Why will I be going to hell?

[Harel13]

"Cults" aren't

Yes, I gathered that from reading your main site and site rules.

Then you wouldn't have asked

Uh-huh. Okay, I'll leave it to you, Mr. Expert Psychologist. Enjoy your week.

 

[Harel13]

I clearly said this several times.

I guess I missed that. Sorry.

Do not twist my words or my motives Harel.

I don't believe I was doing anything of the sort.

 

[Harel13]

However, I must insist that this imagery was meant to represent what the heart of atonement really means and where it really comes from—that something must die for you because you did something wrong.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Symbolism or not aside, it is the very same verses that I brought that show that a dead something is not necessary for atonement. A dead something is a form of atonement, but there are other forms as well.

Respectfully, this makes the rest of what you wrote moot. Irrelevant. Not to mention that I've had this discussion with Christians online many times over. You won't convince me of your interpretation of Isaiah.

 

[cjab]

Right, right...well, maybe you missed my OP. I am well aware you folks think I'm an ignorant Orthodox Jew who will be going to hell. I am not interested in hearing that again and again. It's an unnecessary repetition and really, a waste of both of our time.

Christ has given the full reasons. Your "orthodoxy" wasn't and isn't acknowledged by Jesus. It is deemed a cult in so far as it denies the need for spiritual religion. No-one is justified by works. Remember, this is your fellow law-abiding Jew speaking to 'you' (not the goyim):

Jhn 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:4 "Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jhn 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Jhn 3:8 "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jhn 3:9 "Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Jhn 3:10 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jhn 3:11 "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Jhn 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Jhn 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Jhn 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Jhn 3:15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jhn 3:16 "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.

Jhn 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jhn 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Jhn 3:20 "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Jhn 3:21 "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[Harel13]

Christ has given the full reasons. Your "orthodoxy" wasn't and isn't acknowledged by Jesus. It is deemed a cult in so far as it denies the need for spiritual religion.

Judaism is deemed a cult? Really? I think the majority of the world disagrees with you, most Christians included. Moreover, are you comfortable thinking that your religion branched out from a cult? Let's be frank here. "The Wayists", as I like to call them, were a cult. What you're saying here is that Judaism wasn't cultish enough for them, so they started a new cult. You cool with that? So be it.

As far as for spirituality, well, let's just say that saying what you said about Judaism shows that you know zero about it.

 

[Harel13]

You're not interacting, you're just clamming up.

What, I need to prove to you that I'm not clamming up?

What was the point of killing something for your sins?

Here are a number of various reasons. Pick whatever you like:

Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed: Animal sacrifices were commanded to assist Israel in moving away from the idolatrous mentality that had been set in their minds and hearts when they were in Egypt.

Maimonides, ibid, second reason: Animal sacrifices were commanded to fight off idolatrous mentalities in the world.

The difference is nuanced, but it's there.

Maimonides, Hilchot Me'ilah 8:8: There are two types of commandments. One are the sort whose reasoning we can grasp. The others have reasons but we cannot grasp them. Sacrifices are of the latter sort.

Nachmindes, first reason: When a person sees what happens to the sacrifice, he may be led to think that he was deserving of what befell the animal, which will horrify him, thus making him regret his sin even more.

Nachmanides, second reason: To remove notions of plurality from the minds of heretics. This is even more necessary after we sin. When we sin, we then become more susceptible to sinning again. We may find ourselves eventually walking into heretical territory. Thus, a process to block us from falling that far is necessary.

Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, The Book of the Kuzari: Physical actions are sometimes needed to fully establish that a process is taking place. Food is used to sustain our bodies. Giving up that food via a spiritual process signifies our nourishment or sustenance of the soul. In the case of atonement, giving up the physical sustenance wakes us up to the reality that we are now re-establishing our link with God, which was lost or perhaps dimmed or fractured when we sinned.

Chassidism: Sacrifices are necessary to elevate all of creation. Creation is divided into four categories: Inanimate, plants, animals and mankind, each a spiritual level about the previous one. The ground is inanimate. When we plant things in it, it becomes elevated, because it now contains life and assists its cultivation. The seed becomes a plant that is elevated when it is eaten by the animal. The animal is then elevated when it is used by man as a sacrifice. When we sin, we lower the world instead of elevating it. An atonement sacrifice assists in returning the world to its elevated state.

There are probably other reasons out there.

 

[cjab]

Judaism is deemed a cult? Really? I think the majority of the world disagrees with you, most Christians included. Moreover, are you comfortable thinking that your religion branched out from a cult? Let's be frank here. "The Wayists", as I like to call them, were a cult. What you're saying here is that Judaism wasn't cultish enough for them, so they started a new cult. You cool with that? So be it.

A cult which casts Jesus as the bastard offspring of an adulteress without evidence, rejects him totally, and makes different laws for relations between Jews (e.g. as to usury) than as between others, as though all others were your inferiors (dogs etc).

As far as for spirituality, well, let's just say that saying what you said about Judaism shows that you know zero about it.

