frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Does a Higher Being Exist?

24



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @Judaism
    Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical HebrewTevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) by which God spares Noah, his family, and a remnant of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing flood.[1][2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

    A global flood as stated in the Bible would be devasting, affecting all animals and plants. 
    As this Rabbi stated:
    "We have to appreciate that this was no ordinary boat. It measured 300-by-50 cubits, was bigger than a football field and contained over a million cubic feet of space!"
    http://www.aish.com/atr/Noahs_Ark.html

    Cubit is a measure of a unit used in the Bible. It is estimated to be about 18 inches for each cubit.
    "So by converting biblical measurements, we end up with an ark that's 540 feet long, 37.5 feet high and 75 feet wide. Whether that's large enough to carry two of each species is a question for theologians, science fiction writers, or physicists who specialize in quantum state mechanics."
    https://www.thoughtco.com/biblical-measurements-116678
    540x37.5x75 is about 1518750 ft^3 cubic feet. 

    Genesis 6:19–20:
    ‘And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come into you to keep them alive.’
    Everything of flesh, excluding tiny insects and aquatic animals 
    https://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

    Here are some of the problems of the Genesis Flood.

    1. Breeding- Some animals will not breed with each other, and there is no way to test if two animals can breed with each other
    2. Building the Ark- Noah would have to go through decades of learning how to build the boat, how to steer it, how to fix problems aboard a ship etc. Building a ship that long ago would be a near-impossible feat.                                                                                                                                                              As https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark stated:"Before he could even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis. There was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced craftspeople to offer advice. Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?"
    3. Waste- Animals need to defecate. How would Noah clean it up and dispose of it?
    4. Water and Food- In order to survive "about one year" long journey on the Ark, the animal would need a large quantity of food and water. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/how-long-did-the-flood-last
    5. Knowledge of Animals- Noah would also have to know the size of all animals he would place in the ark. He would need to have specially made cages for different types of animals. The cages would also need to be unbreakable for
    Aquatic animals and small insect can apparently survive according to the bible. Several types of fish can only inhabit one type of water. Some can only live in salt water or fresh water. Some can only live in clear water while other can only live in dark water. The salinity of the ocean would be affected. While the Bible claims that some freshwater fish could live in the "gradual" change in salinity, they will shrivel up and die. This goes on to show how the bible is misinformed and continuously giving false information.
    Plants are apparently stored by seeds to be either held in the ark or will survive on their own after the flood. In fact, seeds will not survive underwater for a year. For a seed to be dormant, there need to be specific conditions like tempurtature, water, and light. The changing salinity in the water can affect seed dormancy. Also, simple forms of dormancy are short in duration. For a seed to be dormant for a year, there must be specific requirements, like dry and cool places.  

    In conclusion, Noah's Ark is an impossible feat. It would require millions of divine intervention. If this "God" really wanted to wash away all the evil in the world, why not just place all the animals in a magical boat floating up to heaven? For dramatic measures that had to make up a great flood.

    PogueEvidence
    i fart cows
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Judaism
    The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” . . . God looked on the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth”

    We see "all flesh", "the Earth", and "all". "In order to relegate Noah's Flood to ...[be] only local in extent, and/or ...[be] a myth, the Hebrew text of Genesis 6–8 and also the larger context ...[has] to be virtually ignored." Evidence that it is mistranslated. So God promised Noah that God would never send a localized flood (because he promised Noah he would not do it again)? Well, that is false because of the hurricanes that happened. 


    https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/was-the-flood-of-noah-global-or-local-in-extent/
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    BaconToes said:
    @Pogue ;
    Your argument about the age of the Earth is invalid because many Christians disagree with the young Earth idea.
    For Noah's Ark, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html
    Plus, it seems irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations.
    Since Christians don't believe the idea of evolution, why is it irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations? If there are two of each animal, 8.7 million different species, and with 80% undiscovered, That is more than 16 million animals. As your article stated: 
    CORRECTION: A previous headline on this story suggested that Ballard believed he found evidence of Noah’s Ark. He only found evidence of the flood.
    After the last ice age(ended approximately 12000 years before) flooding was common.
    Was it common in 2000 BC though? That is when Noah's Ark is set to have happened. 
    Yes,12000 years before is 2000 BC, approximately when the last Ice Age ended.
    i fart cows
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:
    Pogue said:
    BaconToes said:
    @Pogue ;
    Your argument about the age of the Earth is invalid because many Christians disagree with the young Earth idea.
    For Noah's Ark, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html
    Plus, it seems irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations.
    Since Christians don't believe the idea of evolution, why is it irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations? If there are two of each animal, 8.7 million different species, and with 80% undiscovered, That is more than 16 million animals. As your article stated: 
    CORRECTION: A previous headline on this story suggested that Ballard believed he found evidence of Noah’s Ark. He only found evidence of the flood.
    After the last ice age(ended approximately 12000 years before) flooding was common.
    Was it common in 2000 BC though? That is when Noah's Ark is set to have happened. 
    Yes,12000 years before is 2000 BC, approximately when the last Ice Age ended.
    No, the Ice Age ended approximately 10,000 BCE. 2000-12000=-10000=10000BC.
    BaconToes
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:
    @Judaism
    Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical HebrewTevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) by which God spares Noah, his family, and a remnant of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing flood.[1][2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

    A global flood as stated in the Bible would be devasting, affecting all animals and plants. 
    As this Rabbi stated:
    "We have to appreciate that this was no ordinary boat. It measured 300-by-50 cubits, was bigger than a football field and contained over a million cubic feet of space!"
    http://www.aish.com/atr/Noahs_Ark.html

    Cubit is a measure of a unit used in the Bible. It is estimated to be about 18 inches for each cubit.
    "So by converting biblical measurements, we end up with an ark that's 540 feet long, 37.5 feet high and 75 feet wide. Whether that's large enough to carry two of each species is a question for theologians, science fiction writers, or physicists who specialize in quantum state mechanics."
    https://www.thoughtco.com/biblical-measurements-116678
    540x37.5x75 is about 1518750 ft^3 cubic feet. 

    Genesis 6:19–20:
    ‘And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come into you to keep them alive.’
    Everything of flesh, excluding tiny insects and aquatic animals 
    https://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

    Here are some of the problems of the Genesis Flood.

    1. Breeding- Some animals will not breed with each other, and there is no way to test if two animals can breed with each other
    2. Building the Ark- Noah would have to go through decades of learning how to build the boat, how to steer it, how to fix problems aboard a ship etc. Building a ship that long ago would be a near-impossible feat.                                                                                                                                                              As https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark stated:"Before he could even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis. There was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced craftspeople to offer advice. Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?"
    3. Waste- Animals need to defecate. How would Noah clean it up and dispose of it?
    4. Water and Food- In order to survive "about one year" long journey on the Ark, the animal would need a large quantity of food and water. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/how-long-did-the-flood-last
    5. Knowledge of Animals- Noah would also have to know the size of all animals he would place in the ark. He would need to have specially made cages for different types of animals. The cages would also need to be unbreakable for
    Aquatic animals and small insect can apparently survive according to the bible. Several types of fish can only inhabit one type of water. Some can only live in salt water or fresh water. Some can only live in clear water while other can only live in dark water. The salinity of the ocean would be affected. While the Bible claims that some freshwater fish could live in the "gradual" change in salinity, they will shrivel up and die. This goes on to show how the bible is misinformed and continuously giving false information.
    Plants are apparently stored by seeds to be either held in the ark or will survive on their own after the flood. In fact, seeds will not survive underwater for a year. For a seed to be dormant, there need to be specific conditions like tempurtature, water, and light. The changing salinity in the water can affect seed dormancy. Also, simple forms of dormancy are short in duration. For a seed to be dormant for a year, there must be specific requirements, like dry and cool places.  

    In conclusion, Noah's Ark is an impossible feat. It would require millions of divine intervention. If this "God" really wanted to wash away all the evil in the world, why not just place all the animals in a magical boat floating up to heaven? For dramatic measures that had to make up a great flood.

    "Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that Noah's Ark could have carried 70,000 animals without sinking if built from the dimensions listed in The Bible." Only 70,000. Not even close to what would have been needed. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    Dear everyone, thank you for your attacks, I really appreciate them. But do you really think I'm going into this fight blinded? I have an unfinished paper I've written discrediting all these claims already, and if I were free of college work right now, I'd take the time to quickly go over it and publish here for all eyes to see. Here's what I'm saying: I won't be able to respond to every argument today, not even tomorrow, but Wednesday is my free day (for a little). I hope you all don't mind waiting that long? 

    Assuming you don't, I'll answer each claim, most of them already described in detail in my paper, for instance, how G-d could promise not to flood again and the definition behind the "Whole earth." 

    For now, you'll just have to be satisfied with this response until I have more time. Sorry :(
    BaconToes
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:
    Is God real?

    Hello @BaconToes Thank you for your post, I have been showing evidence of God, but no one really gets it!? I pray this debate will open peoples eyes, or at least make you guys think! (not that you guys are not more intelligent than me by no means. What I say here is beyond me Evidence)

    You asked: Is God real?
    What do you mean by "real", .. take a look at this;

    real
    1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

    thing
    1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
    2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

    Please my fellow debating friends, please seriously consider what I say here, I mean did any of you ever consider those two definitions? This means that we really can't ask if anyone is real or not because no living sentient being is "real". The only real thing according to the definition are 'inanimate material objects'.

    But we are real, aren't we?

    The ONLY part of us that's real, is our body, which, by its definition is "an inanimate material object"

    But wait, it's not "what" we are, but "who" we are, .. and as you can see above, the "who" can't be the "what".

    OK, so "who" are we really?

    We are, .. I know I've said this a hundred times, but please listen just one more time, and hopefully, with Gods help I can bring a little more light to this infinitely important subject, because once you understand "who" we are, you will start to understand "Who"
    God Is!? Anyways, "who" we are is spirit/mind.

    But how can spirit/mind live in this world, walk on land, touch, see, hear "things" when we spirit/mind is so different than the inanimate material objects that this world consists of?

    Because the material world is NOT how you think we, the who (not what) sees it. Everything in this world is transformed into electronic signals, our eyes pick up light off the "things", and transmits it to us the mind/spirit. This goes for everything else, our fingers sensory endings, our ears transfers electric impulse through the cochlea nerve to the brain,



    our tongue transfers taste by electric impulses to the brain, our world is being transferred to the brain by electric impulses, then the brain separates everything and transmits all the signals above the brain which we the mind/spirit read.
    We can actually see this on fMRI.

    So you see, the ONLY thing real is the inanimate material objects, which, by the bodies sensors are transferred into electronic impulses to the brain, and the brain lights up with trillions of different electric signals which we spirit/mind read.

    So in reality, all we the spirit/mind see is electronic signals, just like in the movie the Matrix.
    So if for us mind/spirit the world around us is just electronic signals, which some quantum physicists say is actually sound waves,



    then the world itself must be made out of these signals, or sound waves, just like the Bible says:

    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 He was in the beginning with God.
    All things were made through Him (Word) and without Him nothing was made that was made.
    4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Genesis 1 -
    3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
    Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
    11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
    and so on for all creation.

    This explains the "created", what we call "real", but the Creator who spoke the first Word into existence is not His words, He spoke, and the universe came into being. God is who we are, or actually we are who God is, Infinite Spirit/Mind, and His first Word was His creation, and through Word God spoke everything into being.

    And who is the Word?

    John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
    .. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,
    who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

    And now, by the son of God Word aka Jesus Christ I declare it to you.

    So God is not real, because as we can see that only inanimate material objects are "real", nor is God a "being" (body) but the Ground of being, the Infinite and Eternal Creative conscious Mind/Spirit "I Am"
    Erfisflat
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Plato believed in the Forms, something we CAN'T see.
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Judaism said:
    @Evidence

    Plato believed in the Forms, something we CAN'T see.


    Interesting, I'm looking into it.

    But how would we associate Forms with your OP question: "Is God real"?
    Especially since the definition of real is:
    real: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.? 
    And also that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible!?
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    What you are stating is merely a theory. You would need evidence and repeated observations to prove your theory. 
    I don't have enough time to debunk your arguments, so I'm very sorry.
    Pogue
    i fart cows
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    I do not have a lot of time to counter your arguments as well. However, I do want to counter one point right now. It is when you said "real
    1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

    thing
    1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
    2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

    Please, my fellow debating friends, please seriously consider what I say here, I mean did any of you ever consider those two definitions? This means that we really can't ask if anyone is real or not because no living sentient being is 'real'. The only real thing according to the definition is 'inanimate material objects'.

    But we are real, aren't we?

    The ONLY part of us that's real, is our body, which, by its definition is 'an inanimate material object'". We are the or. We are "occurring in fact". Other definitions of real, 2. (of a substance or thing) not an imitation or artificial; genuine. Our thoughts are real. Our bodies and we are not inanimate. The definition is 
                not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans. Showing no sign of life; lifeless.We are alive. Our bodies are alive.If you are brain-dead for example, you are still alive. We have so many chemical reactions in our body such as Respiration is a chemical process when glucose or other sugars react with oxygen to produce energy. It produces carbon dioxide and water as waste products. Metabolic reactions are chemical reactions that occur within the body to release usable energy. An example of a metabolic process is cellular metabolism.I will let Bacon counter the rest.

    https://prezi.com/b9if2qjyjjvv/chemical-reactions-in-a-human-body/
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Plato believed Forms were indestructible, he called it The Mind (one could very easily say G-d).
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Evidence
    I do not have a lot of time to counter your arguments as well. However, I do want to counter one point right now. It is when you said "real
    1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

    thing
    1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
    2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

    Please, my fellow debating friends, please seriously consider what I say here, I mean did any of you ever consider those two definitions? This means that we really can't ask if anyone is real or not because no living sentient being is 'real'. The only real thing according to the definition is 'inanimate material objects'.

    But we are real, aren't we?

    The ONLY part of us that's real, is our body, which, by its definition is 'an inanimate material object'". We are the or. We are "occurring in fact". Other definitions of real, 2. (of a substance or thing) not an imitation or artificial; genuine. Our thoughts are real. Our bodies and we are not inanimate. The definition is 
                not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans. Showing no sign of life; lifeless.We are alive. Our bodies are alive.If you are brain-dead for example, you are still alive. We have so many chemical reactions in our body such as Respiration is a chemical process when glucose or other sugars react with oxygen to produce energy. It produces carbon dioxide and water as waste products. Metabolic reactions are chemical reactions that occur within the body to release usable energy. An example of a metabolic process is cellular metabolism.I will let Bacon counter the rest.

    https://prezi.com/b9if2qjyjjvv/chemical-reactions-in-a-human-body/

    Thank you @Pogue that was informative, this is why I debate.

    So here is what I understand so far, by all means correct me where you find I'm wrong.

