Jews in the Hadith

[pookie]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think he anticipated that we could use the Old Testament language Jesus referenced together with our brains and derive the meaning, which we have done.[/quote]

The problem is that we can derive a lot of different meanings and choose to emphasize various teachings according to personal preferences. Witness the hundreds of “sects” of Christianity and tell me the message is crystal clear.

This is the crux of the whole issue, right here - your epistemology.

I fail to see the problem.

Who said it makes any of us happy?

Doesn’t your faith provide you with something?

How else is a 1st century Jew supposed to take it? According to them, Moses wrote that God created the Sabbath by divine fiat in Genesis 1 and rested on it. Who can be Lord of the Sabbath but the very Creator of the Sabbath alone?

“The Son of Man” is an expression that was often used to mean humanity itself. It could be Jesus saying that humanity is not obligated to observe the Sabbath… that religious observances shouldn’t trump Man’s ability to decide whether there are more pressing matters.

[Makavali]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Witness the hundreds of “sects” of Christianity and tell me the message is crystal clear.[/quote]

Just to butt in, wouldn’t Christianity and Islam be a sect of Judaism? Protestants and Catholics would be more a sub-sect or something, no?

[pookie]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Witness the hundreds of “sects” of Christianity and tell me the message is crystal clear.

Just to butt in, wouldn’t Christianity and Islam be a sect of Judaism? Protestants and Catholics would be more a sub-sect or something, no?[/quote]

Depends on what you use to divide the religions. You could have all believers in anything supernatural lumped together and sub-divide from there; I think it’s easier to split religions by “base tenets” like “Jesus is the Messiah”; “Muhammad is the last prophet” and whatever it is that Judaism is about… Oh, right “The Messiah will arrive shortly.”

It’s the way they get referred too in most media; so it easier to talk about Islam or Christianity than to talk about the Jesus-is-God-but-the-Pope-isn’t-infallible sub-sub-sect of Judaism.

[Makavali]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Depends on what you use to divide the religions.[/quote]

Point of (claimed) origin.

[pookie]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Depends on what you use to divide the religions.

Point of (claimed) origin.[/quote]

In latitude and longitude? With or without elevation?

[Makavali]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Depends on what you use to divide the religions.

Point of (claimed) origin.

In latitude and longitude? With or without elevation?[/quote]

lol

I mean as in the fact that all of the so-called “big three” have more or less the same first page. Jesus seems to be where it all fractures.

[PRCalDude]

“The Son of Man” is an expression that was often used to mean humanity itself.

The term is rather broad in its definition. Part of that definition identifies Jesus with humanity. He has a two-fold nature, God and man. The term also references Daniel 7:13, where the “Son of Man” is very clearly a divine eschatological figure:

[quote]13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.[/quote]

When Jesus refers to himself as “Son of Man” when he’s forgiving sins, and teachers of the Law ask (and unwittingly answer their own question), “who can forgive sins, but God alone?” - it’s important to bear Isaiah 43:25 in mind:

[quote]
25 "I, even I, am he who blots out
your transgressions, for my own sake,
and remembers your sins no more.[/quote]
The term is used even in the context of describing Jesus’ deity.

It could be Jesus saying that humanity is not obligated to observe the Sabbath… that religious observances shouldn’t trump Man’s ability to decide whether there are more pressing matters.

What about the “Lord” part?

[pookie]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

What about the “Lord” part? [/quote]

The Son of Man / is Lord / even of the Sabbath

Possible translation:

Humanity / has dominion over / arbitrary religious restrictions.

In other words:

Man > Religion.

I concur.

[Hodgie]

[quote]pookie wrote:

“The Son of Man” is an expression that was often used to mean humanity itself. It could be Jesus saying that humanity is not obligated to observe the Sabbath… that religious observances shouldn’t trump Man’s ability to decide whether there are more pressing matters.
[/quote]

Jesus puts this idea to bed when prophesying about the sacking of Jerusalem.

“But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day.” Matthew 24:20

Clearly indicating Christians should keep the sabbath day.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No atheist will get bent out of shape because Jesus said “turn the other cheek.” They don’t so much like the theological implications of cherem, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on, but according to them, the day of judgment will never happen anyway.

You’re honestly proposing that Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, never said anything morally repugnant?