Typical flippancy. I reminded you it was Christ speaking, not me. To Christ you seem to have no answer but to disparage him as an effective Gentile, i.e. as excommunicate.

It is for excommunicating Christ that you will go to hell (by his own words), not for your sins against me.

 

[Harel13]

A cult which casts Jesus as the bastard offspring of an adulteress without evidence

Actually, in mainstream Jewish tradition, Jesus was not considered a bastard. But frankly, you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that a betrothed virgin woman that doesn't claim she was raped really didn't commit adultery with another man.

and makes different laws for relations between Jews (e.g. as to usury) than as between others

I take it you reject the Torah. It was God who commanded different laws between different people. Are you one of those who agree with Wellhausen? He was Christian, too, you know. He just thought that the Torah was made up by the Jews. He thought he was a hero to Christianity for having "proven" this.

as though all others were your inferiors (dogs etc).

Weird, because I don't think other people are inferior to me. Huh. Wonder why that would be.
Also, let me remind you of this particular passage in your beloved NT:

"And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly."

Now tell me, who called whom a dog? Because I've never referred to anyone with such a vulgar phrase.

Typical flippancy.

Hey, I'm not the one who showed he was ignorant about Judaism.

I reminded you it was Christ speaking, not me

No, I don't think he was. I don't believe he truly said any of that stuff.

To Christ you seem to have no answer but to disparage him as an effective Gentile, i.e. as excommunicate.

I prefer the term "non-Jew". But where did I disparage Jesus in that particular quote? You wrote that to me. I told you what I thought of your claim.

 

[cjab]

Actually, in mainstream Jewish tradition, Jesus was not considered a bastard. But frankly, you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that a betrothed virgin woman that doesn't claim she was raped really didn't commit adultery with another man.

The issue is that the most likely naturalistic explanation is surely that it was Joseph himself who was responsible. Why doesn't this figure in your reckoning? Why go to the extent of alleging adultery/fornication, as if it was even likely by one so young? That is a hostile thing for which there was no evidence.

I take it you reject the Torah. It was God who commanded different laws between different people. Are you one of those who agree with Wellhausen? He was Christian, too, you know. He just thought that the Torah was made up by the Jews. He thought he was a hero to Christianity for having "proven" this.

The Torah can only be practised to the letter in the context of a theocracy. Such doesn't exist anymore, by the will of God.

I mentioned cult. By that I mean you have your own system of laws from which others are excluded. There is no admission. It is closed. Everything about orthodox judaism says "keep out." Frankly I have no idea what you believe and I'm not "particularly" interested. I also know you cant obey the Torah, as God destroyed your temple. I also know that Jews aren't free from sin. However I respect those that try to uphold the moral law, but many do not.

The other part of "cult" is that Jews have never progressed to wondering why "God" destroyed their temple for nearly 2000 years now. You persist in obstinancy about accepting the new covenant of the spirit concerning justification by faith, Hab 2:4, and which was prophesied to come about by numerous persons in the OT.

You reject the reasonable evidence that the rest of the world has accepted. You reject the hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah? Why? What is Dan 7:13, 14 talking about? So you reject your own scriptures. That's what cults do. They reject the reasonable and the rationale and the logical in favour of sophistry that even denies the prophecies given to Abraham.

Weird, because I don't think other people are inferior to me. Huh. Wonder why that would be.
Also, let me remind you of this particular passage in your beloved NT:

Now tell me, who called whom a dog? Because I've never referred to anyone with such a vulgar phrase.

I see other Gentiles as just that, because it's what they are: on the animal level without morality and without self-control. Don't forget that the Canaanites of Tyre and Sidon practiced ba'al worship, central to which was immorality. There were still temples of ba'al in the lands of the Canaanites at that time. If you see the immoral for what they really are, then it is being honest. Spiritual dishonesty lies in not seeing it.

Hey, I'm not the one who showed he was ignorant about Judaism.

No, I don't think he was. I don't believe he truly said any of that stuff.

Why shouldn't he have said it? Who else could have said it? It required a highly developed education to fathom that out which Jesus' disciples didn't have.

I prefer the term "non-Jew". But where did I disparage Jesus in that particular quote? You wrote that to me. I told you what I thought of your claim.

You disparaged me, so you disparaged him.

 

[Harel13]

The issue is that the most likely naturalistic explanation is surely that it was Joseph himself who was responsible. Why doesn't this figure in your reckoning? Why go to the extent of alleging adultery/fornication, as if it was even likely by one so young? That is a hostile thing for which there was no evidence.

Because, for the sake of debate, I am humoring the classic Christian view that Joseph was not the father. You should know, by the way, that while a mamzer ("bastard") in Judaism will have marital difficulties, he is not to be shunned from society. The mishna in Horayot specifically says that if one is to choose between honoring a mamzer sage and a boorish High Priest, the mamzer sage wins. In other words, if the mamzer picks himself up by the bootstraps and makes something of himself, then that's all that really matters.