    Our body is an incredible organic machine/robot that was, .. like we have at Honda the simpler ASIMO robot, Intelligently planned out, and meticulously designed and put together. This body is so complex, that the Creator Himself is proud of His work, as we read how after each achievement, in Genesis, God looks at His work and says: "It was good".
    But this body is nothing but a tool, a place to live, and what forms our character. We the mind/spirit reside in this, what the Bible calls temple.

    So what you shown me in that Prezi article just shows the complexity of that robot-body we call home. the chemical reactions were pre planned, pre arranged to keep the body alive, but you know we have power to override it (drugs, alcohol, over or under nourishment, riotous living etc.)

    I know what you're going to say, or what you're thinking, I just got done listening to a bunch of Christopher Hitches debates/comments etc. and seeing him in his last speech before a pulpit broke my heart. To the end he remained true to his faith, absolutely no different than the Christians he identified as fake, like Mother Teresa for instance, which I found as I was looking through his comments:

    Christopher Hitchens

    I agree with him 100% the only difference is that I see Hitchens was the same deluded way.
    And just like the pagan multi-god worshipping Christian Church will deify, and immortalize Mother Teresa, .. atheist will do exactly that with Mr. Hitchens.
    I could easily use the same words to describe Christopher, as he described Mother Teresa:

    It's a simple matter of record that Christopher Hitchens was a fanatic,
    and a extremist, and a fraud. I think probably the most
    successful trickster for the past 40 years, and responsible for
    innumerable suicides, and untold psychological, emotional anguish
    for people that went to him for answers, and was proud of it.
    - Evidence -

    Just as Christopher Hitchens erroneously viewed and judged the Bible and God of the Bible through the eyes/mouth of the Christian Religion, and didn't realize that he was actually in the same league (against our Infinite Creator God -didn't ever mention that they invented the Big-Bang story, I wonder if he even knew that-, and that the "Church" is actually against Gods creation, against His plan for mankind, and against the human race ..) you atheists here do the same thing, interpret God as some Religious idol, and what's written in the Bible you interpret it from a Christian Religious perspective.

    God Is God, there literally can't be another besides Him, He's  Creator of all things, including our body which makes us individuals from God.
    I wish someone could understand this!?

    _________________________

    Whom have I in heaven but You? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You. My flesh and my heart fail; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

    Psalm 73:25-26 NKJV
    Erfisflat
  • TarnerxDTarnerxD 38 Pts   -  
    penis jokes are bad

    EvidenceBaconToes
  • TarnerxDTarnerxD 38 Pts   -  
    according to the bible

    EvidenceBaconToes
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Judaism said:
    @Evidence

    Plato believed Forms were indestructible, he called it The Mind (one could very easily say G-d).

    Actually, from what I read on Forms, is described in
    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    So Forms (Biblical: "the Word") is not God, but how God created matter, or "things".

    Forms;
    Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.

    Wow, .. thanks, I can dig that: "the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality", so true. Genesis 1 is a good example of this "transcending" in every time God says: "Let there be, .." 
    Only not "into our own world",  but forms our own world. Unless he's talking about adding more Forms/ideas into our own world, then yes, I could see that.
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence, I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of Forms, the Word would not be a Form for G-d, since, as Plato believed, the Demiurge was perfect, indestructible, eternal, and didn't have a Form. Aristotle thought the Unmoved Mover (again, G-d) had actuality without potential, which separates It from man, who had both. An example of what I'm trying to say is this: An acorn has the "potential" to be a tree, but in "actuality," it is already a tree. A Child is, in "actuality," a man, though he has the "potential" not to be, and vice-versa. 

    Since Christian Scripture claims that Jesus was G-d, and that the Word *was* G-d, then he too would have no Form since he was the co-creator, which we Jews don't believe in. Being Jesus was only a man, Plato would say that he had a Form, the perfect Jesus - outside our material realm. A Representation of him, such as his description in the Gospel accounts or an image, would be three times removed from the original Form, since it is a copy of a copy, and so forth. To Plato, we all once lived with the Forms, our soul encompassed them themselves, we were separated from them and brought to earth. . . and can only knew of their existence via recollection since Plato thought he could only discover truth through reason and not through observation by imperfect material objects we see everyday in the world around us. Modern science would appreciate his ideas, but ultimately frown upon them. 

    If my memory doesn't fail me, the Demiurge isn't matter, it didn't even create the Form themselves. . . if memory serves me right! They were already there.

    When G-d said, "Let there be. . ." in Genesis, He was in the act of creating the "actuality" of things. Forms are a good idea, I like them myself, but it's not science, and they don't exist in the Torah. The material world G-d created is perfect, we don't need to look outside of it to the Form of Tableness to see what a table is. Aristotle would agree with me.
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue ;
    Your argument about the age of the Earth is invalid because many Christians disagree with the young Earth idea.
    For Noah's Ark, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html
    Plus, it seems irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations.
    How is it irrational? There were probably more animals 4000 years ago considering that humans are making other animals extinct and 4000 years is not enough time for a new life form to evolve. Also, to get every animal on Earth, he would have had to have traveled to the new world. This is something that someone from the old world (excluding the natives that traveled across the Bering Strait long before) would never do until 3000 years later. He would have had to get every insect and every micro-animal. There are expectations of 8 to 50 million more species out there that we haven't identified yet, Mr. Edwards said. Other experts' estimates of the numbers range up to 100 million. And zebras, penguins, vultures, pandas, and antelope all need very different temperatures, food, and habitats.140 meters long according to the Bible. However, most scientists agree that still would not have been enough to hold the millions of species that have been discovered on earth. Where is the evidence of universal population bottlenecks? Except for a few species known to have recently recovered from near extinction, animal life on Earth shows far too much genetic diversity to be descended from only a pair of Ark-borne ancestors a few thousand years ago. How could the human population go from 8 a few decades before the pyramids were being built, to 7.6 billion now? How do all these species recover from only 2 of each left? Enough water to cover the entire Earth to the height of the tallest mountains would require a much larger sphere of liquid. Where did that extra water come from, and more importantly — where did it go? Your source does not provide any evidence to support the Ark. It was a global flood not anything from the Mediterrain. 

    https://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2008/0515/103336-noahsark/
    https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/

    https://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2008/0515/103336-noahsark/

    - The ever-widening menagerie is a paradox when an expanding human population, pollution and climate change threaten what United Nations' studies say is the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

    Government officials trying to protect the modern world's wildlife gather in Bonn from May 19-30 to examine progress towards a goal set in 2002 of slowing biodiversity loss by 2010

    So it's God, against the German controlled U.N., no wonder they think God couldn't design a boat that could save the needed species of animals to restart earth.

    United Nations' studies say is the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

    Oh my, so they must Intelligently Design a World Wide human extinction (Agenda 21, 2030 the reduction of 6.5 Billion humans alone) to save "purposeless, no design or plan Mother Nature and her "I don't care, it just happens Evolution".

    And remember, the UN is keeping humans from going beyond Antarctica, or they will never be able to exterminate all of humanity! And now, let us U.N. -ited celebrate this New World white Order of Evolution by Intelligent Design!



  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:
    @Judaism
    Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical HebrewTevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) by which God spares Noah, his family, and a remnant of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing flood.[1][2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

    A global flood as stated in the Bible would be devasting, affecting all animals and plants. 
    As this Rabbi stated:
    "We have to appreciate that this was no ordinary boat. It measured 300-by-50 cubits, was bigger than a football field and contained over a million cubic feet of space!"
    http://www.aish.com/atr/Noahs_Ark.html

    Cubit is a measure of a unit used in the Bible. It is estimated to be about 18 inches for each cubit.
    "So by converting biblical measurements, we end up with an ark that's 540 feet long, 37.5 feet high and 75 feet wide. Whether that's large enough to carry two of each species is a question for theologians, science fiction writers, or physicists who specialize in quantum state mechanics."
    https://www.thoughtco.com/biblical-measurements-116678
    540x37.5x75 is about 1518750 ft^3 cubic feet. 

    Genesis 6:19–20:
    ‘And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come into you to keep them alive.’
    Everything of flesh, excluding tiny insects and aquatic animals 
    https://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

    Here are some of the problems of the Genesis Flood.

    1. Breeding- Some animals will not breed with each other, and there is no way to test if two animals can breed with each other
    2. Building the Ark- Noah would have to go through decades of learning how to build the boat, how to steer it, how to fix problems aboard a ship etc. Building a ship that long ago would be a near-impossible feat.                                                                                                                                                              As https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark stated:"Before he could even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis. There was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced craftspeople to offer advice. Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?"
    3. Waste- Animals need to defecate. How would Noah clean it up and dispose of it?
    4. Water and Food- In order to survive "about one year" long journey on the Ark, the animal would need a large quantity of food and water. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/how-long-did-the-flood-last
    5. Knowledge of Animals- Noah would also have to know the size of all animals he would place in the ark. He would need to have specially made cages for different types of animals. The cages would also need to be unbreakable for
    Aquatic animals and small insect can apparently survive according to the bible. Several types of fish can only inhabit one type of water. Some can only live in salt water or fresh water. Some can only live in clear water while other can only live in dark water. The salinity of the ocean would be affected. While the Bible claims that some freshwater fish could live in the "gradual" change in salinity, they will shrivel up and die. This goes on to show how the bible is misinformed and continuously giving false information.
    Plants are apparently stored by seeds to be either held in the ark or will survive on their own after the flood. In fact, seeds will not survive underwater for a year. For a seed to be dormant, there need to be specific conditions like tempurtature, water, and light. The changing salinity in the water can affect seed dormancy. Also, simple forms of dormancy are short in duration. For a seed to be dormant for a year, there must be specific requirements, like dry and cool places.  

    In conclusion, Noah's Ark is an impossible feat. It would require millions of divine intervention. If this "God" really wanted to wash away all the evil in the world, why not just place all the animals in a magical boat floating up to heaven? For dramatic measures that had to make up a great flood.


    @BaconToes said;
    Here are some of the problems of the Genesis Flood
    1. Breeding- Some animals will not breed with each other, and there is no way to test if two animals can breed with each other
    2. Building the Ark- Noah would have to go through decades of learning how to build the boat, how to steer it, how to fix problems aboard a ship etc. Building a ship that long ago would be a near-impossible feat.                                                                                                                                                              As https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark stated:"Before he could even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis. There was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced craftspeople to offer advice. Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?"
    3. Waste- Animals need to defecate. How would Noah clean it up and dispose of it?
    4. Water and Food- In order to survive "about one year" long journey on the Ark, the animal would need a large quantity of food and water. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/how-long-did-the-flood-last
    5. Knowledge of Animals- Noah would also have to know the size of all animals he would place in the ark. He would need to have specially made cages for different types of animals. The cages would also need to be unbreakable for


    Let's see now, here is what we are talking about:

    Genesis 6:13 And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. 15 And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”

    22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.


    What BB-Evolutionists don't take in consideration is God   (obviously, since in their Big Banged universe there is no God, or Creator, or Designer, it is only when BB-Evolutionists design humans, plants, fruits, vegetables, robots etc. that Intelligent Design exists. God couldn't possibly know what BB-Evolutionists know today, .. LOL)

    But what if by some weird coincidence God, .. you know; The Creator of Heaven and the Earth gave a vision to Noah exactly how He wanted the Ark to be built to be able to handle the turbulent waters,  and build it to accommodate all the animals, .. including food, water, .. and bestow the peace that surpasses all understanding upon all the animals so they would tolerate being cooped up, and frantically rocked back and forth as the rain came down for 40 days and nights, .. not to mention the thunder and lightning that must of followed as Gods anger was coming down on all humanity?

    Or, .. just maybe calm the part of the sea where the Ark was like Jesus did, and have it raise up nice and gently like without much rocking at all? It's possible, right?

    And just maybe the Creator knew which base-animal species should go into the Arc to repopulate the earth again, and keep an atmosphere in the Ark that was just perfect for each and every animal on it!?

    To even suggest that todays quantum-physicist who can create a science fiction universe with imaginary planets would be needed to build an Ark to fulfill Gods plan, is hilarious.

    I was kept out of school, yet ate age 35 a friend shown me trig, and in few weeks there was no trig problem I couldn't figure out, and this is in a CNC 5-axis Aircraft machine shop, where engineers, and CNC programmers have a tough time defining trig problems for the computers to figure out. So yeah, I can see God blessing Noah with enough knowledge in engineering to build an Ark.

    Remember that "Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did."


  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Judaism ;
    @Evidence, I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of Forms, the Word would not be a Form for G-d, since, as Plato believed, the Demiurge was perfect, indestructible, eternal, and didn't have a Form.

    I have to understand what you mean by demiurge?

    Demiurge: a being responsible for the creation of the universe, in particular.
    • (in Platonic philosophy) the Maker or Creator of the world.
    • (in Gnosticism and other theological systems) a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.
    Is it the Platonic, or the Gnosticism definition you are referring to?

    Yes, God has no form as the Bible says, so I did not say that God Himself was a Form. I said; God spoke and created the Form. I was just trying to place Plato's , Aristotle's idea here into how the Bible, and how I understand God, and how He created, but it seems we can't place it with what the Bible describes God to be.

    Judaism said -Aristotle thought the Unmoved Mover (again, G-d) had actuality without potential, which separates It from man, who had both. An example of what I'm trying to say is this: An acorn has the "potential" to be a tree, but in "actuality," it is already a tree. A Child is, in "actuality," a man, though he has the "potential" not to be, and vice-versa.

    I would agree with Aristotle, God is without potential, God Is.
    Just as Infinite is, and since Infinite is Eternal, he is not a being, but like Tillich explained: "God is the Ground of Being". In other words, God is Spirit/Mind, the only time He is a being is when He spoke the Word into existence.
    This began a Beginning with God, not Gods beginning, but "a-beginning". The beginning of Creation starting with His son Word.
    As Jesus explained: "I am the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega!"
    God is still God, or Infinite is God, and when He wants to, He can become a being as we can see Him wrestling with Jacob, or talking through the Angel of Fire to Moses. 

    Judaism said: Since Christian Scripture claims that Jesus was G-d, and that the Word *was* G-d, then he too would have no Form since he was the co-creator, which we Jews don't believe in.

    Yes, we Jews are very messed up, and it is a terrible shame because God chose us to represent Him.
    Please don't call the Bible, which are the writings of our Prophets and the writings of the Apostles: "Christian Scripture"!  Nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing "Christian" in the Bible is what the RCC added, or changed, and even taken out of Scriptures to reinforce their gods, like the Trinity-gods;
    father-god the Pope
    sun-god which is Lucifer himself
    and spirit-god which is the deity Isis, aka Mary through whom they pray to Lucifer.

    The RCC through the power of their Emperor Constantine created a Religion from the mock word "Christian", which the Gentiles started calling the Early Believers starting in Antioch. It was a mock name, just like we call people Goodie-two-shoes today.

    By 320AD Rome, and the world was being taken over by a new idea that made their gods look like, .. well, to look like exactly what they were, silly idols of wood and stone and some other metals made alive, and kept alive by some of the most outrageous stories behind them, as we know today. Even the Palace employees, and slaves were whispering about Christ's never before heard message, which of course threatened the RCC entire Religion and their gods.

