Dan56

Its just fortunate that the airport was not a "NO GUN ZONE" like that theater in Colorado, otherwise we would have seen massive carnage of defenseless people. And yes, why can't one of these suicidal nuts just blow their own brains out instead of trying to make a statement? And if they really want to be helpful, why not attack an IRS office?

Sorry to hear that Murph, but its good that you all got some vacation time with her, and that she passed quickly without much suffering.... My condolences

"Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

I highly doubt that conflicting interpretations had any effect on Rainclouds eroding faith. Remember, the OP stated that he believed Christianity was a mere opinion of God, that scriptures were written after the fact (denial of prophecy), and that he believed the scriptures were flawed. That imo, is why he abandoned the faith. He then continued to blame the view of conservative Christians as conflicting with his own political views. Many people leave a faith when it conflicts with what they personally think, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I understood Rainclouds choice as more of a political decision. Maybe I'm wrong, but in any event, I don't see how differing opinions on the interpretation of scripture like Isaiah 53 could be the cause of a persons lack of confidence in Christ? Especially since the debate was between the conventional Christian interpretation verses the basic Jewish view. Admittedly, the conversation did stray from the original topic, but that tends to be a common occurrence.

I surely can't disagree with any of that RR... Especially that religion has nothing to do with salvation, in fact it can actually be a hindrance. Jesus said of little children "for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). I reckon its important not to ever forget that kids are very receptive and trusting. Salvation in the end is a personal experience between an individual and Christ, but I believe that our desire to learn and search His Word is a pleasing thing to him. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Matthew 7:7). Those words from Christ seem to simplify things, but I believe knocking requires a little effort on our part. These little debates don't make one person right and another wrong. Luckily, salvation is not earned by personal knowledge or intellect. If it were, I'd be flat out of luck. But as you've indicated, keeping the 2 greatest commandments, which encompasses all ten, reveals the heart of a Christian. Some of the nicest people I know are also not Christian, but nice without Christ is not salvation. Thank goodness salvation comes by Grace and is not reliant on a Test;

For once, I'll agree with you, just to break a pattern While the bible is not technically the door to God, it does reveal the one who said; "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" (John 10:9). Once a person senses God is there, understanding the living Word is what reveals His purpose. I'm speaking as a fundamentalist of course.

I did go to the link you provided and read it several days ago, but I just don't agree with it. I also constantly compare the Hebrew with the English translation of the KJV. Imo, Isaiah 53:5 is not and cannot be a confession of world leaders taking responsibility for the Jews suffering. Why would a prophet of God dwell on the iniquities of other nations or blame them? How would Isaiah know what world leaders thought and why would they repent of it? When the Hebrews were in the wilderness for 40 years, did they suffer because of the iniquities of other nations or did God keep them wandering because of their own sin? "With his stripes we are healed", How is that possible in reference to Isael? How could other nations be healed from anything Israel experienced or suffered? When did God ever accept an impure sacrifice to redeem heathen nations? Never...its completely nonsensical Needless to say, I think Bart's an idiot . While some translation errors exist, and flawed copies were made, no one has proven or can prove errors from the original manuscripts. JMO While all true, don't we come to God through his Word? What are the odds of God revealing himself to a person who trashes the bible? I believe the Truth is revealed through God's Holy Spirit, but a persons heart must be open to it before they can received it. We are saved via our faith in what Jesus taught, that's hard to do when a person denies who he was, but hopefully some can be drawn and grow to accept it. As you say, God's draws whom he will.

Its all a matter of interpretation, if I accepted yours, I'd be a Jew not a Christian. If Isa 53 is about Israel or the Jewish people, then its a lie by default, because as I previously mentioned, neither Israel or its people could be made an offering for sin (vs 10). When was Israel wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, or made an offering for sin? Neither you or Pete were able to answer that. If the subject is Israel, how were they "bruised for our iniquities"? (vs 5) And who does the "our" represent in "our iniquities"? Verse 8 says; "For the transgression of My people was He stricken". Distinguish between "my people" and "He"? If "my people" is Israel, then who's the "He" that was stricken for them? Your simply trying to make the chapter apply to something it can't logically apply to. Consider Psalms 22:18, "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture". Compare it to, "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take" (Mark 15:25, also Matthew 27:35 and John 19:23-24). That's more than a coincident, its a specific prophecy fulfilled a thousand years after the fact. It didn't happen to David, so it can't be applied to him, but I'm sure the Jewish explanation would be that it doesn't mean what it says If no prophets in the old testament foretold of Christ, then Jesus was not the Son of God. You and Pete consistently claim that Jesus was a fake Messiah, yet you profess to be Christian? I'll never grasp the logic behind that. You need not reply, I understand we are locked in disagreement, but despite the futility of debating the issue, I always learn something that I didn't previously know in the process.