Now, again, for the sake of argument, we take your version of Jesus: Joseph is not the father. God impregnating a woman is not a particularly Jewish idea. So we have this guy, Jesus, who everyone has whispered about his questionable parentage for years. Does he go out and make something of himself? At first, he was doing well. He had a respectable job as a carpenter. He even knew how to read. And then what does he do? He throws his whole life away for a cult. He doesn't go to Jerusalem to further his knowledge of Torah. He goes there to spread crazy ideologies and to wreak havoc. Man, why would I respect someone like that?

The Torah can only be practised to the letter in the context of a theocracy. Such doesn't exist anymore, by the will of God.

And yet Hosea, Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezekiel, among others, clearly disagree with you. Weird.

I mentioned cult. By that I mean you have your own system of laws from which others are excluded. There is no admission. It is closed.

It is not. Have you heard of "conversion"? Have you heard of "Noachidism"?

Frankly I have no idea what you believe and I'm not "particularly" interested.

Yes, I know. That thought oozes out of your every word.

I also know you cant obey the Torah, as God destroyed your temple.

You don't "know" this. You think you do, but you don't. Again, evidently the prophets disagreed with you.

The other part of "cult" is that Jews have never progressed to wondering why "God" destroyed their temple for nearly 2000 years now.

Wow, true ignorance. Open the Talmud. You'll find dozens, perhaps hundreds of discussions on the destruction of the Temple.
The only reason you think that Jews have never wondered is because we disagree with the Christian reasoning.

You reject the reasonable evidence that the rest of the world has accepted. You reject the hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah? Why? What is Dan 7:13, 14 talking about? So you reject your own scriptures. That's what cults do. They reject the reasonable and the rationale and the logical in favour of sophistry that even denies the prophecies given to Abraham.

No, we reject your interpretations. That's not what cults do. It's what honorable religions do to sectarian ideologies invented by nutjobs.

I see other Gentiles as just that, because it's what they are: on the animal level without morality and without self-control. Don't forget that the Canaanites of Tyre and Sidon practiced ba'al worship, central to which was immorality. There were still temples of ba'al in the lands of the Canaanites at that time. If you see the immoral for what they really are, then it is being honest. Spiritual dishonesty lies in not seeing it.

The Talmud says: "One must always [take steps to] increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives, and with all people, even with a non-Jew in the marketplace...they said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in issuing a greeting, not even a non-Jew in the marketplace, as Rabban Yoḥanan would always greet him first..."

Rabban Yochanan lived not long after the time Christians claimed Jesus lived. I really don't see why Jesus was such a stuck-up snob with that woman. Oh, wait, maybe I do see.

Why shouldn't he have said it?

Too nutty and too contradictory.

Who else could have said it?

Whoever wrote that stuff down, probably.

It required a highly developed education to fathom that out which Jesus' disciples didn't have.

Did it? I don't think so. I recommend you read "Morale Juive et Morale Chrétienne. Examen Comparatif Suivi de Quelques Réflexions sur les Principes de l'Islamisme" by Elijah Benamozegh, for starters.

You disparaged me, so you disparaged him.

Wait, you're a prophet of "the lord"? Oh, we have management here. I am so humbled.

 

[CharismaticLady]

For those who don't know, I'm an Orthodox Jew (you can check it out on my profile). Many a member here has informed me over the last two years that I will be going to hell. It has occurred to me that as Christians do not agree on many matters (as they say, "two Christians, thirty-thousand opinions"), perhaps they also do not agree on why exactly I will be going to hell.

So please, lay it on me: Do Christians who believe this agree on the exact reasoning? And if not, what arguments does one denomination have over the views of other denominations?

Have a good weekend, by the way.

I agree with your observation. Before I first joined my first Christian forums site, I was not aware of many of the weird doctrines that have gained traction in the Church. Our common foundation should be the Word of God. And how many wrote the Word of God? Well, if inspired by God, then only One. I have only read a few verses in the New Testament that were admittedly NOT inspired by God, but were the apostle's own opinion, and do not let man use those weapons against me as they were about women and Paul's personal bias against them for whatever personal reason he had, but they were mostly from culture and women's lack of education back then. But not all women and he praised those few.

There are many prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament, and the one that I can see Jews mocking Christians about is Daniel 9:24. The number one thing that separated Adam and the rest of mankind from God was SIN. But God had a plan. First supply the Jews with the Ten Commandments to educate us on sin, and then send the Messiah to once and for all take away the problem of sin.
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

So what did Jesus claim to do? Four passages come to mind. There is one interpretation to all four, and 29,999 in the Church against these verses. I choose the one, as Jesus said in Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (one out of 30,000)

1 John 3:4-9.
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

John 8:32, 34-36
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Romans 6:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Peter 1:2-11
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


So what are the mechanics to make a Christian keep the laws of God perfectly? By His indwelling Spirit. Instead of keeping laws engraved on stone that had to be kept with a sinful nature, after Jesus died for our sins as the perfect sacrifice, He sent back His Spirit to fill a newly created nature for all those who believed in Him.