    The Early Believers referred to themselves after Christ; "The Way", and NOT the mock word Christian.
    Look:
    So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
    But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
    And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way.
    But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
    [ Felix Procrastinates ] But when Felix heard these things, having more accurate knowledge of the Way, he adjourned the proceedings and said, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will make a decision on your case.”

    And just as Peter said:
    And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

    The RCC has taken over the Books, added the mock name Christian to their already established pagan gods worshipping Religion, and went out with Constantine's version of the cross, his sword and spread a perverted version of Christ's message leaving cities flowing in blood.

    It's important that you know that, since Jews in General interpret the NT and the teachings of Christ through the Christian Religion erroneous perspective.

    Judaism - Being Jesus was only a man, Plato would say that he had a Form, the perfect Jesus - outside our material realm. A Representation of him, such as his description in the Gospel accounts or an image, would be three times removed from the original Form, since it is a copy of a copy, and so forth. To Plato, we all once lived with the Forms, our soul encompassed them themselves, we were separated from them and brought to earth. . . and can only knew of their existence via recollection since Plato thought he could only discover truth through reason and not through observation by imperfect material objects we see everyday in the world around us. Modern science would appreciate his ideas, but ultimately frown upon them. 

    Interesting how philosophers, and today even quantum theory comes so close in understanding God, .. and then they go and mess it up with either Christianity, or one of the other Religious ideas like Hinduism and Buddhism. If only scientists would take everything we know about the world around us, (which includes what we see of the stars in heaven) and open the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, outside of Religious indoctrination, people would come to know who their Creator God really Is. And better understand His message He gave to us through His son Jesus Christ.

    Judaism -If my memory doesn't fail me, the Demiurge isn't matter, it didn't even create the Form themselves. . . if memory serves me right! They were already there.
    When G-d said, "Let there be. . ." in Genesis, He was in the act of creating the "actuality" of things. Forms are a good idea, I like them myself, but it's not science, and they don't exist in the Torah. The material world G-d created is perfect, we don't need to look outside of it to the Form of Tableness to see what a table is. Aristotle would agree with me.

    I also would agree that the world is perfect the way God created it to be, and even though quantum theory is science, it is governed by preconceived Religious Doctrines like either Christianity and other religions, especially the BB-Evolution Religions.

    We can't see the Big-Picture from inside any box, and Religion, any Religion (I don't mean being religious about like searching for the truth) but Religion will always hold us back from truly knowing God.

    Science (like the Blue Brain Project) actually helped me understand the relation between the physical world, specifically the brain, and the mind. Too bad that all that money, all that study goes only up to the brain, and no further, when it's right there, it's as clear as the Fiery Angel that God talked to Moses through, the interaction between the brain and the mind, but they don't see it. Or they interpret it wrong!

    Anyways, as much as I enjoy talking about all this, I still don't know what your understanding of our Creator God is?

    Thank you, and Shalom.
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    On the Demiurge, yes, I meant the Platonic definition. 

    Secondly, are you a Messianic Jew? The term "Christian" was taken after "Christ" i.e "Messiah." I don't see that much of a difference between Christians and Jews who believe in Jesus, other than terminology.

    You wrote: "Please don't call the Bible, which are the writings of our Prophets and the writings of the Apostles: "Christian Scripture"!  Nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing "Christian" in the Bible is what the RCC added, or changed, and even taken out of Scriptures to reinforce their gods, like the Trinity-gods."

    I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss here. Here's what I meant: The Jewish Bible is complete, we don't need outside help to explain our Torah, and that goes for both the Quran and New Testament. To Orthodox Jews, which I'm apart of, we don't view the "New Covenant" as a divine signal from G-d, simply put, where's the world peace?

    "father-god the Pope
    sun-god which is Lucifer himself
    and spirit-god which is the deity Isis, aka Mary through whom they pray to Lucifer."

    ?????. . . okay lol. . . this is new! Where did you get that from? To my knowledge, this is not the Christian trinity. Father (G-d), Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost (seemingly, G-d's spirit?). Lucifer is a mistranslation in the New Testament, in Isaiah, it simply means Venus. Satan is G-d's friend, he works for Him and never disobeyed Him once in the Hebrew Scriptures. Just read Job, does Satan have dominion over the earth? NO! He must always first get permission from the Creator. This never changes. Read the Talmud, see Jewish tradition, the rabbis were shocked when they saw what Christianity did to this perfect angel. 

    You wrote: "As I enjoy talking about all this, I still don't know what your understanding of our Creator God is?" 

    Could you please elaborate a little? I'm sorry, bad me. If the following is correct, I worship the Jewish G-d, HaShem, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is no savior besides Him! 

    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Judaism said:
    Judaism said:
    @Evidence

    - On the Demiurge, yes, I meant the Platonic definition.

    OK, I understand

    - Secondly, are you a Messianic Jew? 

    No, they believe in a plural god, a deity who lives in the supernatural realm, .. in other words, a - demon's. The only "plural" deified demon that I can find in the Bible is this one:

    Mark 5:6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name (singular) is Legion, for we are many (plural).”

    I am a Jew (according to many Jews) my Mothers name was Rabbi Julianna, Hungarian Jewess turned Old Country Apostolic-Christian-Nazarene.

    - The term "Christian" was taken after "Christ" i.e "Messiah." I don't see that much of a difference between Christians and Jews who believe in Jesus, other than terminology.

    Correct, there is no difference between Gentile Christian, Messianic-Jew, or Jew or Muslim, they all (knowingly or unknowingly worship Lucifer, only through about 40,000 different denominations with their similar individual doctrines.

    I am a Jew who has woke up to the stark reality that I have always followed the Jewish God, the One and Only Possible Infinite. You cannot have anyone besides Infinite. And as we learn from Moses, Infinite is conscious, as He described to Moses as to who He was: "I Am Who I Am"

    Around 320AD, the RCC through the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted a mocking word which the Gentiles in Antioch started calling the Disciples who were of "The Way", which was the Church that Christ through his Apostles established; 'Christian. (as I explained in my previous post)

    You wrote: "Please don't call the Bible, which are the writings of our Prophets and the writings of the Apostles: "Christian Scripture"!  Nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing "Christian" in the Bible is what the RCC added, or changed, and even taken out of Scriptures to reinforce their gods, like the Trinity-gods."

    I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss here. Here's what I meant: The Jewish Bible is complete, we don't need outside help to explain our Torah, and that goes for both the Quran and New Testament. To Orthodox Jews, which I'm apart of, we don't view the "New Covenant" as a divine signal from G-d, simply put, where's the world peace?

    Where is the world peace? It's here, a Spiritual Kingdom that arrived at Pentecost, that for now we can enjoy only in our spirit, but you have to enter it, then you will feel it, since it goes beyond human understanding. (the Romans seen it on the Early Believers of "The Way" as they threw men, women and children to the lions, or burnt them at the stake.

    Please read Hebrews 10 (whole chapter), I will just post this:

    Hebrews 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

    16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them (Jews)
        after those days, declares the Lord:
    I will put my laws on their hearts,
        and write them on their minds,”

    17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

    18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

    I have tried to explain who God is, and who we are, but the world is so carnal minded that they refuse to see/understand this, thanks to Satan's church that has taken the Holy Books and created their own religion from the mocking name "Christian", along with their own gods. They also created the Muslim Religion in hopes of driving out the Jews from the Holy land, but it backfired on them,

    until now!

    With the New Jesuit Pope, the Church of Satan under the mock-name "Christian" defined God as a trinity,

    ..  has brought all her religions together again:

    "father-god the Pope
    sun-god which is Lucifer himself
    and spirit-god which is the deity Isis, aka Mary through whom they pray to Lucifer."

    - ?????. . . okay lol. . . this is new! Where did you get that from? To my knowledge, this is not the Christian trinity. Father (G-d), Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost (seemingly, G-d's spirit?). L


    Have you seen the trinity illuminati Triangle?

    Related image

    No, in the Trinity Doctrine, these are three gods, the father-god, is not the son-god who is not the spirit-god, they are separate plural (many) individuals that make up the idea of God;

    Image result for pic of the trinity triangle
    God in the Illuminati triangle is the eye of Horus/Lucifer 

    Image result for pic of the trinity triangle



    Lucifer is a mistranslation in the New Testament, in Isaiah, it simply means Venus. Satan is G-d's friend, he works for Him and never disobeyed Him once in the Hebrew Scriptures. Just read Job, does Satan have dominion over the earth? NO! He must always first get permission from the Creator. This never changes. Read the Talmud, see Jewish tradition, the rabbis were shocked when they saw what Christianity did to this perfect angel.

    You mean: Once-perfect Angel,  
    read Ezekiel 28 (whole chapter)

    Ezekiel 28:15 You were blameless in your ways
        from the day you were created,
        till unrighteousness was found in you.

    .. and no, the King of Tyra was not perfect, only he was used to show all kings, great and small that no matter how great and high and mighty they become, they can fall just like Lucifer has.

    You wrote: "As I enjoy talking about all this, I still don't know what your understanding of our Creator God is?" 

    Could you please elaborate a little? I'm sorry, bad me. If the following is correct, I worship the Jewish G-d, HaShem, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is no savior besides Him! 

    Yes, as I have shown you that both Jew and Gentile can claim their God is the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob, but unless you know/understand and define who God is, from the Bible and from what we know of the world around us (science), God can be anything and anyone we make Him out to be, and as I have shown you that all religions worship Lucifer as God.

    Yes, He is our Savior, by throwing us a lifeline, sending us His Only Begotten Son "Word" (John 1-, .. John 3:16, .. etc.)

    Shalom.
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    You quote Mark 5:6, but that passage has nothing to do with Satan, but a demon. Again, I'm an Orthodox Jew, and the New Testament, the "Christian Bible" is not something we believe in. 

    You then make a goofy error. . . you expect me to believe you're Jewish, and that your mother's name was Rabbi? Firstly, she must have been Reform, in which the term would then be rabbanite, not a rabbi. How did she become Christian (or if you dislike that term, what should I use?)

    To claim that Muslims worship the Devil (or Lucifer, as you say), is garbage theology. Come on, that's ridiculous. I won't waste my time with this claim again. Secondly, you don't know Hebrew (perhaps that's why you converted?) Lucifer means Venus. Period. It's not a name for anyone. Got it? Let's move on. . . . 

    G-d never told Moses "I Am Who I Am". . . He said, "I will be Who I will be." This suggests to me that you're once again not really Jewish, you're just playing it up. Okay, nice act. Moving on. . . . 

    Constantine what? Seriously? "Christians?" He make it up? Uhhhhhhhhh! Do your research again.

    You wrote: "Where is the world peace? It's here, a Spiritual Kingdom that arrived at Pentecost, that for now we can enjoy only in our spirit, but you have to enter it, then you will feel it, since it goes beyond human understanding."

    Give me a break! This is not what Jeremiah menat! You DON'T know anything about Scripture, especially the Jewish one. 

    ALL JEREMIAH EVER MEANT WAS A PHYSICAL WORLD PEACE, DROP THIS SPIRITUAL CRAP, YOU REINTERPRETING WHAT HE WROTE!!!

    So me ONE verse which denotes what you're saying? It doesn't exist. 

    Then you claim Satan is tricking humanity? SATAN WORKS FOR G-D. PERIOD. STOP READING HEBREWS AND READ JOB!

    You're a conspiracists. I don't waste my time with that silly stiff. the Illuminati, come on? Where you get that from, the Davinci Code?

    I've studied Ezekiel 28 before in depth and I'm happy to announce that you're dead wrong. DEAD WRONG. It doesn't say what you're claiming it does, you're isolating verses to fit your theological needs, and G-d commanded us in Deuteronomy NOT to do this. Again, had you truly been Jewish, you wouldn't have made such a goofy mistake even a five year old boy wouldn't make.  

    Here's a short piece from a paper I wrote on Satan before, enjoy!

    ***

    . . . . Another challenge that needs to be presented to Christians is the correct definition and subjugation of who exactly is the Morning Star.

    Christians will usually point to the hyperbolic prose of Isaiah 14:12 to support their perspective that Satan is indeed a fallen angel. They'll state that a.) this fall took place before the act of creation, or b.) that it will happen at the end of the age (Revelation 20:10). Both views, however poignant and cinematic, are unsounded in biblical fact.

    This is simply because the prophet recognized who the Morning Star was no more less than 11 verses back!

    And if your pastor is correct, then Christians have been led astray into thinking Satan was anything more but a mere man. If you open your Bible back to verse 4, you'll find as clear as day, the following:

    “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say, 'at last the oppressor is stilled, his arrogance is ended!'" (Isaiah 14:4)

    And later, in verse 14:16, “Those who see you shall look at you; shall gaze earnestly at you, 'Is this the man who caused the earth to quake, who wrought havoc among the kingdoms?”

    A slip-up on Isaiah's part? Hardly. Just read the chapter from start to finish, there is never a transitional phrase from one topic to another. The man, in this case, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, is the same man later spoken of in verses 12-14 and is juxtaposed with the planet Venus, whose light shines temporarily before vanishing with the rising sun, hence, a "falling star."

    This is the perfect metaphor for this evil king because historically, he shone only for a brief moment in time, but then ultimately fell in stature with the destruction of the Temple and his earthly deeds. (1)

    Later, we find in Daniel 7:4, how the prophet calls the Babylonian king a "lion" with the "soul of a mortal."

    But what about the name "Lucifer" as translated in the KJV? It doesn't exist in the Hebrew Bible, rather, it is “Hailaile.” (2)

    So why have christians missed this simple clause in their sacred literature? Is someone hiding the truth?

    Following with this thought, we come upon an anecdotal, ask yourself the following: Did Satan ever physically conquer any nation with massive armies? Was/is there world peace after his reign and could this still be if there was an active devil in the world? If this passage has nothing to do with Satan, then did the prophecy already come to pass (see Daniel chapter 5)? Were rival kings awaiting his descent into Sheol after being consumed by maggots and forsaken a tomb? I mean when we get down to it, was Satan the King of Babylon?

    The answers to all these question is a plain and obvious no.

    Then in hindsight, this very verse demolishes the cardinal teachings of the Church on Satan's fall. Without this romanticized dramatization of events, the Fall of Satan and Jesus' remark on Isaiah 14:12 in Luke 10:18 is meaningless. He is therefore proven to be no more acquainted with his own Bible than any of the twelve fishermen who left everything behind to follow him.

    So who is the Morning Star to the readers of the New Testament? It's definitely not Satan. What about Jesus (Revelation 22:16)? The problem with this is that both are called the Morning Star in the New Testament, and thus, there is an apparent contradiction which is devastating to the Gospel's message.

    Compare Isaiah 14:12 (keeping in mind verse 4) with the two christian verses below:

    “How you are fallen from heaven, O morning star! You have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)

    And Jesus said to them in Luke 10:18, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

    (He was quoting Isaiah 14:12 - meaning to say, Satan fell as the Morning Star).