And what is the subject set in the first verse of Isa 53, "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" I agree that Israel is also called ‘the servant of the Lord’ (e.g. in chapter 41:8; 44:1,2,21), but Israel tragically failed the Lord as a servant. The second way the title "Servant" is used pertains to one raised up out of the midst of Israel. The wider context prior to chapter 53 takes us back to chapter 42:1 “Behold My Servant, Whom I uphold; My chosen, in Whom My soul delighteth; I have put My spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles”. And just prior to chapter 53, “Behold, My Servant shall deal wisely, He shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high” (Isaiah 52:13). So imo, 'Servant' is clearly representative of a single individual in Isa 53. What causes such discrepancy and confusion is that the two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are remarkably similar in the original text. All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke. The Hebrew Masoretic text of Psalms 22 has the “lion” reading, while the oldest Syriac, Vulgate, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions go with “pierced”. The same is true in the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was completed approximately 200 years before the birth of Christ. Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption inserted by Christians, but the likelihood is that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. So imo, two things solidify that “pierced” is the correct translation; First, within the context of the passage, "pierced" makes more sense, and secondly, the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate most other Hebrew texts by over a thousand years, clarify that the term is unmistakably “pierced”. Therefore, I'm personally convinced that our modern versions have it right. http://christianthinktank.com/ps22cheat.html I didn't have time to watch the near 2 hour video, but my previous point was that substituting the "He' in Isa. 53 with "Israel" causes the passage to make no sense. What's written cannot apply to Israel, but only to an individual. Consider; ‘He bore our griefs’ (v. 4), ‘He carried our sorrows’ (v. 4), ‘He was wounded for our transgressions’ (v. 5), ‘He was bruised for our iniquities’ (v. 5), The chastisement of our peace was upon Him’ (v. 5), ‘By His stripes we are healed’ (v. 5), ‘The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (v. 6), ‘For the transgression of My people was He stricken’ (v. 8), ‘Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin’ (v. 10), ‘He shall bear their iniquities’ (v. 11), ‘He bare the sin of many’ (v. 12). None of this can possibly pertain to the Jewish people or Israel because neither were ever portrayed as a sin offering. http://www.chaim.org/nation.htm I know Judaism's interprets it differently, but remember that Jesus had to define the Sabbath to them! Christ even needed to explain the true meaning of the commandments to the Pharisee's. Recognition of Christ requires a different understanding of scripture.

Of course the Jews never believed that Isa 53 referred to Messiah, that's what separates them from Christians. And if the 22nd Psalm is about David, when did he ever experience anything like this: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" (Psalms 22:14-18). Sounds like a prophecy about someone else to me "Many misinterpret or misapply the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. Verse 24 gives the exact time frame of the Messiah (anointed of God), 70 weeks were determined or 490 years to fulfill the prophesy. From the time of Daniel, 457 years to Messiah, there are seven weeks and sixty two weeks, that is 69 weeks or 483 years. That brings us up to 27 A.D. which was the start of Jesus 3.5 year ministry. After threescore and 2 weeks (vs 26) Messiah would be cut-off (killed 31 A.D) in the middle of the 70th week. The second half of the 70th week doesn't follow consecutively, but is fulfilled in the end times. The "prince who is to come" is the beast from the sea (Daniel 8:23-27), and the "little horn" (Daniel 7:8) is the antichrist. This is the 7 year tribulation, shortened to the second half of the 70th week of 3.5 years. Then Messiah returns in judgement with all the power of heaven, perhaps the Jews will recognize Him then?" The figure described in Isaiah 53 suffers, dies, and rises again to atone for his people's sins. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for "sin-offering" is "asham", which is a technical term meaning "sin-offering". Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere human. I replaced "He" with "Israel" in a few of the verses of Isa 53 and it doesn't ring true to me; "Surely Israel hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem Israel stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But Israel was wounded for our transgressions, Israel was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Israel; and with Israel's stripes we are healed.All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Israel the iniquity of us all. Israel was oppressed, and Israel was afflicted, yet Israel opened not his mouth: Israel is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so Israel openeth not his mouth" (Isaiah 53:4-7). Yeah I know, the joke was that neither Pete or Rev.V are Jewish, but I still felt like I was trying to convert them from Judaism.

I've never quite grasped the concept of praying for the dead? Don't mean to be crude, but what's the purpose? If they're dead, its over, so what's the point? I guess its a 'Last Rites' Catholic tradition?