Romans 8:1-10
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Verse 10 shows the body as a shell. It is not the source of sin, our nature was, our soul and spirit. (29,999 against.) That is why in verse 9, we are no longer in the old sinful nature, but in a new one created by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ.

If you would like to hear my testimony of the night my old human nature was taken out of me, and the supernatural creation of a new nature in me that made me dead to sin, let me know and I'll send it by private message.

 

[cjab]

Because, for the sake of debate, I am humoring the classic Christian view that Joseph was not the father. You should know, by the way, that while a mamzer ("bastard") in Judaism will have marital difficulties, he is not to be shunned from society. The mishna in Horayot specifically says that if one is to choose between honoring a mamzer sage and a boorish High Priest, the mamzer sage wins. In other words, if the mamzer picks himself up by the bootstraps and makes something of himself, then that's all that really matters.

Now, again, for the sake of argument, we take your version of Jesus: Joseph is not the father. God impregnating a woman is not a particularly Jewish idea. So we have this guy, Jesus, who everyone has whispered about his questionable parentage for years. Does he go out and make something of himself? At first, he was doing well. He had a respectable job as a carpenter. He even knew how to read. And then what does he do? He throws his whole life away for a cult. He doesn't go to Jerusalem to further his knowledge of Torah. He goes there to spread crazy ideologies and to wreak havoc. Man, why would I respect someone like that?

Would you respect someone who performed miracles? Clearly not. What about all his acts of healing? What about John the Baptist? What about Pharisee hypocrisy? Are these things not true?

And yet Hosea, Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezekiel, among others, clearly disagree with you. Weird.

In exile it was given to the Jews to repent of their sins after God had rejected his people. Actually God didn't re-instate them on account of their obedience to the Torah in exile: indeed exile had done them no spiritual favours except to discipline them and induce them to see what they had lost. God brought the Jews back to fulfil his purposes in them. Even the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting the messiah.

It would be a mistake on your part not to realize the underlying reason why the Jews were brought back from captivity for one more time, before being re-expelled 500 years later when God's purposes had been fulfilled and the unbelieving Jews cast as redundant by God.

You need to read Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapters 8-11 (but preferably the whole book) to grasp what this is all about. Also check out the letter to Hebrews.

As for the modern state of Israel: it's still in exile from its temple mount.

It is not. Have you heard of "conversion"? Have you heard of "Noachidism"?

Yes I have. There used to be a Noachide here as I recall. However a Noachide is still a second rate 'Jew' and not a Christian. In fact he's in the worst of both worlds. But I think Christ went far beyond Noachide laws in his demand for righteousness. And in any case, Noachide laws have no sanction from God as a means of justification. They may save you from hell, if you really do obey them. But who will, in their spiritual sense as well as in their legal sense? For justification isn't a matter of law anymore, as no-one can obey the whole law. This is what the OT tells us.

Also, when did God approve the Babylonian Talmud as a mean to justification? Only God can justify and he makes the rules, which are, for the legalist, just this:

Deut 27:26 "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do "everything" written in the Book of the Law"

So this tells me you're cursed (if you insist on being a legalist). Do you agree?

Yes, I know. That thought oozes out of your every word.

You don't "know" this. You think you do, but you don't. Again, evidently the prophets disagreed with you.

They knew that. They also knew the Jews were being punished by exile. That is, they were being prevented from obeying the law as a punishment. Same thing holds today. You cannot obey the law of the Torah, as God has prevented you.

Wow, true ignorance. Open the Talmud. You'll find dozens, perhaps hundreds of discussions on the destruction of the Temple.
The only reason you think that Jews have never wondered is because we disagree with the Christian reasoning.

What was the primary sin then?

No, we reject your interpretations. That's not what cults do. It's what honorable religions do to sectarian ideologies invented by nutjobs.

Read Hebrews and Romans and tell me they were written by nutjobs. Don't forget, Christianity is Jewish from start to finish (the whole new testament). At every stage, you're disagreeing with other very well educated Jews. Why are you better than them?

The Talmud says: "One must always [take steps to] increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives, and with all people, even with a non-Jew in the marketplace...they said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in issuing a greeting, not even a non-Jew in the marketplace, as Rabban Yoḥanan would always greet him first..."

Wisdom literature is always useful.

Rabban Yochanan lived not long after the time Christians claimed Jesus lived. I really don't see why Jesus was such a stuck-up snob with that woman. Oh, wait, maybe I do see.

For a start, Jesus wasn't going to waste his limited time with Canaanites. It would have been counter-productive, Secondly, fraternization with Canaanites isn't encouraged by the Torah and Canaanites could have played all kinds of tricks on him. So he demanded special measures of respect from them, which is what he got in the case of that woman. She had no complaints.

Too nutty and too contradictory.

John 3 is one of the most profound things ever said on the subject of religion. Rejection of it entails the answer to your question.

Whoever wrote that stuff down, probably.

John was educated by Jesus who was intimately acquainted with his teaching

Did it? I don't think so. I recommend you read "Morale Juive et Morale Chrétienne. Examen Comparatif Suivi de Quelques Réflexions sur les Principes de l'Islamisme" by Elijah Benamozegh, for starters.