    When compared with:

    “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the Messianic communities. I am the Root and Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star." (Revelation 22:16)

    We have seen however that the Morning Star doesn't reference neither a semi-divine Jesus or an evil angelic Satan, but a man, King Nebuchadnezzar.

    But there is another passage which Christians declare point wholeheartedly to Satan. It is Ezekiel 28:1-25. Though a long chapter, it is key to understanding the role between man and G-d.

    There is one verse in particular which garners much attention, it is verse 13, which state as follows:

    “‘You put the seal on perfection; you were full of wisdom and perfect in beauty; you were in Eden, the garden of G-d.'”

    At first glance, this verse strikes warmly with the concept of a malicious devil, who once dwelled in the Garden of Eden (or translated as the “garden of the mighty ones”), (3) however, this claim is about to go head-first into the tidal waves of context.

    Plainly put, who is G-d talking about? Is it really about some angelic being who strode away from his Creator? Let us once again put this verse back into its original context, in order to do so, we'll have to go all the way back to the very first verse of the chapter because we cannot simply be selective in our theology:

    "The word of Adonai came to me: “Human being [Ezekiel], tell the Prince of Tyre that Adonai says:

       ‘Because you are so proud

       and have said, “I am a god;

       I sit on the throne of G-d,

       surrounded by the sea”;

       but you are a man, not G-d,

       even though you think that you think like G-d.'" (Ezekiel 28:1-2)

    "Man" and "like" are important articles when dissecting this chapter because both radically point somewhere else, and it's miles off from Satan.

    Once again, G-d is distinctly consulting with the prophet concerning a man, and nothing more. This man just happens to be the King of Tyre, (4) as clearly stated in the verse. If he were Satan, we would not have seen the two clauses mentioned above. For any of this to be referencing Satan, there would need to be a comprehensible transition, which is entirely absent in this chapter.

    Plus, I'd also add that Ezekiel 28 is preceded by chapter 27, in which again, these passages are about a man and not a satanic being. Sadly, the city of Tyre (once being an economic powerhouse) was one of Israel's mightiest allies before its descent into evil and unjustified power over her. This is why G-d uses Ezekiel's prophecy to forewarn the King of Tyre of his fall.

    This theme of curses and warnings are present all throughout the Book of Ezekiel, for example, earlier, in chapter 25, we see the Prophet uttering G-d’s curses against other nations, including the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Philistines. Egypt is cursed later in chapter 32. The point is, these chapters are not about Satan, but the curses G-d placed against those who stood as enemies to the chosen people.

    Now that we’ve seen a little context here, let’s go back to our chapter. Verses 14 and 15 in chapter 28 make mention of a certain “cherub,” though Christian translators have mistook this for some kind of archangel, it would behoove them to reconsider that the Hebrew word here does not mean angel, but rather more the likes of a mythical creature with wings, whose height was 10 cubits tall and 5 metres in wingspan (see 1 Kings 6:21 and 2 Chronicles 3:10 for more details). (5)

    So in hindsight, the King of Tyre could not have been an angel, nor a winged creature. But neither was he Satan. Of course Christians would argue that Satan was working behind the scenes, but this argument is full of fallacies as his name is never once mentioned anywhere in the Book of Ezekiel. Moreover, this clause could be applied to any person in the Bible, and as a consequence, every passage would really be focused on Satan as opposed to man’s own actions and the path to a fulfilling repentance. Would this make any sense? Would the Bible teach us anything if we didn’t have free will to choose between good and evil (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)?

    John Calvin, second only to Luther in leaders of the Reformation, concluded with extreme measures that both Ezekiel 28:12-13 and Isaiah 14:12 could not have possibly meant Satan:

    "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians [and Tyre]. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables."

                                                          - Taken from Calvin Commentaries, 7:442                                                                

    It is mind blowing to think that one of the Church's own fathers (and a monstrous anti-Semite) would admit to the truth of the Hebrew Bible.

    Now, please ask yourself the following, then ponder if this is compatible at all with the Christian impression of Satan:

    Was Satan ever a man? G-d then goes on to mention that the King has become wealthy in stature through trade while leaving his people poor, again, does the Devil care for riches as opposed to souls? Did G-d ever sent down enemy nations against him (see chapters 26 and 29 for its fulfillment)? Was Satan previously reduced to ashes for his earthly sins, in other words, utterly destroyed prior to the birth of Jesus as we see the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:7-10, 19 (the Book of Revelation makes it clear that Satan will continue to harass humanity even after his thousand year lockdown)? Moreover, the passage throughout Ezekiel makes mention of two men, the Prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2) and the King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12), so are there two Christian Satans?

    It goes without saying that this chapter is not vague about it's prophecy, it has already passed and the notion that it is perhaps dual in nature is a misjudgment for not the slightest is ever implied.

    Simply put, if any of these verses referred to Satan, you'd think they'd mention his name! Apparently, they don't, and therefore, we're left with no choice than to assume that the prophets spoke against the evil men of their day - the kings' of Babylon and Tyre.

    If Christians would only read these passages in full as a Jew would have in those days, s/he would see clearly through the fog of Church fable.

    ***

    Jesus is not my G-d. And if he's not a trinity, how do you explain him as G-d with HaShem?

    Shalom.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Judaism to Evidence
    You quote Mark 5:6, but that passage has nothing to do with Satan, but a demon. Again, I'm an Orthodox Jew, and the New Testament, the "Christian Bible" is not something we believe in.

    The "Christian" Trinity Doctrine is of a plural "triune" god, I shown you from the Bible who they really worship, a demon/deity, which all work for Satan/Lucifer/the Devil and many other terms describing the once beautiful Fallen One.

    - You then make a goofy error. . . you expect me to believe you're Jewish, and that your mother's name was Rabbi? Firstly, she must have been Reform, in which the term would then be rabbanite, not a rabbi. How did she become Christian (or if you dislike that term, what should I use?)

    Fine, I'm not Jewish, so go tell all the sir name-Rabbi cousins of mine (mothers side) that they didn't have anything to fear during the War, hiding in caves as the Germans past through was just a waste of time.
    She was not a Rabbi, her last name, sir-name was Rabbi. I didn't claim to be Jewish, it's how the ignorant and confused Jews go by, Mothers last name. Oh, and her great Grandpa was actually a Rabbi, not just by last-name.
    My fathers last name was Sabo, meaning Taylor, which is how last names were established way back when, you should know that!?
    Besides, there are far more non-Jews, or those who are considered non-Jews that are actually Jews, than those who claim to be Jews.
    Her other siblings, 3 brothers are atheists, so that shows they are Jews right there.

    She chose to be a Christian, and I don't "dislike the term", please read what I wrote? What I disagree with is the RCC created Christian Religion claiming to be the Church Jesus established through his Apostles, who went by "The Way"   (as I have shown several times already)
    Oh, and my father was a Hungarian Nazi, after the war he took off to Yugoslavia/Croatia/formerly Hungary and married my Mom, .. but I guess since he was not German, he wasn't a Nazi either, right?

    -To claim that Muslims worship the Devil (or Lucifer, as you say), is garbage theology. Come on, that's ridiculous. I won't waste my time with this claim again. Secondly, you don't know Hebrew (perhaps that's why you converted?) Lucifer means Venus. Period. It's not a name for anyone. Got it? Let's move on. . . . 

    OK, lol if you say so!? Just  a thought; The planet Venus sure has a big influence on Jews/Zionists and the World don't it?

     G-d never told Moses "I Am Who I Am". . . He said, "I will be Who I will be." This suggests to me that you're once again not really Jewish, you're just playing it up. Okay, nice act. Moving on. . . . 

    It seems that you completely misunderstand me! You see I would rather join the Nazi skin heads than be labeled a Jew, especially as we see it today, including Tel Aviv  Israel which houses the  1 LGBT homosexual capital of the world.

    --- Tel Aviv is the most gay friendly city, not only in the Middle East but in the entire world. This vibrant city is an undisputed queer capital of the Middle East, It offers a 24/7 non-stop activities, all year round great weather, great food, gay beaches and infinite of gay bars and night clubs.

    Tel Aviv Beach Party

    I told you what we, my Mom, her family and us kids were considered in Europe, and here in the States; 'Jewish'. Besides, my once Nazi-father was an angel compared to my mother, the Jewess Christian.

    I see no difference in "I will be who I will be" and "I Am Who I Am", .since Infinite God is not a being, but the Ground of Being, so He can be whomever He wants to be, in Moses case, He was the Fiery Angel that appeared in a bush, with Jacob He was a man who came to wrestle with him, .. etc.

    - Constantine what? Seriously? "Christians?" He make it up? Uhhhhhhhhh! Do your research again.

    With every passing Post you reveal your A.D. Jewish self. Research what, ..  your Kabbalah? And then what, fly the star of Lucifer Pentagram flag on my house?
    I kindly shown you from both the Bible, and from History of the RCC how Christ's Disciples who were of "The Way" were referred to, or mocked as: "Christians", which suited the RCC and Constantine just fine to use that to create his Christian Religion, with it's truly horrific un-Christ-like history.

    Evidence wrote: "Where is the world peace? It's here, a Spiritual Kingdom that arrived at Pentecost, that for now we can enjoy only in our spirit, but you have to enter it, then you will feel it, since it goes beyond human understanding."

    Give me a break! This is not what Jeremiah menat! You DON'T know anything about Scripture, especially the Jewish one. 

    ALL JEREMIAH EVER MEANT WAS A PHYSICAL WORLD PEACE, DROP THIS SPIRITUAL CRAP, YOU REINTERPRETING WHAT HE WROTE!!!

    Show me ONE verse which denotes what you're saying? It doesn't exist. 

    I can show you from Jerimiah, to Revelation, that the Heavenly Kingdom has come in the Spirit, and we, who worship God who is Spirit can walk in and out of it, until that Great Day of our Lord when He establishes a New World, and New heavens where Gods Light will shine, and not the sun peaking through the chem-trailed clouds upon this Gay Jerusalem.
    Drop the Spiritual crap, .. LOL. You sound like the Pharisees before they had Jesus crucified.

    Then you claim Satan is tricking humanity? SATAN WORKS FOR G-D. PERIOD. STOP READING HEBREWS AND READ JOB!

    So you think God told Lucifer to torture Job, and kill all his children!? Is that what your Kabballah teaches? 

    You're a conspiracists. I don't waste my time with that silly stiff. the Illuminati, come on? Where you get that from, the Davinci Code?

    No, I get it from every day news and advertisement,



    why, what's the Da Vinci code about?

    <to be continued >
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Judaism
    I've studied Ezekiel 28 before in depth and I'm happy to announce that you're dead wrong. DEAD WRONG. It doesn't say what you're claiming it does, you're isolating verses to fit your theological needs, and G-d commanded us in Deuteronomy NOT to do this. Again, had you truly been Jewish, you wouldn't have made such a goofy mistake even a five year old boy wouldn't make.  

    Here's a short piece from a paper I wrote on Satan before, enjoy!

    Yes, both Jews and Christians would say that, (add or take away from the Word of God) but does the Bible say that?

    Isaiah 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Lucifer, son of the morning!
    How you are cut down to the ground,
    You who weakened the nations!

    Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

    See the difference?

    Judaism-Compare Isaiah 14:12 (keeping in mind verse 4) with the two christian verses below:

    “How you are fallen from heaven, O morning star! You have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)

    And Jesus said to them in Luke 10:18, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

    (He was quoting Isaiah 14:12 - meaning to say, Satan fell as the Morning Star).

    Don't 'add' to the Bible!

    "son of the morning" and "Bright and Morning Star"  is different.

    Thank you.

    Anyways,  here is how I understand it:

    Ezekiel 28:11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

    12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God:

    ‘Therefore thus says the Lord God:

    “Because you have set your heart as the heart of a god,
    7 Behold, therefore, I will bring strangers against you,
    The most terrible of the nations;
    And they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom,
    And defile your splendor.
    8 They shall throw you down into the Pit,
    And you shall die the death of the slain
    In the midst of the seas.

    9 “Will you still say before him who slays you,
    ‘I am a god’?
    But you shall be a man, and not a god,
    In the hand of him who slays you.
    10 You shall die the death of the uncircumcised
    By the hand of aliens;
    For I have spoken,” says the Lord God.’”

    The above was the message to the King of Tyra, a man who claimed: "I am a god".

    But these next verses, is a message to the one who the King of Tyra allowed to poses him because of pride, this was to Satan himself:

    Ezekiel 28:11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

    12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him,

    ‘Thus says the Lord God:

    “You were the seal of perfection,
    Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
    13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
    Every precious stone was your covering:
    The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
    Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
    Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
    The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
    Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

    14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
    I established you;
    You were on the holy mountain of God;
    You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
    15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
    Till iniquity was found in you.

    16 “By the abundance of your trading
    You became filled with violence within,
    And you sinned;
    Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
    Out of the mountain of God;
    And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
    From the midst of the fiery stones.

    17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
    You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
    I cast you to the ground,
    I laid you before kings,
    That they might gaze at you.

    18 “You defiled your sanctuaries
    By the multitude of your iniquities,
    By the iniquity of your trading;
    Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
    It devoured you,
    And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
    In the sight of all who saw you.
    19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
    You have become a horror,
    And shall be no more forever.”’”

    and here is the evidence for it:

    Matthew 16:22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”  23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

    Satanic Rebellion Crushed

    Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

    This concludes  Ezekiel 28:19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;

    You have become a horror,
    And shall be no more forever.”’”

    Judaism said: Now that we’ve seen a little context here, let’s go back to our chapter. Verses 14 and 15 in chapter 28 make mention of a certain “cherub,” though Christian translators have mistook this for some kind of archangel, it would behoove them to reconsider that the Hebrew word here does not mean angel, but rather more the likes of a mythical creature with wings, whose height was 10 cubits tall and 5 metres in wingspan (see 1 Kings 6:21 and 2 Chronicles 3:10 for more details). (5)

    So in hindsight, the King of Tyre could not have been an angel, nor a winged creature. But neither was he Satan. Of course Christians would argue that Satan was working behind the scenes, but this argument is full of fallacies as his name is never once mentioned anywhere in the Book of Ezekiel. Moreover, this clause could be applied to any person in the Bible, and as a consequence, every passage would really be focused on Satan as opposed to man’s own actions and the path to a fulfilling repentance. Would this make any sense? Would the Bible teach us anything if we didn’t have free will to choose between good and evil (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)?

    As I said, God had two messages in Ezekiel 28 to give, one was to the King of Tyra; "a man thinking he's a god", and the other to Satan himself; "the anointed cherub who covers" who wanted to be 'like God'!

    Judaism said: John Calvin, second only to Luther in leaders of the Reformation, concluded with extreme measures that both Ezekiel 28:12-13 and Isaiah 14:12 could not have possibly meant Satan:

    "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians [and Tyre]. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.

