storytime

Steve, you said: "You avoid any questions I have, ignore everything that does not jive with your position, ignore any meaning of language, and then chalk someone off as a lunatic if they bolster Pauls and Jesus' interpretation of the OT. I am glad that you are an expert, congrats but I will stick with the lunatics."

That's another of your lame excuses in your lack of ability to defend your faith.

Admittedly I haven't supported your belief in a supposed new covenant made with Gentiles, a new god Jesus, a pious fraud Paul, a new Israel that includes uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. And the reason is, you have not provided any evidence for these vain imaginations you have conjured up in your own mind. You refuse to consider that the Hebrew God would exclude Gentiles and you force your way into a Jewish traditon where you obviously cannot fit. Would you like to learn how Jesus adapted his title of Christ? You refuse to admit that Jesus never started a new religion and that his life in Judaism he believed was the only truth. You haphazzardly conclude that the followers of Jesus were anyone and everyone with faith alone and without them converting to his tradition in Judaism. Tell me Steve, what did Jesus teach, Judaism or something else?

You can stick your head in the sand with the lunatics if that's what you want, but, most of us normal humans want to live in the real world without fabricated gods and saviors and chosen people.

sschlichter

tell you what. Why don't we go thru Genesis (since most of the arguments stem from there) chapter by chapter and see what it says. Not what you or I want it to say but read it for what it says without bringing anything to it. If it doesn't say it, we won't assert it. When done, lets see what both of us think then.

or you prefer to explore your question of what jesus taught, then we can go thru one of the gospels.

you pick. If I have conjured anything up in my own mind then an honest reading of the authors purpose will expose my lunacy.

I do not see any point at sound bites and name calling. The use of a smiley does not negate calling the majority of humanity (aka the theists) lunatics.

~Steve

storytime

Bible quoting is not critiquing the text. So lets start with your theist belief that Jesus established a new covenant that includes uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. Can you provide the scriptural evidence for Jesus doing this?

sschlichter

What would be the point. When I point out something that says the color is red, you say that means the color is blue.

Instead of your suggestion, let's start with you providing the theme of the first 11 chapters of Genesis and support. The author had some purpose in writing it - what was it?

~Steve

storytime

humm... as you gave me the preference of selecting, lets stick with the question I presented to you.

Color choice is not an option. Can you answer the question?

sschlichter

No, I gave you the option of reading what the teachings of Jesus say for themselves without you putting your words in his mouth. I already went down the road of the new covenant with you. I discussed the role of gentiles in the OT with you. You cannot hear the biblical authors because you are too busy talking over them.

I gave you the example of Jonah. Explain God's concern for those gentiles. Explain why God showed concern for the national enemy of the Jews. The first 11 books of Genesis addresses God dealing with men before their was any such thing as a Jew. before their was law, before their was circumcision.

I gave you examples of God's concern for individual gentiles under the domain of the Jews.

I gave you the covenant of Abraham where God promises to bless all nations thru Abraham.

I gave you Isa 9 where the prophecy very explicitly refers to Galillee of the Gentiles in reference to land contorolled by the Assyrians and how God was going to bring light to those in darkness (in the same context explicitly referring to Gentiles).

Once you cannot find a way to interpret it in a way that works for you, you state the author was a lunatic. it is not an honest discussion and is not worth the time.

~steve

Doug Shaver

You're assuming that those chapters had only one author. Most modern scholarship begs to differ.

sschlichter

then the editor(s) had some purpose, it doesn't matter. What is the Jewish God's relationship to Gentiles? simple question and it is answered in the Old Testament. Why can't you answer it?

storytime

[QUOTE=sschlichter;5571313]
Here's what you said: "..you prefer to explore your question of what Jesus taught, then we can go thru one of the gospels. you pick."

Here's what I said: "..so lets start with your theist belief that Jesus established a new covenant that includes uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. Can you provide the scriptural evidence for Jesus doing this?"

Evidently you cannot provide the text of what Jesus said - allowing the text to speak for itself, (without my talking over it, as you put it).

Excuse me, but it's pretty obvious that what Christians have done for 1500+ years is to talk over them, inventing their own interpretations irregardless of Jewish thought on the matters.

God had no concern for Gentiles except to advantage his own people, the Israelites. Ninevah was no exception to His rule. Gentiles were always to be considered as the slave class by the God who predestined His chosen people to rule and not serve, a people that give their origin from the first man Adam, who consist of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews.

You honestly don't believe that you have the only interpretation of the bible stories do you?


Like I said, God had no concern for the Gentiles except to be slaves for the Jews. And, you fail to recognize that Jewish people were also Hebrews in their forefathers, as the story goes. A name change occured in Jacob who became known as Israel and served the tribal community of twelve sons, all in the House name and covenant made with Abraham. There is an evolving strategy to instill loyalty to the one God of Hebrew invention. First there was circumcision, then 450 years later the law of Moses. What you have is the old and new covenant, and which you refuse to accept because you say Jesus made his own covenant that includes uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles and called it "new". What I'm doing is challenging your pre-conditioned belief by asking you to show the scriptural text where Jesus did this. I want to read it for myself, just as others want to read it.


Oh, but I am persuaded by the ugliness of Christian America that it is most definetly worth the time, especially for people who are willing and determined to kill and destroy human life in support of this illegitimate and fabricated religion that theist say is god breathed. We are seeing at this very time in our history the most vulgar and obnoxious display of what Christianity can do to not only America but the world at large. And all because this bastardized Judaism in its invented religion is now running our government under its creed of my way or the highway, and teaching hate and contempt for non Christians. So, I for one at least, think it imperative that your theist belief be countered with a more realistic interpretation of the bible. And if you feel offended then I consider how much more offended are those who have been victimized by the bible thumping lunatics.

bacht

Most of the OT prophecies concerning the gentiles refer to God's punishment of Israel's enemies. Isaiah is exceptional.