I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of "Jewish and Christian Ethics with a Criticism on Mahomedism." Sounds quite deist to me though. I've already read enough criticism of Mahomedism to last a lifetime.

Wait, you're a prophet of "the lord"? Oh, we have management here. I am so humbled.

Did I say that?

Matthew 10:24-25... "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!"

 

[4Him]

Yes, I gathered that from reading your main site and site rules.


Uh-huh. Okay, I'll leave it to you, Mr. Expert Psychologist. Enjoy your week.

More like Mrs common sense. If you don't care that anyone thinks you're hellbound, then why ask about what you don't care about.

 

[Harel13]

Would you respect someone who performed miracles?

Would you? If so, why? And if that person is not a Christian?

Clearly not.

I don't know based on what you're saying this.

What about all his acts of healing?

IF they happened (and that's a big if), I suspect they were a form of sorcery. Of course, it might have been real legit Jewish mysticism. I don't doubt that there are people in the world that can do amazing things. It doesn't mean that I want to follow their teachings.

What about John the Baptist?

What about him?

What about Pharisee hypocrisy?

What hypocrisy? Nonsense described by a bunch of barely-learned maybe-Jews in the NT? Please. There were much worse things going on during the Great Revolt and later on during the Bar Kochva Rebellion.

Are these things not true?

Might be. You aren't being particularly clear about what you're referring to.

In exile it was given to the Jews to repent of their sins after God had rejected his people. Actually God didn't re-instate them on account of their obedience to the Torah in exile: indeed exile had done them no spiritual favours except to discipline them and induce them to see what they had lost. God brought the Jews back to fulfil his purposes in them. Even the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting the messiah.

And yet, do you find mention anywhere in Tanach (that's my Bible, not the stuff you folks glued on) that these things were reversed? Oh, wait, let me guess, there's probably a big Jewish conspiracy here. We must've hidden away all of the prophetic works that included the canceling of laws made in the exile (mind you, atonement without sacrifices existed prior to the exile, but I suppose you care little about that) so we wouldn't have to own up to reality.

It would be a mistake on your part not to realize the underlying reason why the Jews were brought back from captivity for one more time, before being re-expelled 500 years later when God's purposes had been fulfilled and the unbelieving Jews cast as redundant by God.

No, I don't think it is.

You need to read Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapters 8-11 (but preferably the whole book) to grasp what this is all about. Also check out the letter to Hebrews.

No, I don't think I "need to". Paul was an egocentric maniac.

As for the modern state of Israel: it's still in exile from its temple mount.

I never mentioned Israel, so I don't see your point.

However a Noachide is still a second rate 'Jew'

A Noachide is not a second rate and if you knew anything about Noachidism, you would know this. Likely, though, as you've already stated you don't care about Judaism, you will also not care about Noachidism. And hey, that's perfectly cool. I also don't care about certain things.

Also, when did God approve the Babylonian Talmud as a mean to justification?

Stop and think for a moment: What is the Babylonian Talmud? When you have an answer, get back to me and I'll give you some verses.

Only God can justify and he makes the rules

Which really begs the question of why you hold by the NT.

if you insist on being a legalist

I don't know that I've ever insisted on being a legalist. But hey, whatever works for you.

Deut 27:26 "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do "everything" written in the Book of the Law"

Bad translation. Please learn Hebrew and get back to me. I'll wait. Or maybe I won't. Eh, who knows.

They knew that

No, I don't think they did. I think they held vastly different views about the exile than you do.

What was the primary sin then?

Are you really, truly interested in knowing? To clarify: I am always willing to have a fully-serious debate/discussion with someone, no sarcasm or any of that kind of stuff. Right now there hasn't been much of any respect between us, so I don't see any point in sharing with you advanced concepts in the Talmud. I get the feeling you'll laugh them off. If you're really interested, we can go over the material. If not, why bother asking?

Read Hebrews and Romans and tell me they were written by nutjobs.

I could, but it would be a waste of my time. I expect though, after having read some parts of it, that I will still hold the same view. I'm sure you think differently, that if I just read this text or that chapter, I'll awaken to the truth of Christianity. Pal, the world does not work that way.

Don't forget, Christianity is Jewish from start to finish (the whole new testament).

It actually is not. It has some Jewishy roots somewhere in there, but it ends up being a ginormous pile of antisemitism. See John and Revelations, for example. You won't convince me that "some Jews" "deserved" to be called "the synagogue of Satan" by a ranting Christian preacher.

Wisdom literature is always useful.

It certainly is.

For a start, Jesus wasn't going to waste his limited time with Canaanites. It would have been counter-productive, Secondly, fraternization with Canaanites isn't encouraged by the Torah and Canaanites could have played all kinds of tricks on him. So he demanded special measures of respect from them, which is what he got in the case of that woman. She had no complaints.

Ah! I see. Jesus, supposedly "god", had limited time. Interesting. And you say that this is the same Jesus that commanded: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"? That is fascinating, indeed.