    I'm sorry, as much as I have learned reading Luther and John Calvin, they were still "Christian", and not of "The Way" the Truth and The Life. They worshipped idols, and held on to the Catholic Trinity doctrine. But we are instructed to:

    Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

    Just like God used Pharaoh to work all His miracles, and show the Israelites  His mighty power, God used the RCC and Constantine created Christians, including Luther, Calvin etc. to spread the Word to the whole world, Just as Jesus prophesied.

    Judaism: Simply put, if any of these verses referred to Satan, you'd think they'd mention his name! Apparently, they don't, and therefore, we're left with no choice than to assume that the prophets spoke against the evil men of their day - the kings' of Babylon and Tyre.

    If Christians would only read these passages in full as a Jew would have in those days, s/he would see clearly through the fog of Church fable.

    ***
    Jesus is not my G-d. And if he's not a trinity, how do you explain him as G-d with HaShem?

    Jesus is not my God either, He is my Lord and Savior, my King of kings and Lord of lords, but most of all, he is my Brother.
    His God is my God. Just as He is one with God, so am I one with God with Him, through Him.
    Once a Child of Israel, but now through the Messiah I am a Child of God. Yes, my Father is God, just as Jesus Father is God.

    Shalom.


  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    ​​Okay. . . I'm lost here. I'll admit it. You claim that the Christian Bible recommends for its followers to worship a Devil? Than what are you saying here about "the way?" Yes, the trinity is false, it came from Nicea, and that's where it will stay.  So are you then saying that Christians are liars? That they say they worship G-d when in reality, behind closed doors, they're on Satan's side (a fictional human construct for evil)?

    You next claim that you're Jewish for sure, I'll believe it, but I find it hard to believe that "Rabbi" could be anything but a title. A surname? Perhaps, I just never heard of it. 

    Here's how "Jewishness" works. We go by the mother, now a Jew can be an atheist, Buddhist, whatever, you're still a Jew. It doesn't matter, it's ethnicity. so those three brothers of here are still Jews. This is in Tanakh buddy.

    The term "Nazi" was political. It's like me saying I'm a democrat, or American via nationality. 

    You're claim about the RCC is right, the original Church would have been the Jerusalem Council via James.  The Catholic Church divorced its roots from Judaism long ago, but that still means there can be no Christians. James' group did not believe in a half-man, half-god. They did not believe in a trinity, or that he ever resurrected from the dead.  Everything came from Paul. Period. Remember, had those Jews been right in worshiping a man as G-d, they why weren't they preserved? Why did the Pharisees win out after Rome's conquest? How come the Messianic Jews are lost to time? You say you're not Christian, but you'll also not a Messianic Jew? I? just want to know what you are? A follower of the way, what does that mean? How is that distinct from Rabbinic Judaism we know today?

    You wrote: " OK, lol if you say so!? Just  a thought; The planet Venus sure has a big influence on Jews/Zionists and the World don't it?"

    You still don't understand Hebrew, right? Lucifer was never a name, it meant Venus. The passage is about how the evil king fell from his throne after having conquered many nations for Babylon. Isaiah was after a man, not some hypothetically demonic being. The concept doesn't exist in the Jewish Bible.

    You say you'd rather be labeled a Nazi, those brutal murders who killed innocent blood - over 6 million - then be considered a Jew. Why? What's wrong with being Jewish? Because of ideology? I support the LGBT community (even though many in my Shul would oppose it). I'm a liberal at heart. Many of these people are geniuses. 

    You then claim that your Nazi father was far more superior to your Jewish mother? END OF CONVERSATION RIGHT THERE. How could you ever dare support them? You see no difference between "I Am what I Am" and "I will be what I will be". . . well, G-d DOES! Yes, we get it, He's not a being, not even a He! The Ein Sof. Infinite. No image. No boundary. But still, he chose to express Himself in just a way, are you going to cross swords with G-d when not needed? 

    G-d is NOT a man. Read your Torah. 

    You sadly, pathetically, mix Kabbalah with devil worship. I'm ashamed of you. You should know well that Kabbalah is not some silly New Age crap. You confuse everything. . . and you don't know your Judaism. 

    You next make the biggest error in history: " I can show you from Jerimiah, to Revelation, that the Heavenly Kingdom has come in the Spirit, and we, who worship God who is Spirit can walk in and out of it, until that Great Day of our Lord when He establishes a New World, and New heavens where Gods Light will shine, and not the sun peaking through the chem-trailed clouds upon this Gay Jerusalem."

    Okay, where? Don't just make assertions. You expect me to find them? Like I'm going to look through Revelations now?

    Fine. I did, and here's what I found. . . and it will be shocking.

    " And I will form a covenant of peace for them, an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them and I will multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary in their midst forever.  And My dwelling place shall be over them, and I will be to them for a G-d, and they shall be to Me as a people.  And the nations shall know that I am Adonai, Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever."

    Ezekiel 37:26-28

    Why do I bother to quote this? Because Revelation 21:22 cites it as a proof-text later, and totally screws it up. It says:

    " I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple."

    Did John not read Ezekiel? How come G-d says one thing, and John another? How come Christians worldwide, even you, miss this central teaching? Perhaps it's because you always look to the New Testament first, without ever bothering with it's "supposed" foundation? 

    That shuts up Christian, or the Way doctrine, forever. I don't know about you, but if it's about choosing between G-d and man, I'm going with the Creator everytime hands down.

    Hence, Ezekiel and Jeremiah are at a disagreement with Revelation, and "the way" is bogus garbage theology which "stole" Judaism and is masquerading as truth. 

    You tell me to drop my pharisaic roots? You drop the way first.

    For context, I wrote: "Then you claim Satan is tricking humanity? SATAN WORKS FOR G-D. PERIOD. STOP READING HEBREWS AND READ JOB!"

    Then you replied: "So you think God told Lucifer to torture Job, and kill all his children!? Is that what your Kabballah teaches?"

    No, that's not Kabbalah, it's the Bible. Don't you know better? Seriously? 

    Again, I cite from my paper on Satan (read it in full for context please):

    ***

    What about the concept of Satan being G-d's archenemy as seen in the gospels? This is one of the largest issues at heart with both religious Christians and Orthodox Jews differing in opinions. Can this be reconciled with the Bible?

    Who is Satan, and what does he want from us?

    Let us once more open our Bible to refute the claim that Satan is no friend of G-d's.

    Firstly, how many times is Satan mentioned in Tanakh? No less than 15 are found (counting all references in the Book of Job as one because it follows one story - this in itself is minimal, numbering at 11). When we then compare that with the New Testament, the proportion is stunning: 35 in all from a book which is a fourth the size of the Hebrew Bible. Once "Devil" is added, the number rises to about 67. Plus, for all those verses which Christian commentators have suggested to imply Satan (i.e., "Beelzebub"/"Baal"), in total, we have well beyond a hundred references. (1)

    Even then, surprisingly enough, when added to those which reference "demons," "devils" or "evil spirits," our references shoot up to an astounding 568.

    It is obvious from the statistics alone that Satan is a far larger character in the New Testament than he is in the Tanakh.

    Secondly, can Satan steal your soul? The Hebrew Bible says no. Where? In Ecclesiastes 12:7.

    "The dust returns to earth, as it was, and the spirit returns to G-d, who gave it!"

    And Ezekiel 18:4,

    "Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die."

    Additionally to this, we have already seen that G-d is the maker of all things evil as a means to test us and give us free will to choose.

    “I [G-d] form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, Adonai, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:5-7)

    “See, I [G-d] have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15)

    The KJV, perhaps one of the worst and unfriendliest of translations to Judaism, unexpectedly translates "evil" in these two verses correctly as רָע (rah). It is interesting to note that most modern Bible translations try to hide this fact by literally changing the text to "destruction" or "woe" so that it reads more like ‘natural disasters’ as opposed to just plain evil. This is a drastic change and is quite different than what can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Therefore, this is definitely "checkmate" in biblical terms as far as Church doctrine in concerned, but where does that leave Satan?

    He is the accuser of man (Psalm 109:6-7 and Job 1:9-22), pointing out our misdeeds and the long awaiting punishment we likely deserve.

    After all, the definition of Satan (2) can be found in Numbers 22:22 to be "an adversary" - (השטן). To Orthodox Jews the world over, this phrase is more of a generic term for what we call the "evil inclination" of man, or in Hebrew, the yetzer hara. It is this same yetzer hara which G-d commanded the serpent (Nachash) to seduce Eve (3) into eating the forbidden fruit. (4)

    Aside from which, Satan can do nothing more. This is because He is only advertising his agency on our behalf, serving as "malach" or messenger (i.e. angel), for G-d. He is not an opposing force, and there is never an instance in the entire Jewish corpus where any of G-d's angels are in direct revolt to Him.

    This very presumption is made no clearer than in the Book of Job.

    Let’s summarize Job’s story for readers unacquainted with him:

    In Job 2:3-6, Satan has to get G-d's permission to do anything. In other words, he is not some supreme being as prescribed in the encounter with Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (4:1-11), nor would he ever be deemed, "the god of this world" who has power and authority over G-d as so vividly described in 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, and John 8:44. (5)

    In the very first passage of the Book of Job, Satan arrives to the Heavenly Court and challenges G-d; he tells him that Job, who appears to be so loyal right now, won't be if You "Stretch forth Your hand and touch his bones and flesh." In other words, Satan provokes G-d, and asks, " Will he not blaspheme You to Your face?"

    G-d accepts the challenge and temporarily allows Satan to steal or kill all of Job's wealth, livestock and ten children in the hopes that he won't curse His Creator.

    But there's a Catch-22 here - Satan can't kill or physically harm Job, at least for the moment.

    And Satan obeys orders, because outside of G-d, he has no independent power of his own.

    After this terrible and traumatic event in Job's life, Satan and G-d reconvene to see the damages, then round two fires up, but this time, Job's health is affected. He develops boils and all kinds of diseases - but still. . . Job will not curse his Maker. (6)

    It is finally then that the accuser is accused and Satan fails - he's lost the bet, and Job's integrity triumphs over evil. This story then serves as an allegorical message: Job’s test, in a way, isn’t unlike our own.

    This very message topples all claims made by the four gospel accounts that Satan is the nemesis of God.

    Then there are a few more accounts which better clear up the fog around Satan's character. (7)

    Zechariah 3:1 (8) is a very special chapter because it shows you how Satan acts only as a prosecutor would in the American judicial system.

    In this passage, Satan is accusing Joshua, the High Priest during the Babylonian Exile, for allowing his sons to marry gentile woman who were unclean (Ezra 10:18 confirms this).

    Hence, for the repayment of his sins, Satan argues that G-d not let him return to Jerusalem from exile.

    "And He showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of Adonai. And Satan was standing on his right, to accuse (satan) him. And Adonai said to Satan: Adonai rebukes you, O Satan; and Adonai shall rebuke you, He who chose Jerusalem. Is this one not a brand plucked from fire?"

    And this was literally so, but don't be confused with Daniel 3:13-28. One of our greatest Sages, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (better known as "Rashi", 1040-1105 CE), noted that Joshua was once thrown into a pit of fire with Ahab, son of Kolaiah and his colleague, but survived. (9)

    Furthermore, G-d attests to the fact that the exile "purified" him so-to-speak.

    Joshua was then commanded by an angel to remove his "filthy garments," symbolizing that he would send those wives away.

    Since Satan is under G-d's jurisdiction, the former has the right to rebuke him - if the latter were, however, an independent being, he wouldn't have never been near G-d to begin with, let alone be told to practically keep quiet.

    What's unique about the Hebrew definition of "satan" is that it can be applied to anything and anyone. Satan is not just an angelic being.

    For example, in 2 Samuel 19:23 (19:22 in a Christian Bible), King David calls the sons of Zeruiah adversaries (or, in Hebrew, “satans”).

    Furthermore, in 1 Samuel 29:4, David is called a "satan" “For he will turn against [become a satan] us during the fight.”

    In 1 Kings, both Hadad and Rezon are called 'satans,' respectfully:

    "And Adonai raised up an adversary (a satan) against Solomon, Hadad, the Edomite; he was of the royal lineage in Edom." (11:14),

    "And G-d raised up against him an adversary (a satan), Rezon, the son of Eliada. . ." (11:23), and "he was an adversary (a satan) to Israel all of Solomon's days. . . ." (11:25).

    And in Psalm 109:6, David again denied his enemies the opportunity to slander his work, saying, "Let an accuser (satan) stand at his right hand. . . ."

    But wait a minute, how can this be? After all, wouldn't any good Christian abhor to anyone being called Satan?

    Rabbi Shalom Shachna haCohen (c. 1510–1558 CE) has the answer. He once said [paraphrasing] that if one seeks to find the correct definition of anything in the Bible, find the first place it appears. The first time "satan" appears is in Numbers 22:22, though it was purposefully mistranslated by Christians in 1611 to mask the truth.

    The story goes like this: Balaam was a non-Jewish prophet who was paid by the wicked King of Moab to curse the Hebrews - since he can't destroy them physically, G-d allows Balaam to go out on the road, but. . . He stops him on the way and pretty much tells Balaam what he's going to say, regardless if he likes it or not. G-d then sends the Malach YWHY (or 'an angel of Adonai', the le-satan) with a sword to taunt Balaam and his two servants. Numbers 22:32 further enlightens this point by again describing the HaSatan, “I have come here to oppose (or to impede - a verb - as to be a satan) you. . . .”

    The next time we see him is in Exodus 12:23, where he is known to us as the 'Angel of Death' (or, 'Mashie', 'the destroyer'). That being said, this angel was still under the control of the G-d of Israel.

    Moreover, the cornerstone to understanding Satan’s role is no more highlighted than in the so-called “conflicting” verses of 2 Samuel 24:5-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-2.

    In the former, it's G-d, whereas in the latter, we again find that it is not simply the 'malach hammashit' (or 'angel who is bringing destruction'), but Satan who is standing against Israel and King David.

    These verses are in straight contradiction, so it first appears.

    But the context is fairly simply. G-d wishes to punish King David for accusing Him of being an insider on Saul's behalf, so He has David enticed to count the heads of the Israeli population (a grave sin in Judaism, see Exodus 30:12-13).

    Now if you're still a Christian, that's it. These two just cannot work because Satan is the archenemy of G-d and won't help Him a bit. However, if Satan actually works for G-d, then it makes perfect sense that G-d would use him to "evoke" David to sin (see 2 Samuel 24:1). That's just his occupation, it’s his job description. It doesn't mean he's evil.

    This, to Christians, was just another contentious theme with a terrible sales pitch. The fact that G-d may even use Satan, or even worse, be called a ‘Satan’ (as in being an adversary to David) and impose His will on others was terrifying to the Church's claim of a demonic being eternally separated from the L-RD of Hosts. This was a contagious cough which had to be smashed.

    Overall, the Judaica Encyclopedia does an excellent job of summing it all up, it describes Satan in the following way:

    "He (Satan) is clearly subordinate to G-d, a member of His suite (Heb. benei ha-elokim), who is unable to act without His permission. Nowhere is he in any sense a rival of G-d."

