still reject Jesus Christ are wrong just as any other religion outside of Christianity is wrong and my Bible happens to be closed.

"Just for kicks" or "just to test your own ability"...however you wish to phrase it. All I am saying, which is something that you apparently refuse to understand, is that it is illogical to use the Bible as an answer to itself.

But since you are happy to tell us of all the wrongs about it, perhaps you might tell us the good about the others or would that stretch your imagination too much?

I have not said anything is wrong with anything. I have only said that you can't find "truth" if you refuse to look outside of your own circle. The whole "I'm right because I said so" argument doesn't wash.

My only point is that if you ignore the historical context of religions and religious texts, you are only getting part of the picture.

[Simetrical]

Ive never heard of him but wikipedia directs me to the chasidim. As far as i know Baal Shem tov never said he was the messiah.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was a chassid, yes, but he lived a couple of centuries after the Baal Shem Tov. Every group of chassidim (or almost every one) has its own "rebbe", spiritual leader. The Lubavitcher chassidim are those belonging to the group that hails originally from Lyubavitchi, in Russia, just as the Satmar come from Szatmárnémeti, the Breslover chassidim come from Breslow, etc. Each has its own succession of rebbes.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was the rebbe of the Lubavitchers until 1994, when he died, leaving no successor. A considerable number of Lubavitchers think he's the messiah. Which is somewhat heretical, but not harmful to anyone that I've ever heard of. (Much less harmful than when there's a dispute over succession, as with the Satmarer chassidim right now.)

[boofhead]

Well, that's the most convincing prefiguration I've yet seen, although that's not saying much. But still, look at what it actually says. What makes you (or anyone) think it refers to the Messiah, internally?

Well it's all open to interpretation of course. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Who is this "servant of Yahweh"? Does the title apply to the same person throughout the ten chapters? Had the writer in view some historical personage of past ages, or one belonging to his own time, or the Messias to come, or even some ideal person? Most commentators see in the "servant of Yahweh" an individual. But is that individual one of the great historical figures of Israel? No satisfactory answer has been given. The names of Moses, David, Ozias, Ezechias, Isaias, Jeremias, Josias, Zorobabel, Jechonias, and Eleazar have all been suggested as being the person. Catholic exegesis has always pointed out the fact that all the features of the "servant of Yahweh" found their complete realization in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He therefore should be regarded as the one individual described by the Prophet.

So even the Catholics, while stating their belief, acknowledge the difficulties of those few chapters.

Another facet for the Christian is the number of times Isaiah is mentioned in the New Testament.

If you look here

http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f591.htm

See how many direct references there are to Isaiah 53.

[MaximiIian]

How does one discuss religion without referring to the Bible? Jews use it, Muslims use it to decry it, Christians use it to advance their faith, whilst atheists use it to promote their theories. Would it not be true to say that most use it in some form or another?

Because many religions do not use the Judeo-Christian bible as a holy scripture, and several infact do not have holy scriptures at all. Discussing religion in terms of only a few religions is extremely limiting.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

But we are discussing two specific religions here, and both of these have their holy message in a book they regard as sacred, so from a strict point of view, one who does not live by is not a real member of the religion, and again from that point of view God never came as himself to endorse Jesus so to say, wich leads me to the belief that we "Christians" should have stick to our original gods instead of turning to a god who allready had a people to watch over and who declared personally that THat specific people where HIS people,

Why didn't they ever debate about this when forming the new testament and the Christian religion? I mean Jesus can claim so much, but if god doesn't endorse it, why should anyone believe him? does anyone get what I'm trying to say? I was thinking about this when I started thinking about why our ancestors abandond their old gods for this new god.