Actually, I'd say that though the woman was desperate enough for assistance from a snobbish fake-demi-god, she knew how to play him. And play him well she did.

Rejection of it entails the answer to your question.

What question?

John was educated by Jesus who was intimately acquainted with his teaching

No, I don't think he was.

Sounds quite deist to me though

It's not.

Did I say that?

Nope.

Matthew 10:24-25... "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!"

Fascinating verse, though the verse doesn't say that when the member of the household is maligned, so is the head of the household. For example, say someone walks up to a slave in the market and tells him: "You're an idiot!" Does that mean his owner is also an idiot? It does not. That random man in the market was talking to that specific person.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

For those who don't know, I'm an Orthodox Jew (you can check it out on my profile). Many a member here has informed me over the last two years that I will be going to hell. It has occurred to me that as Christians do not agree on many matters (as they say, "two Christians, thirty-thousand opinions"), perhaps they also do not agree on why exactly I will be going to hell.

So please, lay it on me: Do Christians who believe this agree on the exact reasoning? And if not, what arguments does one denomination have over the views of other denominations?

Have a good weekend, by the way.

I believe that all who are saved must be saved with, through and in Jesus. All who are not saved with, through and in Jesus will go to Hell.

This begs the question: are non-Christians damned to Hell?

Answer: Anyone who is saved with, through and in Jesus must, by definition and of necessity be a Christian. Thus, non-Christians are damned to Hell.

I am Catholic. I think Protestants would probably agree with me up to this point. Where they would likely differ is on what I am about to say.

Catholics do not believe that explicit and formal knowledge of Jesus as Lord and savior is necessary for salvation. A relationship with Christ is necessary, but one may not necessarily be formally and explicitly conscious of said relationship. Hence, there could be Jewish people who are Christian, Muslim people who are Christian, etc.

Why do I say this? Knowledge of Christ is NOT in the profession of perfect doctrine. Knowledge of Jesus is in how one lives their lives. We cannot live the life of Christ and follow his commands without knowing Christ. Thus, anyone who lives as Christ---by definition, and of necessity must know Christ even if they aren't conscious of knowing him, even if they cannot formally profess and proclaim their knowledge of Christ.

I have met a lot of Jewish people and Muslim people who are more Christian than many of the people who grace Catholic and Protestant churches every Sunday.

So--do I believe you are going to Hell? No; being Jewish does not automatically condemn you to Hell from my view. In the end however, God and God alone is the judge of human hearts.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The distinction I would bring out is—how do you know when you personally are fully trusting in Jesus alone, and not your own goodness or works?

It isn't a question of "trusting in good works." I said that we cannot live the life of Christ, the way he lived and taught us to live without knowing him at least implicitly.

Thus, if a person is producing good works---those are the works of Christ---and an external sign that they know Christ at least implicitly. Actions have always mattered more than words. Memorizing Bible verses doesn't save us. Quoting Bible verses doesn't save us. Walking around with a Bible does not save us. Actions reveal what we really believe--and always have.

The fact that a lost person might theoretically be able to be saved by grace without knowing the name Jesus, should not make us slack to the awareness that all men everywhere are blinded by Satan, born with a self-righteous and sinful heart, and need to trust solely and only in the grace of God, which when clearly explained and manifested to us, we must accept and not reject.

Correct. At the same time--you have to keep in mind--that from the Jewish perspective, or the Muslim perspective, or any other religious perspective, we are the ones that are blind.

In other words---you or I would never consider that Christianity is wrong. Well, Jewish people and other religious people believe the same about their religion.

If we were to focus on some rare exceptions of people being saved without the preaching of the Gospel we might think this preaching is superfluous, and nay, even counterproductive... yet Paul clearly says to us "How shall they believe without a preacher." The implication Paul clearly wants to bring out to us is, the necessity of preaching for belief.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. In other words---just because non-Christians can be saved does not entail we should stop evangelizing or preaching. Christ commanded us to do so--but Christ and Christ alone is the judge of human hearts. It is not up to us to determine who is or is not saved. That is up to God.

So this is just some caution to add to your points, and the dangers of both adding self-righteous works to the pure atonement as well as making a slippery gray line about what is necessary for salvation.

See--and this is the whole problem with Protestants--they simply cannot understand what Catholics mean by "justification by Faith and works." They think that by stating we are saved by Faith and works that we trust in our own works to save us. We do not trust in our works. The reason works are saving--is because they are done in Faith, they are products of Faith.

When Christ sees our Faith, he sees himself. Well--apply that to works and you understand Catholics and good works. When Christ sees works done in Faith, he, likewise, sees his own work.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The problem with this is, if you give all you have and your body to be burned, but have not love, it profits you nothing.

Good actions with a wrong deep motive for them, can look exactly the same as good actions with a pure heart; in fact, many times good actions with a pure heart can look sinful with a superficial examination.

This means all the things that look like altruism or goodness in the world are not proof that mankind receives the grace of Christ without the knowledge of Christ, but just proof that mankind can act and look good in a self-righteous manner.