    To many in the Church, the notion that Satan was 'programed' so-to-speak to serve G-d is just one of the many reasons why they chose to reject the validity of the G-d of the Bible.

    --------------

    Footnotes:

    1. In Paul's writings, Satan appears no less than 7 times and never does anything more than thwart with the salvation of Christians. But later, when we read the gospels (coming after Paul), we see him constantly at odds with Jesus (Luke 4:6). In effect, Christianity stole Judaism's model, and twisted it to such a degree as to make it appear very, very dualistic and unrecognizable.

    2. "Satan" in Hebrew is "HaSatan" (or simply, "the satan") - this is because modern translations no longer attach the definite article. 

    Only in the Book of Job do we finally see him depicted as Satan, being the author used a proper-noun to describe this character. But seriously, this is no different than saying:

    "One day, the Court went in session, and along with the Judge, came the jury, witnesses, and the Persecutor."

    Now, this persecutor has a name, this in itself is evident. It is the same with Satan - the angel's name is unknown to us and to my knowledge, we don't find it in the Talmud either. This is because of the above definition.

    To Christians however, "Satan" and the "Devil" are interchangeable.

    Regardless, the Satan depicted in the Book of Job is not the Satan, the fallen angel of the New Testament, based on the fact that there’s a definite article.

    3. Why do Jews disagree with Christians on the matter of the Serpent? Because G-d said "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31), and there is no other way to explain this other than. . . everything, snakes included, were very good!

    The rabbis had nothing the fret about, hence, they concurred with Scripture that if everything was supposedly "very good" until Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit, than even the Serpent (and the heavily Christian embellished Satan, to that effect) must have been good.

    The only thing that disrupted this model was the yetzer hara, the evil inclination (i.e., ego and ambition which permits virtue and good deeds) of man based off his ability to perform free will.

    So what would the world be like if there were no sin? An example of this would be the following: if there were no sin in the world, no one would commit adultery and then be offered the chance to redeem themselves, or in the words of Rabbi Michael Skobac, "The opposite sex would look like a sack of potatoes."

    Or,

    "A pile of $100,000 [might as well be] a pile of dirt."

    There wouldn't be anything to work for, nothing to get better at, life would become very boring. Is this what the G-d of Israel had in mind? Furthermore, what kind of a test would this be? G-d had no interest in making it "easy" for us, He wants to see if we're worth it, and not give us a free Jesus pass called the "ultimate salvation package to heaven, first class," no!

    It doesn't matter how well Satan hides the repercussions from us, we know the penalty of sin - but in a world where there would be no temptation to do evil would be devastating for mankind.

    The notion of sin is everlasting in Judaism, unlike the Christian apocalypse and thousand year reign, sin is an eternal threat to the Jewish soul, even after the Messiah comes. Ezekiel 45:17-22 tells us that he will offer sacrifices for his (and the peoples') unintentional sins.

    Furthermore, death will not end (Ezekiel 37:25), as the Messiah will pass on his inheritance to his children.

    So how will there be perfect peace on earth with a world still full of sin? Man will grow more civilized and refined and see the illogical nature of war - plus, in a world where everyone knows the name of G-d (yet, see Zechariah 14:16-17 for those who will sin against G-d regardless), who would ever wish to sin knowing the full penalty of it?

    This, on the other hand, doesn't mean man cannot free himself from sin. An example of this can be seen early in the Bible when one man chose to disobey G-d and chained himself off all righteousness,

    “And Adonai said to Cain, 'Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be forgiven? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you can rule over it.'” (Genesis 4:6-7)

    This is from the Creator of heaven and earth Himself. According to Him, we could overcome the yetzer hara (ego/sin), it’s just a matter of choosing between right and wrong, but if we follow the Torah, and choose wisely, we will overcome our greatest fears, and rise above our temptations, in obedient service to G-d. And this is where true salvation can be found.

    In conclusion, the myth that we are all eternally created in a state of sin has just been dispelled forever.

    4. The snake is considered to be a "wild animal" (Genesis 3:1) and its legs were taken away from it as punishment.

    But was Satan ever anything more than a serpent?

    Only in the Book of Revelation (12:9, 20:2) do we find the author comparing the two, along with other equivalent and mythical beasts such as dragons and monsters.

    What's compelling is that Luke 24:39 entirely contradicts the view prescribed in Revelation.

    But Martin Luther makes a rash attempt to rescuer Satan by proclaiming:

    "Let us therefore establish in the first place that the serpent is a real serpent, but one that has been entered and taken over by Satan."

    -Taken from Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 1, ed. p. 185 

    But where is this ever stated in Tanakh? That's right, nowhere. Secondly, even if it were true, is G-d an for punishing the serpent while letting Stan off scott free? 

    5. Other verses which either a.) describe Satan having power over the earth, or b.) that he is an independent being outside from G-d's control, are John 6:11, 8:44, 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 1 John 3:8, 2 Timothy 2:26, and Acts 26:18.

    Moreover, the Interpreter's Bible commentary has this to say on 2 Corinthians 4:4:

    "Paul sees this world as a battleground in which Satan and his hosts contend with God and his forces for the lives of men."

    We know that the early Christian authors of the gospels did in fact view Satan as a separate entity or god. This is because of the Greek noun "theos," which means god as seen in all the above verses in their original translation. Had the gospel writers wanted to convey a different message - that Satan wasn't on the same plane as G-d, they would not have chosen that noun, it is as simple as that.

    Now ask yourself, is this the definition of true monotheism? Two gods battling it out for the lives of men?

    Judaism and the G-d of the Bible are very diametrically opposed to this.

    Interesting enough, we find more harmony with the apocryphal writings than with the New Testament. For example, in the Book of Jubilees, 'Mastema' or 'the one (angel) who persecutes evil,' has to request permission from G-d to punish mortal man. We however see a quick change to this in the Book of Enoch, where Satan is once again one of the archangels who rebels against G-d. Then in The Life of Adam and Eve, Satan disobeys G-d and is sentenced to earth, where he haunts humanity to this day.

    The Quran latter adopted this theme into its own account of Satan's downfall.

    6. As a side note to this, both the Jewish and Christian Bibles are incompatible because in Job 1:3, we see that G-d calls Job "righteous" and "blameless" in His ways:

    "And Adonai said to the Satan: Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears G-d and turns away from evil?"

    G-d is telling us in that Job has done no evil. Though to Paul, the concept of anyone being “good” only sounds good. To Paul and the early Church, such a thought wouldn't have even dared cross their mind, in fact, it is inconceivable for the Christian mindset to call anyone righteous. Why? Because in Romans 3:23, we find that such a thing would have been impossible to accomplish, let alone deemed heretical at best.

    We find the same thing with Abraham in Genesis 26:5 and 18:19. G-d tells us that Abraham was "righteous." This is again in direct violation to Romans 3:23.

    "For it makes no difference whether one is a Jew or Gentile, since all have sinned and come short to the glory of God."

    7. In the Talmud (Bava Batra 16a), we're told that when Satan got wind of Job’s obedience to G-d, he kissed his Maker’s feet - in other words, Satan was so happy to be proven wrong!

    The Talmud further characterizes Satan's role on heaven and earth:

    "He [Satan] descends to this world and misleads a person into sinning. He then ascends to Heaven, levels accusations against that very sinner, and inflames G-d’s anger against him. He then receives permission to act and takes away the sinner’s soul as punishment."

    Latter, we find that the rabbis sympathized with him:

    "Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Satan’s suffering was more difficult than that of Job. This can be explained by means of a parable involving a servant whose master said to him: break the barrel [tempt the person to sin] but save its wine [protect him/her from sinning]. Here too, G-d told the Satan that he could do whatever he liked short of taking Job’s life, and that limitation caused Satan to suffer. Reish Lakish says: Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them. . . .

    If they had viewed Satan as an evil angel in rebellion to G-d, I assure you, the rabbis would have been silent on this point. Since, however, Jews have always viewed him as G-d's blue collar angel, it is only fitting to feel pity for such a creature.

    8. It is interesting to note how some Christians have mistook "The Angle of Adonai" in Zechariah 3:1-4 to be Jesus. I believe there is a simple answer to this claim.

    If the "Angel of Adonai" was indeed referring to Jesus, then why not explicitly say so? Why not just write the Hebrew version for Jesus (Yeshua)? Why call him an angel? Jesus was never an angel and the gospels sure had no issue calling their Messiah by name, so again, why does G-d?

    Zechariah, like Isaiah, can sometimes be hard to understand if you haven't read the Bible in full, which means, if a person would happen to open up their Bible for the first time to Zechariah chapter 3, they'd have no idea what was going on. This is because one is forced to draw conclusions from the surrounding books of the Bible for Zechariah to make any sense. In plain English, the prophet is hoping you've read your Bible, so you'll know all the clues and references he's going to make in advance.

    So let’s examine this passage. Remember Job 1:1, where Satan stood in a Heavenly Court? It's the same here in Zechariah 3:1. Zechariah is taken up into a vision by the "Angel of Adonai" where he is confronted with Satan in the act of accusing Joshua. Now, angels can have human form, this is because they've done it before, particularly in Genesis 18 and 19, and also in the Talmud.

    Let’s also recall that this vision follows the previous one - though it is entirely new and one of eight in total.

    We know G-d is speaking, as can be seen in verse 3:2, this is not to be confused with the Angel or Jesus. This is an unanimous consensus between both sides of the divide.

    If we look back into Daniel, we find that both prophets lived in a time where prophecy dropped extremely low, in this time, prophecy as we know it, was dying because of Israel's sins. Prophecy can only exist when the majority of Jews are living in Israel, and by majority, I mean like 99% of them. The second criteria for prophethood is from a letter written by Moses Maimonides to the Jews at Yemen, where he cites tradition:

    "Shortly before the messianic era, prophecy will return to the Jewish people.”

    Without these statuses, prophecy is exterminated while we are in exile.

    So when Zechariah was prophesying, he was doing it through visions and dreams, G-d didn't go face-to-face with him like He had done with Moses or Abraham.

    So what is the overall context here? The Jews are returning from their exile, the 70 weeks are over, most scholars have roughly estimated that the first wave of Jews (which made up approximately 42,000 souls) went to rebuild the Temple. But the people needed a leader, so they elected Joshua, the nephew of Ezra.

    Now Satan (symbolizing Joshua’s enemies) is not happy about this. He tells G-d that Joshua's got some sort of "deficiency" and is unfit to lead. Well, G-d rebukes him and Satan's out the door so-to-speak. Rebuke in Hebrew means to "leave," or to be "pushed out." So essentially, G-d is commanding Satan to leave the Heavenly Court, He'll decide this case on His own. This is not to say however, that G-d is against Satan in any shape or form.

    Now we get to the good stuff. Does the Angel take away the sins of Joshua? Christians say yes. If you see it that way, then of course it's Jesus, who else can forgive sin other than G-d?

    But Jews see it another way, and this view is more accurate to what the text is really saying.

    Read verse 3:3-4, what is going on here? Is the Angel forgiving Joshua of his sins? No. Joshua isn't here for his sins, he's here for his filthy "garment." Garment and sins are not the same.

    This is because Joshua did not commit any sins, his sons did, and the prophet Ezekiel tells us that a father cannot be indicted for the sins of his sons (Ezekiel 18:20-23).

    But what about the passage which precedes soon after? "And he [the angel] raised his voice and said to those standing before him, saying, 'Take the filthy garments off him.' And he said to him, 'See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I have clad you with clean garments.'"

    Rashi (1040-1105 CE) , one of Judaism's top rabbis and biblical scholars, commented on the symbolism beyond spiritual garments: "This is to be explained according to the Targum: He had sons who had married women who were unfit [to marry into] the priesthood, and he was punished because he did not interfere with the [sons' marriages]. . . . [The Angel said:] 'take the filthy garments off him. Let his sons separate from their wives, and he will be forgiven [by G-d].'

    Rashi continues to note: "A change of beautiful garments; i.e., merits [or good deeds]. Since he compared the iniquity to filthy garments, he [then] compares the merit to clean garments; beautiful, white garments."

    In short, these garments are not sins, and Jesus again has no place here.

    9. Aggada - Helek Helek - (Sanh. 93a, T.B.).

    ***

    Me: "You're a conspiracists. I don't waste my time with that silly stiff. the Illuminati, come on? Where you get that from, the Davinci Code?"

    You: "No, I get it from every day news and advertisement"

    Then you go one to present a video about Satan stealing souls.

    Me again: "What can I say? Do you also believe that Elvis is still alive, or that the moon is made up of blue cheese? Perhaps the earth is flat, the Holocaust is a myth, and jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams?"

    Come on buddy, let's get back to reality here. The Devil can't steal your soul any more than I can. 

    And if you believe in all the crap you choose to believe in, you're not a Jew.
    Evidence
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Okay. . . I'm lost here. I'll admit it. You claim that the Christian Bible recommends for its followers to worship a Devil? Than what are you saying here about "the way?" Yes, the trinity is false, it came from Nicea, and that's where it will stay.  So are you then saying that Christians are liars? That they say they worship G-d when in reality, behind closed doors, they're on Satan's side (a fictional human construct for evil)?

    You next claim that you're Jewish for sure, I'll believe it, but I find it hard to believe that "Rabbi" could be anything but a title. A surname? Perhaps, I just never heard of it. 

    Here's how "Jewishness" works. We go by the mother, now a Jew can be an atheist, Buddhist, whatever, you're still a Jew. It doesn't matter, it's ethnicity. so those three brothers of here are still Jews. This is in Tanakh buddy.

    The term "Nazi" was political. It's like me saying I'm a democrat, or American via nationality. 

    You're claim about the RCC is right, the original Church would have been the Jerusalem Council via James.  The Catholic Church divorced its roots from Judaism long ago, but that still means there can be no Christians. James' group did not believe in a half-man, half-god. They did not believe in a trinity, or that he ever resurrected from the dead.  Everything came from Paul. Period. Remember, had those Jews been right in worshiping a man as G-d, they why weren't they preserved? Why did the Pharisees win out after Rome's conquest? How come the Messianic Jews are lost to time? You say you're not Christian, but you'll also not a Messianic Jew? I? just want to know what you are? A follower of the way, what does that mean? How is that distinct from Rabbinic Judaism we know today?

    You wrote: " OK, lol if you say so!? Just  a thought; The planet Venus sure has a big influence on Jews/Zionists and the World don't it?"

    You still don't understand Hebrew, right? Lucifer was never a name, it meant Venus. The passage is about how the evil king fell from his throne after having conquered many nations for Babylon. Isaiah was after a man, not some hypothetically demonic being. The concept doesn't exist in the Jewish Bible.

    You say you'd rather be labeled a Nazi, those brutal murders who killed innocent blood - over 6 million - then be considered a Jew. Why? What's wrong with being Jewish? Because of ideology? I support the LGBT community (even though many in my Shul would oppose it). I'm a liberal at heart. Many of these people are geniuses. 