As long as a good man goes to hell for not believing in God, Christianity shall remain a disgusting blight on this Earth. Islam is only slightly more disgusting, with Judaism popping in between them.

Islam gets the gold, Judaism the silver, and Christianity the Bronze.

It’s kind of like winning the “Douchebag of the Year” award.

What medal do atheists get?[/quote]

Diamond encrusted Platinum.

They still did the most atrocious things ever in history…And much of that was done against religious people for being religious…They consider religion a threat. Why would such a goofy thing as religion be a threat to the state I wonder? If it’s all just made up bullshit, it should be no threat; especially when it’s practitioners were unarmed.

Nobody even comes close to the body count that atheists have wrought. Even if the muslims succeeded in killing off all the Jews in the world, they would still fall short of the body count that atheists have produced.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Of course not. You’re looking for the part where Jesus runs around saying, “Check me out! I’m God!” Rather, he couches all of his claims to deity in terms his audience (1st century Jews) would understand, which I provided.

Had he been God, wouldn’t he have anticipated that his audience would eventually outgrow 1st century Jews?

Your version of God is one of the infallible ones, yes?

Not quite. As I stated, I can’t see how an atheist would run around saying Jesus is a great moral teacher if he was a liar or lunatic, b/c he claimed to be God.

So if a lunatic says that 2+2=4, you’ll claim that his math is faulty?

Also, atheists spend quite a bit of their time critiquing the Bible’s take on hell and who will go there and how offensive it is, but Jesus spent a lot of his time telling people who would go to hell and how bad it is.

You should take it up with “those” atheists, then. Personally, I don’t believe in Hell, so don’t spend much time thinking about it. I agree with some parts of what Jesus said, so I say so. I disagree with other parts… that doesn’t invalidate the first ones.

You want to believe the Jesus of your imagination, not the one recorded in Scripture who said all those nasty things about unbelievers and eschatology.

I have serious doubt about the historical existence of an actual Jesus. I think the modern conception of the man is mostly mythical with maybe some distant basis with an actual living Jew preacher who lived in the 1st century. So much has been borrowed from other religions and pagan rites over the years, that it’s simply impossible to objectively separate what’s true from what’s not.

With that said, some of the saying attributed to the mythical Jesus figure from my imagination actually make sense. So I agree with them. Others don’t, so I disagree.

You believe that it’s all entirely true and that Jesus is the son of the actual existing God who made a Hell for people like me to roast in. Ok. I think it sounds stupid, but if it makes you happy, who cares? As long as you let your God punish me after my death and don’t try to force your beliefs on me in this life, I’m fine with that.

[/quote]

I don’t believe man landed on the moon.

[pookie]

[quote]pat wrote:

They still did the most atrocious things ever in history…[/quote]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evil_Atheist_Conspiracy

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:

They still did the most atrocious things ever in history…

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evil_Atheist_Conspiracy

[/quote]

And I always thought you were a Scientologist.

I never said all athiests are evil, just saying that the most evil was done by athiests, by a huge amount. Ironically much of it was done to get rid of the threat of religion. One might even think that this was done to spread atheism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now where’s my necklace!

[btm62]

[quote]pookie wrote:
btm62 wrote:
And furthermore, this thread wasn’t about Christanity and the Bible anyhow, it was about violence between muslims and jews, but as always some lawyer or 12 year old redirected it towards something totally off topic.

If someone redirects a thread, and everyone then follows, does it “become the downfall of” whoever redirected? You don’t practice much of what you preach, now do you?

You and your faith always come off as such a bundle of joy and happiness; it really makes us unbelievers wonder what we could be missing.

As for the thread, I won’t have enough time for another religious discussion - at least not for those who would’ve been interested in discussing things seriously; so I won’t waste their time.

Hot tip: Next time you wish to address the topic of a thread, why not simply do that? Instead of feebly denouncing the 12 years old who are somehow able enough to derail all the adults talking amongst themselves.

Anyway, you’ve got the thread back and can get to muslim/jew/lawyer/kid-bashing; whatever you prefer.

Just like Jesus would do.

[/quote]

And that addresses my point how?

For someone who doesn’t, “have a lot of time” you sure seem to be discussing alot. Accusing others of not doing homework, you haven’t even begun yours obviously.

You seem to think your clever with your inane questions and comments to answer every argument, while not really addressing anything. Lots of athiest talking points. Not impressive.