But this is exactly why good works apart from Christ are worthless. Only in works done with, through and in Christ are pure.

These are demonic religions with Satan actively blinding them into a legalistic false works that deceives them about their own lack of pure intent. Jesus said following the blind will only lead you in a ditch, and blind people calling you blind is not sign of truth.

I am not sure I would use the word "Satanic" to refer to the Jewish religion. The Jewish people are our elder brothers and sisters in the Faith. They were the first people whom the Word of God came to. they also have 70% of the Bible. The New Testament pales in comparison to the Old. Without the Jewish people we would not have 70% of the Bible. Without Judaism, Christianity makes no sense. We are indebted to the Jewish people for all we have. It was from them that Christ came.

In the second place, in the New Testament, Jesus revealed the true meaning of the Old Testament to the people. It isn't Judaism itself that was the problem, the religious establishment was the problem.

As for the Muslim religion: it is a false religion, yes. At the same time---that does not mean the people following it are bad or Satanic. There are elements of Truth in all religions. As I said, in the end, God and God alone is the judge of human hearts.

Of course mere assurance is no sign of a lack of deception, but neither is it an indication one is wrong.

I would agree with this, except the first part. Some exceptions do in fact violate a rule, and it would logically follow people were better off without evangelism if they didn't need it.

The purpose, from my view of evangelization is to clear away all the distortion, the fog from all the other competing religions out there. In Christianity we find the fullness of God's Truth. We find who God really us so that we can know, love and serve God in this life--and, of course, so that we can have redemption.

I think in the end---God judges us based on what we knew. The more graces God has given us, the more harsh God judges us, the more God holds us accountable.

Here is the thing: I work to evangelize all people. Those who do not become Christian, I do not give up and resign them to Hell, I hope in God's mercy and love and pray that they may be saved. I am more worried about whether I am doing my job as a Christian then I am labeling people and consigning them to Hell for an eternity just because they do not respond.

If you acknowledge the Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, how can you possibly act so arrogantly as to know for certain whether you are trusting in your own acts or not?

I don't.

Merely acknowledging a mental assent that you adhere to a "doctrine" of renouncing the goodness of your own works, does not necessitate or logically follow that you are not, in actual fact, somewhere taking secret spiritual pride or trust in the amount of goodness contained in your own efforts at sanctification. I have, as a Protestant, drastically and frequently fallen into the sin of self-righteousness, and any Christian that denies it is self-deceived about his own purity. The doctrine of Catholics does accord with the idea and intent of describing legalistic works and self-righteousness, but this sin is on an individual personal level for each person.

Which is exactly why Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation and why, apart from Christ man is lost.

I agree with this, the only problem is it does not acknowledge the depth of depravity of our sinful nature, the depraved corruption of our fallen heart without the constant tender mercies and endless graces of Christ working within us. I believe in non-meritorious works and conditions of salvation that I explain in full here:

Choice

Sorry stating I was unable to find it is not a confession of a lie Your hypocrisy on this is evident Was Theo lying multiple times when he denied having spoken of elect yet to be born Then you misspoke and should apologize. Time man up choice meats boy. I dont know. Given your track record...

forums.carm.org

And herein lies a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant anthropology. Catholics do not view Original Sin the way Protestants do--especially the reformed Protestants. The Reformed Protestants take an extremely negative view of human nature after the Fall. Catholics have never believed in "Total Depravity" or "Radical Corruption." We acknowledge that much of the Reformed Theology of Original Sin claims to be based on Augustine. Of course Augustine did have quite a negative view of human nature--but Augustine was in to the sex, drugs and rock and roll scene before his conversion. Given his previous life, it is understandable why he may have exaggerated the effects of Original Sin.

 

[shnarkle]

Okay, here are a few questions:
1. What is the definition of the messiah per Jewish sources?
2. What is the definition of the messiah per Christian sources?
3. Do most Christians agree with the definition of the messiah per Christian sources?
4. Why do you think that the Christian texts were authored by "observant Jews"?

Okay, here again is my question which you have chosen to ignore:

"shnarkle said:
Interesting. Why do you think this? The descriptions I see in the Hebrew scriptures seem to be effectively much the same as those in the Christian texts as well. They're both written by observant Jews so what am I missing?"

 

[Tanachreader]

For those who don't know, I'm an Orthodox Jew (you can check it out on my profile). Many a member here has informed me over the last two years that I will be going to hell. It has occurred to me that as Christians do not agree on many matters (as they say, "two Christians, thirty-thousand opinions"), perhaps they also do not agree on why exactly I will be going to hell.

So please, lay it on me: Do Christians who believe this agree on the exact reasoning? And if not, what arguments does one denomination have over the views of other denominations?

Have a good weekend, by the way.

Orthodox Jew is not biblical!

 

[cjab]

Would you? If so, why? And if that person is not a Christian?

I would respect someone who performed miracles. The second question is too hypothetical but if it happened I would suspect fakery.

I don't know based on what you're saying this.