    You then claim that your Nazi father was far more superior to your Jewish mother? END OF CONVERSATION RIGHT THERE. How could you ever dare support them? You see no difference between "I Am what I Am" and "I will be what I will be". . . well, G-d DOES! Yes, we get it, He's not a being, not even a He! The Ein Sof. Infinite. No image. No boundary. But still, he chose to express Himself in just a way, are you going to cross swords with G-d when not needed? 

    G-d is NOT a man. Read your Torah. 

    You sadly, pathetically, mix Kabbalah with devil worship. I'm ashamed of you. You should know well that Kabbalah is not some silly New Age crap. You confuse everything. . . and you don't know your Judaism. 

    You next make the biggest error in history: " I can show you from Jerimiah, to Revelation, that the Heavenly Kingdom has come in the Spirit, and we, who worship God who is Spirit can walk in and out of it, until that Great Day of our Lord when He establishes a New World, and New heavens where Gods Light will shine, and not the sun peaking through the chem-trailed clouds upon this Gay Jerusalem."

    Okay, where? Don't just make assertions. You expect me to find them? Like I'm going to look through Revelations now?

    Fine. I did, and here's what I found. . . and it will be shocking.

    " And I will form a covenant of peace for them, an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them and I will multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary in their midst forever.  And My dwelling place shall be over them, and I will be to them for a G-d, and they shall be to Me as a people.  And the nations shall know that I am Adonai, Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever."

    Ezekiel 37:26-28

    Why do I bother to quote this? Because Revelation 21:22 cites it as a proof-text later, and totally screws it up. It says:

    " I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple."

    Did John not read Ezekiel? How come G-d says one thing, and John another? How come Christians worldwide, even you, miss this central teaching? Perhaps it's because you always look to the New Testament first, without ever bothering with it's "supposed" foundation? 

    That shuts up Christian, or the Way doctrine, forever. I don't know about you, but if it's about choosing between G-d and man, I'm going with the Creator everytime hands down.

    Hence, Ezekiel and Jeremiah are at a disagreement with Revelation, and "the way" is bogus garbage theology which "stole" Judaism and is masquerading as truth. 

    You tell me to drop my pharisaic roots? You drop the way first.

    For context, I wrote: "Then you claim Satan is tricking humanity? SATAN WORKS FOR G-D. PERIOD. STOP READING HEBREWS AND READ JOB!"

    Then you replied: "So you think God told Lucifer to torture Job, and kill all his children!? Is that what your Kabballah teaches?"

    No, that's not Kabbalah, it's the Bible. Don't you know better? Seriously? 

    Again, I cite from my paper on Satan (read it in full for context please):

    ***

    What about the concept of Satan being G-d's archenemy as seen in the gospels? This is one of the largest issues at heart with both religious Christians and Orthodox Jews differing in opinions. Can this be reconciled with the Bible?

    Who is Satan, and what does he want from us?

    Let us once more open our Bible to refute the claim that Satan is no friend of G-d's.

    Firstly, how many times is Satan mentioned in Tanakh? No less than 15 are found (counting all references in the Book of Job as one because it follows one story - this in itself is minimal, numbering at 11). When we then compare that with the New Testament, the proportion is stunning: 35 in all from a book which is a fourth the size of the Hebrew Bible. Once "Devil" is added, the number rises to about 67. Plus, for all those verses which Christian commentators have suggested to imply Satan (i.e., "Beelzebub"/"Baal"), in total, we have well beyond a hundred references. (1)

    Even then, surprisingly enough, when added to those which reference "demons," "devils" or "evil spirits," our references shoot up to an astounding 568.

    It is obvious from the statistics alone that Satan is a far larger character in the New Testament than he is in the Tanakh.

    Secondly, can Satan steal your soul? The Hebrew Bible says no. Where? In Ecclesiastes 12:7.

    "The dust returns to earth, as it was, and the spirit returns to G-d, who gave it!"

    And Ezekiel 18:4,

    "Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die."

    Additionally to this, we have already seen that G-d is the maker of all things evil as a means to test us and give us free will to choose.

    “I [G-d] form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, Adonai, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:5-7)

    “See, I [G-d] have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15)

    The KJV, perhaps one of the worst and unfriendliest of translations to Judaism, unexpectedly translates "evil" in these two verses correctly as רָע (rah). It is interesting to note that most modern Bible translations try to hide this fact by literally changing the text to "destruction" or "woe" so that it reads more like ‘natural disasters’ as opposed to just plain evil. This is a drastic change and is quite different than what can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Therefore, this is definitely "checkmate" in biblical terms as far as Church doctrine in concerned, but where does that leave Satan?

    He is the accuser of man (Psalm 109:6-7 and Job 1:9-22), pointing out our misdeeds and the long awaiting punishment we likely deserve.

    After all, the definition of Satan (2) can be found in Numbers 22:22 to be "an adversary" - (השטן). To Orthodox Jews the world over, this phrase is more of a generic term for what we call the "evil inclination" of man, or in Hebrew, the yetzer hara. It is this same yetzer hara which G-d commanded the serpent (Nachash) to seduce Eve (3) into eating the forbidden fruit. (4)

    Aside from which, Satan can do nothing more. This is because He is only advertising his agency on our behalf, serving as "malach" or messenger (i.e. angel), for G-d. He is not an opposing force, and there is never an instance in the entire Jewish corpus where any of G-d's angels are in direct revolt to Him.

    This very presumption is made no clearer than in the Book of Job.

    Let’s summarize Job’s story for readers unacquainted with him:

    In Job 2:3-6, Satan has to get G-d's permission to do anything. In other words, he is not some supreme being as prescribed in the encounter with Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (4:1-11), nor would he ever be deemed, "the god of this world" who has power and authority over G-d as so vividly described in 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, and John 8:44. (5)

    In the very first passage of the Book of Job, Satan arrives to the Heavenly Court and challenges G-d; he tells him that Job, who appears to be so loyal right now, won't be if You "Stretch forth Your hand and touch his bones and flesh." In other words, Satan provokes G-d, and asks, " Will he not blaspheme You to Your face?"

    G-d accepts the challenge and temporarily allows Satan to steal or kill all of Job's wealth, livestock and ten children in the hopes that he won't curse His Creator.

    But there's a Catch-22 here - Satan can't kill or physically harm Job, at least for the moment.

    And Satan obeys orders, because outside of G-d, he has no independent power of his own.

    After this terrible and traumatic event in Job's life, Satan and G-d reconvene to see the damages, then round two fires up, but this time, Job's health is affected. He develops boils and all kinds of diseases - but still. . . Job will not curse his Maker. (6)

    It is finally then that the accuser is accused and Satan fails - he's lost the bet, and Job's integrity triumphs over evil. This story then serves as an allegorical message: Job’s test, in a way, isn’t unlike our own.

    This very message topples all claims made by the four gospel accounts that Satan is the nemesis of God.

    Then there are a few more accounts which better clear up the fog around Satan's character. (7)

    Zechariah 3:1 (8) is a very special chapter because it shows you how Satan acts only as a prosecutor would in the American judicial system.

    In this passage, Satan is accusing Joshua, the High Priest during the Babylonian Exile, for allowing his sons to marry gentile woman who were unclean (Ezra 10:18 confirms this).

    Hence, for the repayment of his sins, Satan argues that G-d not let him return to Jerusalem from exile.

    "And He showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of Adonai. And Satan was standing on his right, to accuse (satan) him. And Adonai said to Satan: Adonai rebukes you, O Satan; and Adonai shall rebuke you, He who chose Jerusalem. Is this one not a brand plucked from fire?"

    And this was literally so, but don't be confused with Daniel 3:13-28. One of our greatest Sages, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (better known as "Rashi", 1040-1105 CE), noted that Joshua was once thrown into a pit of fire with Ahab, son of Kolaiah and his colleague, but survived. (9)

    Furthermore, G-d attests to the fact that the exile "purified" him so-to-speak.

    Joshua was then commanded by an angel to remove his "filthy garments," symbolizing that he would send those wives away.

    Since Satan is under G-d's jurisdiction, the former has the right to rebuke him - if the latter were, however, an independent being, he wouldn't have never been near G-d to begin with, let alone be told to practically keep quiet.

    What's unique about the Hebrew definition of "satan" is that it can be applied to anything and anyone. Satan is not just an angelic being.

    For example, in 2 Samuel 19:23 (19:22 in a Christian Bible), King David calls the sons of Zeruiah adversaries (or, in Hebrew, “satans”).

    Furthermore, in 1 Samuel 29:4, David is called a "satan" “For he will turn against [become a satan] us during the fight.”

    In 1 Kings, both Hadad and Rezon are called 'satans,' respectfully:

    "And Adonai raised up an adversary (a satan) against Solomon, Hadad, the Edomite; he was of the royal lineage in Edom." (11:14),

    "And G-d raised up against him an adversary (a satan), Rezon, the son of Eliada. . ." (11:23), and "he was an adversary (a satan) to Israel all of Solomon's days. . . ." (11:25).

    And in Psalm 109:6, David again denied his enemies the opportunity to slander his work, saying, "Let an accuser (satan) stand at his right hand. . . ."

    But wait a minute, how can this be? After all, wouldn't any good Christian abhor to anyone being called Satan?

    Rabbi Shalom Shachna haCohen (c. 1510–1558 CE) has the answer. He once said [paraphrasing] that if one seeks to find the correct definition of anything in the Bible, find the first place it appears. The first time "satan" appears is in Numbers 22:22, though it was purposefully mistranslated by Christians in 1611 to mask the truth.

    The story goes like this: Balaam was a non-Jewish prophet who was paid by the wicked King of Moab to curse the Hebrews - since he can't destroy them physically, G-d allows Balaam to go out on the road, but. . . He stops him on the way and pretty much tells Balaam what he's going to say, regardless if he likes it or not. G-d then sends the Malach YWHY (or 'an angel of Adonai', the le-satan) with a sword to taunt Balaam and his two servants. Numbers 22:32 further enlightens this point by again describing the HaSatan, “I have come here to oppose (or to impede - a verb - as to be a satan) you. . . .”

    The next time we see him is in Exodus 12:23, where he is known to us as the 'Angel of Death' (or, 'Mashie', 'the destroyer'). That being said, this angel was still under the control of the G-d of Israel.

    Moreover, the cornerstone to understanding Satan’s role is no more highlighted than in the so-called “conflicting” verses of 2 Samuel 24:5-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-2.

    In the former, it's G-d, whereas in the latter, we again find that it is not simply the 'malach hammashit' (or 'angel who is bringing destruction'), but Satan who is standing against Israel and King David.

    These verses are in straight contradiction, so it first appears.

    But the context is fairly simply. G-d wishes to punish King David for accusing Him of being an insider on Saul's behalf, so He has David enticed to count the heads of the Israeli population (a grave sin in Judaism, see Exodus 30:12-13).

    Now if you're still a Christian, that's it. These two just cannot work because Satan is the archenemy of G-d and won't help Him a bit. However, if Satan actually works for G-d, then it makes perfect sense that G-d would use him to "evoke" David to sin (see 2 Samuel 24:1). That's just his occupation, it’s his job description. It doesn't mean he's evil.

    This, to Christians, was just another contentious theme with a terrible sales pitch. The fact that G-d may even use Satan, or even worse, be called a ‘Satan’ (as in being an adversary to David) and impose His will on others was terrifying to the Church's claim of a demonic being eternally separated from the L-RD of Hosts. This was a contagious cough which had to be smashed.

    Overall, the Judaica Encyclopedia does an excellent job of summing it all up, it describes Satan in the following way:

    "He (Satan) is clearly subordinate to G-d, a member of His suite (Heb. benei ha-elokim), who is unable to act without His permission. Nowhere is he in any sense a rival of G-d."

    To many in the Church, the notion that Satan was 'programed' so-to-speak to serve G-d is just one of the many reasons why they chose to reject the validity of the G-d of the Bible.

    --------------

    Footnotes:

    1. In Paul's writings, Satan appears no less than 7 times and never does anything more than thwart with the salvation of Christians. But later, when we read the gospels (coming after Paul), we see him constantly at odds with Jesus (Luke 4:6). In effect, Christianity stole Judaism's model, and twisted it to such a degree as to make it appear very, very dualistic and unrecognizable.

    2. "Satan" in Hebrew is "HaSatan" (or simply, "the satan") - this is because modern translations no longer attach the definite article. 

    Only in the Book of Job do we finally see him depicted as Satan, being the author used a proper-noun to describe this character. But seriously, this is no different than saying:

    "One day, the Court went in session, and along with the Judge, came the jury, witnesses, and the Persecutor."

    Now, this persecutor has a name, this in itself is evident. It is the same with Satan - the angel's name is unknown to us and to my knowledge, we don't find it in the Talmud either. This is because of the above definition.

    To Christians however, "Satan" and the "Devil" are interchangeable.

    Regardless, the Satan depicted in the Book of Job is not the Satan, the fallen angel of the New Testament, based on the fact that there’s a definite article.

    3. Why do Jews disagree with Christians on the matter of the Serpent? Because G-d said "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31), and there is no other way to explain this other than. . . everything, snakes included, were very good!

    The rabbis had nothing the fret about, hence, they concurred with Scripture that if everything was supposedly "very good" until Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit, than even the Serpent (and the heavily Christian embellished Satan, to that effect) must have been good.

    The only thing that disrupted this model was the yetzer hara, the evil inclination (i.e., ego and ambition which permits virtue and good deeds) of man based off his ability to perform free will.

    So what would the world be like if there were no sin? An example of this would be the following: if there were no sin in the world, no one would commit adultery and then be offered the chance to redeem themselves, or in the words of Rabbi Michael Skobac, "The opposite sex would look like a sack of potatoes."

    Or,

    "A pile of $100,000 [might as well be] a pile of dirt."

    There wouldn't be anything to work for, nothing to get better at, life would become very boring. Is this what the G-d of Israel had in mind? Furthermore, what kind of a test would this be? G-d had no interest in making it "easy" for us, He wants to see if we're worth it, and not give us a free Jesus pass called the "ultimate salvation package to heaven, first class," no!

    It doesn't matter how well Satan hides the repercussions from us, we know the penalty of sin - but in a world where there would be no temptation to do evil would be devastating for mankind.

    The notion of sin is everlasting in Judaism, unlike the Christian apocalypse and thousand year reign, sin is an eternal threat to the Jewish soul, even after the Messiah comes. Ezekiel 45:17-22 tells us that he will offer sacrifices for his (and the peoples') unintentional sins.

    Furthermore, death will not end (Ezekiel 37:25), as the Messiah will pass on his inheritance to his children.

    So how will there be perfect peace on earth with a world still full of sin? Man will grow more civilized and refined and see the illogical nature of war - plus, in a world where everyone knows the name of G-d (yet, see Zechariah 14:16-17 for those who will sin against G-d regardless), who would ever wish to sin knowing the full penalty of it?