Sure, change some words in Isaiah 53 like "He" to "Israel" and the context changes. But why would a prophet of God be prophesying about how other nations viewed Israel? Did God view Israel or the Jewish people as innocent and guiltless sufferers? Israel, nor its people are ever described as sinless, Isaiah 1:4 calls it a "sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity". I'm beginning to feel like I'm trying to convert you guys away from Judaism I've read Isaiah 53 in its entirety, and its obviously speaking about the Messiah, no interpretation is even necessary. It requires Jewish apologetics to change the meaning I'm beginning to see why you don't recognize anything in the OT as pertaining to Christ. Is it a wild coincident that Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 are written definitions of Christ? If you think so, then I'm relatively positive that no other messianic related scripture will convince you otherwise. Yes, Joseph was Jesus stepfather, but as the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus was the full heir of David since Joseph was by law, his legal father. Some prophesies do describe the second coming of Christ as the conqueror/leader/deliverer, this is what the Jews were looking for. The reason the Jews didn't recognize the Messiah back then was probably because they interpreted Isaiah 53 the same way you and Pete do today . The prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 provided the exact time frame for the Messiah, and that he would be killed. I guess people were so entranced in their own traditions that they missed what the prophets had written?

The entire Old Testament was a preparation, description, and prediction of Christ's life, teachings, and sacrifice. Jesus fulfilled the OT promises that portrayed him as the suffering servant, savior, and Lord; "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour (Isaiah 43:11). The Jewish Messiah also had to suffer and lay down His life for our sins. This is clearly shown in Isaiah 53: 5&6; "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." We are each responsible for our own sins, but we cannot justify ourselves, sanctification comes only through our faith in he that could. When John the Baptist said; "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), he wasn't referring to teaching, but a sacrificial lamb. The Levitical priesthood and blood ordinances foreshadowed Christ, the tabernacle and alter were also prefigures of Christ. These ended when Jesus fulfilled the law, he became our High Priest, our altar, and sacrifice. So it wasn't necessary for Jesus blood to be sprinkled on an alter, he is the alter. We can't approach God without a mediator, altar, and sacrifice. There's no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22), so if we only had the teachings of Christ and no sacrifice, Christians would still be sacrificing animals and using a priest as our intercessor, but the new covenant ended all that. It sounds like your trying to mix or make the ritualistic statutes of the old covenant applicable with the new covenant, but one ended where the other began, so they don't mesh. Vicarious atonement is a necessity of reconciliation, sanctification could never come by animals or sinful men.

I meant that the law trips us up because no one keeps all of the law, but God definitely expected us to keep His laws. There was also mercy, repentance, & forgiveness in the OT, which is why we don't actually read of any children being stoned for cursing their parents. I'm guessing that efforts were no doubt made to correct the problem prior to the judges resorting to the ultimate punishment (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Consider that King David committed 2 sins (adultery & murder), both worthy of capital punishment, but instead found correction and mercy after he repented. JMO Are you kidding, the guy is a known troublemaker... Actually, Dan was acting like an idiot again and got a little too judgmental In the first original post (OP), Raincloud stated that his belief in social liberty and small government clashed with right-winged Christian politics, but imo, social liberty and small government are conservative traits? So I incorrectly presumed that his statement that the scriptures are flawed was more likely what turned him off of Christianity. Thus my smart-alec response; "Doesn't sound like you were ever a Christian in the first place?" was out-of-line... I apologize if I offended

I completely agree with the ULC philosophy, which is why I feel free to express what I think here, and certainly expect others to do likewise. Doing the right thing doesn't require agreement, it simply affords respectfulness towards others who also express what they believe. While some of Jesus teachings may be debatable and open to differing opinions, some point-blank statements require no interpretation. I'll agree that a person can literally spin something to mean whatever they want it to mean, but when Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6), and anyone who doesn't believe in him shall not have everlasting life (John 3:36), and when Peter said that there is no salvation under any other name (Acts 4:14), then I think its pretty evident from a biblical standpoint that salvation only comes through Christ. Laws always trip people up, but if laws were not in place, what would the relevance of Christ have been? He clearly stated that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). So Christ did support the law in question when he said; "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Matthew 5:3-4). There's no Pauline interpretation about that! My point was that universalism pertained to the gospel message; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). My brand of Christianity is limited to what the bible teaches, its not embroidered with any church dogma, doctrine, or tradition. Thanks...... If I ever insisted that those who disagree with me had no place on the forum, I'd be the only one here I acknowledge that the standards God commanded are attainable, I just don't know anyone who's attained all those standards and avoided sin by keeping all the law (save one)