Hot tip - Try discussing a topic without coming off like a douche. Try to have an original idea, your thoughts and opinions aren’t deep enough to reach a snake’s ass.

Right back to ya now sporto, now go ahead and respond in your ever clever manner.

Just like pookie would do.

[pookie]

[quote]pat wrote:
I never said all athiests are evil, just saying that the most evil was done by athiests, by a huge amount.[/quote]

Let me see if I get your logic right.

Since Stalin, for example, was an atheist, and 10,000,000 of his people died while he was in power, then “atheists” get the credit for killing 10,000,000 people. Is that correct?

And while Stalin’s Great Purge is generally ascribed to political reasons - Stalin crushing any opposition or even suspicion of such - you, of course, know the real reason: He was hunting down those believers!

Stalin also had a mustache. Do you credit the group “mustached men” with 10,000,000 kills too?

Bush, according to wikipedia, is a United Methodist. Since the Iraq war has killed 4,100 soldiers and 100,000 civilians, does that mean that United Methodists have killed at least 104,100 persons throughout history - many of them their own?

Just as all the soldiers under Stalin were atheists; all the soldiers under Bush must be United Methodists, right? I mean, it’s the same logic.

Ironically much of it was done to get rid of the threat of religion. One might even think that this was done to spread atheism.

Please detail those “anti-religion” crusades you speak of. That big broad brush of yours is endlessly entertaining.

[pookie]

[quote]btm62 wrote:
And that addresses my point how?

For someone who doesn’t, “have a lot of time” you sure seem to be discussing alot. Accusing others of not doing homework, you haven’t even begun yours obviously.

You seem to think your clever with your inane questions and comments to answer every argument, while not really addressing anything. Lots of athiest talking points. Not impressive.

Hot tip - Try discussing a topic without coming off like a douche. Try to have an original idea, your thoughts and opinions aren’t deep enough to reach a snake’s ass.

Right back to ya now sporto, now go ahead and respond in your ever clever manner.

Just like pookie would do. [/quote]

Someone is flunking Love Thy Enemies 101.

Again.

[Sloth]

It is estimated the some 20 million Christians (18 million Orthodox, 2 million Roman Catholic) died or where interned in gulags under the Soviet regime 2.7 million martyred under Stalin.[15]

Practicing Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to.

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I never said all athiests are evil, just saying that the most evil was done by athiests, by a huge amount.

Let me see if I get your logic right.

Since Stalin, for example, was an atheist, and 10,000,000 of his people died while he was in power, then “atheists” get the credit for killing 10,000,000 people. Is that correct?

And while Stalin’s Great Purge is generally ascribed to political reasons - Stalin crushing any opposition or even suspicion of such - you, of course, know the real reason: He was hunting down those believers!

Stalin also had a mustache. Do you credit the group “mustached men” with 10,000,000 kills too?

Bush, according to wikipedia, is a United Methodist. Since the Iraq war has killed 4,100 soldiers and 100,000 civilians, does that mean that United Methodists have killed at least 104,100 persons throughout history - many of them their own?

Just as all the soldiers under Stalin were atheists; all the soldiers under Bush must be United Methodists, right? I mean, it’s the same logic.

Ironically much of it was done to get rid of the threat of religion. One might even think that this was done to spread atheism.

Please detail those “anti-religion” crusades you speak of. That big broad brush of yours is endlessly entertaining.
[/quote]

Uh no, my statement is as stands which is anti-broad brush. The people who performed the worst atrocities in history are atheists. Almost any historical reference bears this out. In the cases of the Soviet Union, China, USSR satellite nations, Cuba persecuted and killed religious people for being religious. They constantly posted anti religious propaganda.
My parents escaped communism for this reason. You can’t pull some jedi-mind trick and pretend it did not exist.

See sloth’s post.

Try to sneak a bible or other religious text into China and see what happens to you.

This made up fairy tale sure makes these mighty nations quake in their boots. What a bunch of pussies.

[pat]

But they weren’t trying to spread atheism, it was just a suggestion…A strong suggestion.

[Neuromancer]

Gents,are you just not seeing the monster flaw in the Atheist vs. Religious kill numbers debate?

In all seriousness?

Or is it just some kind of defensive reaction to any perceived attack on religion?

I am genuinely curious.