Jews Rejected God's Offer

This is an offensive statement.Your word carries even less weight.What is the point of all your endless speculation?You probably already know the verses that answer your questions. That you refuse to believe or acknowledge them is another matter.The danger in what you are doing is that, if doubt can be cast on the gospel of John so flippantly, so too can be done to the other three.The result of that is that you are free to quote mine from the bible as you please and simply disregard anything that contradicts your view.My perspective is that, if God exists, and I believe he does, then it is logical for him to provide us with (or make available) his teachings (The Bible) for our edification and his glory.What you have, after your endeavors, is a God and a message of your own creation. In other words, no God at all.Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. If your goal really is to know the truth, as mine is, then I will post the verses that you request.

Purpledawn,The evidence in favor of John's Gospel being reliable is that it is consistent with the other gospels and the pervading message of the entire Bible.

Salvation, actually, doesn't mean much in the Jewish religion, period.The term as used just means in the Tanakh just means they were saved from that particular situation, or for a bad sitation.You see, the term SALVATION implies a focus on the afterlife, and that just plain isn't important in Judaism. The concept of HELL as the Christians understand it does not exist either. You see, having the
reward and punishment concept for doing bad/good taints the concept that you should be good for it's own sake, rather than doing good for some selfish reason (you want to get to heaven.)So, the question you have basically means nothing.As for Elijah and enoch, the idea that they were taken to heaven alive
is not true. In other words, when they were 'taken', they died.

As far as I am concerned, all of the new testament is just books written by man, not inspired by God at all. What is written in the so called 'New' testament is irrelavent to the jewish faith.

neither of these statements are EXACTLY true. there were later jewish movements (such as the wisdom movement) that eventually begane to adopt the idea of an afterlife as a way to resolve the "why do bad things happen to good people" question.this is of course not the only resolution of the matter. this is my fundamental problem with modern christianity. jesus taught that we should do the right things because they were right, and because it's what we'd want done to us. modern christianity however turns this around as pseudo-punishment/reward system. except that christians don't go to hell, so they just guilt themselves over making their lord suffer.a little screwed up if you ask me. this is just semantics, really. i don't think it's especially important.

do me a favor. read matthew, and then read john, and then come back and revise this point.the reason many of cite the gospel of john as unreliable is that it DOES NOT sync up right with the other gospels.here, jesus calls himself the son of god.

quote:

---

Jhn 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
Jhn 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
Jhn 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
Jhn 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

---

and here christ claims to a prophet that brings about the endtimes, and it's blasphemous enough to get him killed, even though he REFUSED to call himself the son of god.

quote:

---

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
Mat 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

---

you don't see a discrepency? no, it's the pervading message of modern pauline christianity. ask any jew what the message of the bible is, and they will never say "john 3:16." not once out of a million. does it stand to reason that it's not the pervading message of, well, all of the other books?just because you only take one message from the bible, doesn't mean the entire bible is only about the that one message. you're totally denying the power and meaning and truth in lamentations, song of songs, job, and even genesis. christ has nothing to do with those things, let alone john's portrayal of him.

I find it fascinating that you and Phatboy spend more time trying to make me feel guilty about investigating and questioning what is written instead of providing the verses requested in the OP.I don’t feel that my answers have been frivolous or disrespectful. I provided the information to back up my conclusions.

quote:

---

You probably already know the verses that answer your questions. That you refuse to believe or acknowledge them is another matter.

---

No I don’t and all you have shown me are statements after the fact. I have not read of any verses that speak of an offer to the Jewish community before the death of Jesus.

quote:

---

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. If your goal really is to know the truth, as mine is, then I will post the verses that you request.

---

Whether you believe it or not, learning the truth is my goal.Blind faith in mankind's dogma and tradition is not.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.Do you believe in God?

That he did not answer "yes" or "no" in that verse is not evidence that he wasn't. He answered the high priest: "Thou has said", implying "yes".Concerning the pervading message of the bible, I didn't state what I thought it was. How is it that you are then questioning it?

I apologize for the harsh tone of my post.It's the arrogance (that I perceived) that set me off. If you say it is your goal, then I believe you.Please give me some time this morning and I will try to address your points.

he didn't answer. instead, he quoted daniel. the implication is that he was the messiah of the endtimes and not the son of god, though he didn't explicitly say that either. there is nothing strictly blasphemous about quoting the book of daniel, but the high priest sure thought so.but did jesus admit to being the son of god? no, actually he didn't. he didn't deny it either. what he said was very carefully chosen to avoid blasphemy.does jesus say anything like this in the other gospels?

quote:

---

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

---

in john, jesus is quoting psalm 82:

quote:

---

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

---

that's nice and all. it shows some level education. this jesus has read psalms. ...however, last time i checked psalms were not part of the law. notice he also said "YOUR law" the "The Law?" and "The Jews?"show me one passage in any of the three other gospels were jesus claims to be the son of god. in every instance, he rebukes the person (or devil) that asks him, usually with a proverb, or he just remains silent on the matter. you said it's consistent with the pervading message of the bible. while "god loves us" is nice, it's not the only message of the bible at all. most of the prophets write of an angry god.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-01-2004 01:37 PM

Evidently, the use of the word "law" refers to something other than what you are thinking and does include the Psalms.

Actually, the LAW is the Torah, which is the 5 books of Moses. Psalms is not part of that.

The use of the term "law" in John 10:34 seems to refer to the broader term "scriptures" does it not?

yes and that's exactly the error.everywhere else jesus refers to the bible as "the law, and the prophets" of sometimes "the law, and the prophets and the psalms."this shows that person who wrote matthew had a better understanding of jewish tradition than the author of john. matthews understanding is far from perfect however, as i know i've pointed out before.the word for law from god in hebrew is torah. speaking the words in john 10:34, jesus would have actually said the word the torah. do you think he was not refering to the torah? however, the author of john was greek. the error was made by him, not jesus, and not us.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-01-2004 04:42 PM