No, I believe we are reconciled to God through Christ, not the church (Romans 5:10). While I accept the gospel message as being universally proclaimed, I don't uphold the Roman church dogma because I'm convinced its religious doctrine contradicts much of what the new testament teaches. I never try to justify God's law, it is what it is. The verse in Leviticus 20:9 upholds the 5th commandment to "Honor thy parents", and Jesus reiterated it in Matthew 15:3-4. We may not like the strict way God kept order amongst the Hebrews, but I'm relatively certain that not many young people were sassing their parents back then. These laws were intended to show us God's standards, none of us would ever measure-up to them, but our hope was that God would show us mercy. God did, and through Christ we are not bound by the curse (punishment) of the law.

Paul told Timothy to; "Guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (gnostics), which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith" (1 Timothy 6:20-21 NIV). So yes, I believe a person must stick with what the new testament teaches about who Christ was, his teachings, his purpose, his sacrifice, his way of salvation, his return, etc. Those biblical absolutes are non-debatable. So from the onset, the Truth was polluted and corrupted, interwoven with Jewish tradition & paganism which crept into churches. Then Gnosticism was the predominant source of heresy shortly after the New Testament was written, followed by organized religion (Roman church). Religious tradition has always infiltrated the simple gospel truth, but the inspired Word was preserved to define and solidify the truth, and thereby eliminate confusion. We don't need to invent our own views, write our own books, or developed our own traditions. Simply stated; Faith in Christ + God's grace = salvation. Maybe your definition of love is different than God's? God's love is righteous love, ours is not. Love is not giving a child free license to kill, rape, etc. God cannot love a murderer without condemning his victim. Love is caring enough to try and correct evil-doing and even remove transgressions. Your idea of love seems to include accepting all forms of evil, which is tantamount to endorsing sin. JMO

Its not my intention to mock the liberal pov. Its normal for Christians to struggle with believing wholeheartedly, and its normal to have issues with certain parts of the bible. I also agree that there are incorrect translations, so I see nothing wrong with questioning accuracy. But when a person rejects the basic fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as salvation only coming through Christ, then I question the logic of professing to be a Christian. My own pov is that if the bible has been repeatedly altered and no version is accurate, then we can't really believe anything it says, and Christianity can only be a farce or a sham based on a bunch of fabricated lies. I prefer to trust that an infallible God was capable of preserving His word, despite the errancy of man. That is what gives me a firm base to stand on.

The problem with picking and choosing which words were attributed to Christ is that we inevitably tend to accept what appeals to us and disregard the rest. If I hate my enemies, I can conveniently determine that Jesus didn't really instruct us to pray for our enemies. I can conclude that Jesus said God would forgive us, but he did not require us to forgive others. Or if I'm cheating on my wife, I can presume that anything Christ supposedly said about adultery was falsely attributed to him. What it comes down to is the desire of liberal minded Christians wanting to conveniently edit out everything they don't agree with. I personally think its impossible for a person to accurately differentiate between what's true and what's false, which is why God preserved his written word in the first place. What your advocating is that if you don't like what's written, forget it, if you don't understand it, ignore it, if it requires something of you, throw it out. Of course your free to do that, but I'll never understand the logic in professing to be a Christian while simultaneously rejecting who Christ was and half of what he taught? Your neither in or out, cold or hot (Revelation 3:16). JMO

That sounds about right... No offense, but it doesn't sound like you were ever a Christian in the first place?

Not a song, but sort of a rap; https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=568923169840823

Off Topic; Over 7 years ago, an Orthodox Rabbi named Kaduri supposedly predicted the coming Messiah after the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Rabbi Kaduri died in Jan 2006 at the age of 108. Was that all a hoax? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYrMUCJQYQg

Happy Rosh Hashanah to you too Peter, hope its a good year.

We know that there will be animals in heaven, but no longer carnivores (Isaiah 65:25 & Isaiah 11:6-9). The bible doesn't give a definitive answer on whether the souls of pets are resurrected because scripture is geared towards human salvation. Unlike humans, animals can't choose between good and evil, and since they aren't inherently evil, no redemption is necessary. My dog is nonjudgmental, patient, understanding, and loves unconditionally, so I personally think she's more worthy of heaven than I am ... Its possible that God created a space in heaven for animals long before he decided to let us humans in?

A close look reveals very few real similarities between Jesus and Horus.. http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the-horus-myth/ Also, other historical records of a great flood would seem to lend credibility to the biblical account.