IF they happened (and that's a big if), I suspect they were a form of sorcery. Of course, it might have been real legit Jewish mysticism. I don't doubt that there are people in the world that can do amazing things. It doesn't mean that I want to follow their teachings.

Why would the devil heal anyone? As Jesus said, a kingdom divided against itself will fall. Satan will not undo his own work.

What about him?

John The Baptists preached repentance. Don't you believe in it and acknowledge it came from God?

What hypocrisy? Nonsense described by a bunch of barely-learned maybe-Jews in the NT? Please. There were much worse things going on during the Great Revolt and later on during the Bar Kochva Rebellion.

It's worth studying Jesus' allegations of hypocrisy and taking them seriously. He accused the pharisees of being in league with those who "killed the prophests."

Might be. You aren't being particularly clear about what you're referring to.

And yet, do you find mention anywhere in Tanach (that's my Bible, not the stuff you folks glued on) that these things were reversed? Oh, wait, let me guess, there's probably a big Jewish conspiracy here. We must've hidden away all of the prophetic works that included the canceling of laws made in the exile (mind you, atonement without sacrifices existed prior to the exile, but I suppose you care little about that) so we wouldn't have to own up to reality.

Don't understand what you mean by "that these things were reversed?" It is clear that the law couldn't be fulfilled in exile, which was why Cyrus was called the Messiah for allowing the Jews back to Jerusalem, so that it could be.

No, I don't think it is.

No, I don't think I "need to". Paul was an egocentric maniac.

Elements of the Jewish diaspora embraced Christianity and this provided the basis for the spread of Christianity throughout the world. Are you jealous that Gentiles were given the opportunity to participate in God's justification and sanctification? What is "egocentric" about that?

I never mentioned Israel, so I don't see your point.

A Noachide is not a second rate and if you knew anything about Noachidism, you would know this. Likely, though, as you've already stated you don't care about Judaism, you will also not care about Noachidism. And hey, that's perfectly cool. I also don't care about certain things.

Noah was saved by faith, not by law. This it seems neither you nor the Noahides grasp. That's not to say that law is irrelevant but its observance is cast as an outcome of justifying faith, not a justification of itself.

Stop and think for a moment: What is the Babylonian Talmud? When you have an answer, get back to me and I'll give you some verses.

Rabbinic Judaism which I have little knowledge of as largely opposed to Christ and his jewish disciples.

Which really begs the question of why you hold by the NT.

Because it makes sense. See especially the letter to the Hebrews regarding the Old and New covenants.

I don't know that I've ever insisted on being a legalist. But hey, whatever works for you.

Bad translation. Please learn Hebrew and get back to me. I'll wait. Or maybe I won't. Eh, who knows

No, I don't think they did. I think they held vastly different views about the exile than you do.

Are you really, truly interested in knowing? To clarify: I am always willing to have a fully-serious debate/discussion with someone, no sarcasm or any of that kind of stuff. Right now there hasn't been much of any respect between us, so I don't see any point in sharing with you advanced concepts in the Talmud. I get the feeling you'll laugh them off. If you're really interested, we can go over the material. If not, why bother asking?

May be you think the Jews didn't sin prior to AD70? That would be presumptuous given the curses and promises in Deuteronomy 28.

What do reckon of Jesus' prophesing the fall of Jerusalem in Matt 24?

I could, but it would be a waste of my time. I expect though, after having read some parts of it, that I will still hold the same view. I'm sure you think differently, that if I just read this text or that chapter, I'll awaken to the truth of Christianity. Pal, the world does not work that way.

My impression is that you suppose Christianity to be anti-intellectual. It's an impression you might get from these boards, but it's not. It has deep intellectural foundations formulated by the Jews themselves.

It actually is not. It has some Jewishy roots somewhere in there, but it ends up being a ginormous pile of antisemitism. See John and Revelations, for example. You won't convince me that "some Jews" "deserved" to be called "the synagogue of Satan" by a ranting Christian preacher.

As John was Jew himself, he can't be tarred with anti-semitism for referring to a synagogue of satan, any more than I can be tarred with a racial crime for referring to a "church of satan," where that church is comprised of the same ethnicity as myself.

It certainly is.

Ah! I see. Jesus, supposedly "god", had limited time. Interesting. And you say that this is the same Jesus that commanded: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"? That is fascinating, indeed.

Jesus on earth was man, who had limited time as he knew he was going to be executed. Not so his disciples.

Actually, I'd say that though the woman was desperate enough for assistance from a snobbish fake-demi-god, she knew how to play him. And play him well she did.

If she had deemed him a fool, she wouldn't have asked him.

What question?

No, I don't think he was.

It's not.

Nope.

Fascinating verse, though the verse doesn't say that when the member of the household is maligned, so is the head of the household. For example, say someone walks up to a slave in the market and tells him: "You're an idiot!" Does that mean his owner is also an idiot? It does not. That random man in the market was talking to that specific person.

I agree with your last point. However its doesn't preclude insulting the servant being a form of insulting the master.