    This, on the other hand, doesn't mean man cannot free himself from sin. An example of this can be seen early in the Bible when one man chose to disobey G-d and chained himself off all righteousness,

    “And Adonai said to Cain, 'Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be forgiven? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you can rule over it.'” (Genesis 4:6-7)

    This is from the Creator of heaven and earth Himself. According to Him, we could overcome the yetzer hara (ego/sin), it’s just a matter of choosing between right and wrong, but if we follow the Torah, and choose wisely, we will overcome our greatest fears, and rise above our temptations, in obedient service to G-d. And this is where true salvation can be found.

    In conclusion, the myth that we are all eternally created in a state of sin has just been dispelled forever.

    4. The snake is considered to be a "wild animal" (Genesis 3:1) and its legs were taken away from it as punishment.

    But was Satan ever anything more than a serpent?

    Only in the Book of Revelation (12:9, 20:2) do we find the author comparing the two, along with other equivalent and mythical beasts such as dragons and monsters.

    What's compelling is that Luke 24:39 entirely contradicts the view prescribed in Revelation.

    But Martin Luther makes a rash attempt to rescuer Satan by proclaiming:

    "Let us therefore establish in the first place that the serpent is a real serpent, but one that has been entered and taken over by Satan."

    -Taken from Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 1, ed. p. 185 

    But where is this ever stated in Tanakh? That's right, nowhere. Secondly, even if it were true, is G-d an for punishing the serpent while letting Stan off scott free? 

    5. Other verses which either a.) describe Satan having power over the earth, or b.) that he is an independent being outside from G-d's control, are John 6:11, 8:44, 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 1 John 3:8, 2 Timothy 2:26, and Acts 26:18.

    Moreover, the Interpreter's Bible commentary has this to say on 2 Corinthians 4:4:

    "Paul sees this world as a battleground in which Satan and his hosts contend with God and his forces for the lives of men."

    We know that the early Christian authors of the gospels did in fact view Satan as a separate entity or god. This is because of the Greek noun "theos," which means god as seen in all the above verses in their original translation. Had the gospel writers wanted to convey a different message - that Satan wasn't on the same plane as G-d, they would not have chosen that noun, it is as simple as that.

    Now ask yourself, is this the definition of true monotheism? Two gods battling it out for the lives of men?

    Judaism and the G-d of the Bible are very diametrically opposed to this.

    Interesting enough, we find more harmony with the apocryphal writings than with the New Testament. For example, in the Book of Jubilees, 'Mastema' or 'the one (angel) who persecutes evil,' has to request permission from G-d to punish mortal man. We however see a quick change to this in the Book of Enoch, where Satan is once again one of the archangels who rebels against G-d. Then in The Life of Adam and Eve, Satan disobeys G-d and is sentenced to earth, where he haunts humanity to this day.

    The Quran latter adopted this theme into its own account of Satan's downfall.

    6. As a side note to this, both the Jewish and Christian Bibles are incompatible because in Job 1:3, we see that G-d calls Job "righteous" and "blameless" in His ways:

    "And Adonai said to the Satan: Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears G-d and turns away from evil?"

    G-d is telling us in that Job has done no evil. Though to Paul, the concept of anyone being “good” only sounds good. To Paul and the early Church, such a thought wouldn't have even dared cross their mind, in fact, it is inconceivable for the Christian mindset to call anyone righteous. Why? Because in Romans 3:23, we find that such a thing would have been impossible to accomplish, let alone deemed heretical at best.

    We find the same thing with Abraham in Genesis 26:5 and 18:19. G-d tells us that Abraham was "righteous." This is again in direct violation to Romans 3:23.

    "For it makes no difference whether one is a Jew or Gentile, since all have sinned and come short to the glory of God."

    7. In the Talmud (Bava Batra 16a), we're told that when Satan got wind of Job’s obedience to G-d, he kissed his Maker’s feet - in other words, Satan was so happy to be proven wrong!

    The Talmud further characterizes Satan's role on heaven and earth:

    "He [Satan] descends to this world and misleads a person into sinning. He then ascends to Heaven, levels accusations against that very sinner, and inflames G-d’s anger against him. He then receives permission to act and takes away the sinner’s soul as punishment."

    Latter, we find that the rabbis sympathized with him:

    "Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Satan’s suffering was more difficult than that of Job. This can be explained by means of a parable involving a servant whose master said to him: break the barrel [tempt the person to sin] but save its wine [protect him/her from sinning]. Here too, G-d told the Satan that he could do whatever he liked short of taking Job’s life, and that limitation caused Satan to suffer. Reish Lakish says: Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them. . . .

    If they had viewed Satan as an evil angel in rebellion to G-d, I assure you, the rabbis would have been silent on this point. Since, however, Jews have always viewed him as G-d's blue collar angel, it is only fitting to feel pity for such a creature.

    8. It is interesting to note how some Christians have mistook "The Angle of Adonai" in Zechariah 3:1-4 to be Jesus. I believe there is a simple answer to this claim.

    If the "Angel of Adonai" was indeed referring to Jesus, then why not explicitly say so? Why not just write the Hebrew version for Jesus (Yeshua)? Why call him an angel? Jesus was never an angel and the gospels sure had no issue calling their Messiah by name, so again, why does G-d?

    Zechariah, like Isaiah, can sometimes be hard to understand if you haven't read the Bible in full, which means, if a person would happen to open up their Bible for the first time to Zechariah chapter 3, they'd have no idea what was going on. This is because one is forced to draw conclusions from the surrounding books of the Bible for Zechariah to make any sense. In plain English, the prophet is hoping you've read your Bible, so you'll know all the clues and references he's going to make in advance.

    So let’s examine this passage. Remember Job 1:1, where Satan stood in a Heavenly Court? It's the same here in Zechariah 3:1. Zechariah is taken up into a vision by the "Angel of Adonai" where he is confronted with Satan in the act of accusing Joshua. Now, angels can have human form, this is because they've done it before, particularly in Genesis 18 and 19, and also in the Talmud.

    Let’s also recall that this vision follows the previous one - though it is entirely new and one of eight in total.

    We know G-d is speaking, as can be seen in verse 3:2, this is not to be confused with the Angel or Jesus. This is an unanimous consensus between both sides of the divide.

    If we look back into Daniel, we find that both prophets lived in a time where prophecy dropped extremely low, in this time, prophecy as we know it, was dying because of Israel's sins. Prophecy can only exist when the majority of Jews are living in Israel, and by majority, I mean like 99% of them. The second criteria for prophethood is from a letter written by Moses Maimonides to the Jews at Yemen, where he cites tradition:

    "Shortly before the messianic era, prophecy will return to the Jewish people.”

    Without these statuses, prophecy is exterminated while we are in exile.

    So when Zechariah was prophesying, he was doing it through visions and dreams, G-d didn't go face-to-face with him like He had done with Moses or Abraham.

    So what is the overall context here? The Jews are returning from their exile, the 70 weeks are over, most scholars have roughly estimated that the first wave of Jews (which made up approximately 42,000 souls) went to rebuild the Temple. But the people needed a leader, so they elected Joshua, the nephew of Ezra.

    Now Satan (symbolizing Joshua’s enemies) is not happy about this. He tells G-d that Joshua's got some sort of "deficiency" and is unfit to lead. Well, G-d rebukes him and Satan's out the door so-to-speak. Rebuke in Hebrew means to "leave," or to be "pushed out." So essentially, G-d is commanding Satan to leave the Heavenly Court, He'll decide this case on His own. This is not to say however, that G-d is against Satan in any shape or form.

    Now we get to the good stuff. Does the Angel take away the sins of Joshua? Christians say yes. If you see it that way, then of course it's Jesus, who else can forgive sin other than G-d?

    But Jews see it another way, and this view is more accurate to what the text is really saying.

    Read verse 3:3-4, what is going on here? Is the Angel forgiving Joshua of his sins? No. Joshua isn't here for his sins, he's here for his filthy "garment." Garment and sins are not the same.

    This is because Joshua did not commit any sins, his sons did, and the prophet Ezekiel tells us that a father cannot be indicted for the sins of his sons (Ezekiel 18:20-23).

    But what about the passage which precedes soon after? "And he [the angel] raised his voice and said to those standing before him, saying, 'Take the filthy garments off him.' And he said to him, 'See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I have clad you with clean garments.'"

    Rashi (1040-1105 CE) , one of Judaism's top rabbis and biblical scholars, commented on the symbolism beyond spiritual garments: "This is to be explained according to the Targum: He had sons who had married women who were unfit [to marry into] the priesthood, and he was punished because he did not interfere with the [sons' marriages]. . . . [The Angel said:] 'take the filthy garments off him. Let his sons separate from their wives, and he will be forgiven [by G-d].'

    Rashi continues to note: "A change of beautiful garments; i.e., merits [or good deeds]. Since he compared the iniquity to filthy garments, he [then] compares the merit to clean garments; beautiful, white garments."

    In short, these garments are not sins, and Jesus again has no place here.

    9. Aggada - Helek Helek - (Sanh. 93a, T.B.).

    ***

    Me: "You're a conspiracists. I don't waste my time with that silly stiff. the Illuminati, come on? Where you get that from, the Davinci Code?"

    You: "No, I get it from every day news and advertisement"

    Then you go one to present a video about Satan stealing souls.

    Me again: "What can I say? Do you also believe that Elvis is still alive, or that the moon is made up of blue cheese? Perhaps the earth is flat, the Holocaust is a myth, and jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams?"

    Come on buddy, let's get back to reality here. The Devil can't steal your soul any more than I can. 

    And if you believe in all the crap you choose to believe in, you're not a Jew.
  • I am heavily leaning towards no. I do not think the one that many claim to believe in so much in fact the loving, just God they claim. I think really, each one that says they believe in God, has VEY different definitions from each other. We do not know what each other is thinking or what/how they imagine things. The concept of God, Religion, etc, ends up being defined by the user, especially given it's so old and quite hard to know EXACT, first of all, which out of the HUNDREDS of religions is CORRECT, and as well, whichever on IS correct, which definition of it is 100% accurate and true. Humans are ALL too different to have the EXACT same image of a particular God or whatever. Even with common ties, there are going to be differences, huge ones, even in a close, tight community that has stuck together for hundreds of years. I want you to direct attention to one of my favorite scenes in my favorite pieces of media in existence. It is not meant to make people specifically happy, but rather really think about God, their life, etc. Skip to 0:07 for the main info. If anyone cries during this, I assure you, you are not alone. This anime, Welcome to the NHK, is a underrated masterpiece in my opinion. And God specifically, is discussed in this part. I highly suggest watching it from the beginning to truly understand, but this bit says quite a bit by itself. 


  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    God is theoretical.

    The God theory has never been validated.

    The God theory was probably no more than an assumption based upon honest ignorance.


    There is more than one God theory.

    All God theories were probably no more than assumptions based upon honest ignorance.


    Do Gods exist?

    Probably not. 

    But I cannot unequivocally say that they do not.
  • AlfredChanAlfredChan 35 Pts   -  
    Reality is subjective. 
    What appears real to me, may not appear real to you.

    Religion revolves around faith in a perceived higher order being or "god".
    The proof of the existence of this perceived higher order being is usually not demanded by subscribers of the religion, because having the religious faith requires that the individual disregard necessity for tangible proof. 
    As such there is no religious literature (to the best of my knowledge) encouraging people to actively and critically challenge its exertions. 

    Human beings have a habit of visualizing patterns even-though they may not exist. 
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/ ;
    As such, human beings tend to imagine correlations between religious faith exertions and reality. 

    Should I exert that "God Does Not Exist", I will be considered an atheist.
    Should I exert that "Perhaps God Does Not Exist", I will be considered an agnostic.
    The list goes on, considering all the nitty-gritty differences between the multitude of religious and non-religious people.

  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Fredsnephew

    That's right, you can prove or disprove G-d anymore than you Plato's Forms. You don't know. . . and what if you're wrong? What if He does exist? Let's be on the safe side here.
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @AlfredChan

    You sound like a Sophist! Everything is relative!

    Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would disagree with you. Okay, so they're aren't certainties, right? But are you certain you love your wife, that you love your kids, job, life? There are certainties, and there is absolute truth, for if you doubt it, you're absolute in your doubt!

    Does G-d exist? You can't prove or disprove it anymore than Plato's theory of Forms. . . but to be on the safe side, let's go with it. He does exist. The universe, a grand design, proves it. Life has purpose.
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    AlfredChan

    Chris Martin, Coldplay, once said: "I definitely believe in God. How can you look at anything and not be overwhelmed by the miraculousness of it?"
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @AlfredChan
    @Judaism
    @Evidence

    Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    Logical Forms:

    X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

    X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

    Example #1:

    Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

    Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them.  Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much.  People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

    Example #2:

    To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

    Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it.  Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

    Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning. 

    Jimbo: , did you spit your gum out in my drink?

    : No comment.

    Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...)  Jackass!

    Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence.  You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

    Pogue
    i fart cows
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes ;

    You write: Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” 

    You're describing the Mormons, my friend. I once had a missionary tell me, after sending me an article struggling to prove that all Native Americans are really Jews (in which it failed to do so), later admit to me, "Ya, there really isn't any proof for it." Still, the theory went, "lack of evidence to prove evidence." If we were having a debate this instant on the matter if George Washington had actually written the Constitution rather than James Madison, and if I claimed to once had the evidence for this, but one of your henchmen burn my house just yesterday, and in the process, the evidence was lost, would you still choose to believe me?

    Lack of evidence to prove the case. It can't work.

    X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

    X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

    While this sounds much like a contradiction, it isn't. We always base our facts on truth, not contradictions or falsehoods, and the best proof for G-d's existence is. . . you! Yes, you! The fact that you're alive now, is due to the making of a Creator, not random chance!

    Nothing comes from chance, if an explosion were to occur this very instant outside my door (I hope not!), would it make a watch by random (that would be cool though!)? Of course not. 

    But if a random explosion could have never produced a watch, then how more so an entire universe with brains?

    Based on Aristotle's Dictum, it's actually the exact opposite. You make the fantastic claim, against all history of civilization, that this universe came by random chance. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. One of the many assistants to Albert Einstein, the name slips me at the moment, was at first an atheist. Now this man had to be really smart to be the assistant to Einstein, and he sought out to disprove Christianity for years. . . and ended up a believer in the faith, so it is merely ridiculous to claim that believers are ignorant or purley meshuggeneh. Francis Collins, discovery and head of the Human Genome Project, once commented to Richard Dawkins that he had far more scientific credentials then he will ever have in ten lives,  and yet, he was calling him a fool for being a believer? 

    Again, please answer my question, if there are no certainties in life, then can I safely assume that you don't love your wife and children with absolute sincerity? How silly!

    There is absolute truth, Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers of all ages, said yes.

    Again, to end this short response, to claim that G-d exists because we can't disprove His existence, is really a good claim. One cannot see gravity by the eyes (I mean in general, pretend you didn't just see an apple fall, picture a Martian landing this very moment), would that somehow disprove it?

    No. This is the claim Jews have been shouting for the past 2,000 years. It's the claim that we don't come from bananas, but from a Creator with a sole purpose in life to make the world a better place when we leave it.

    With this in mind, how could anyone ever claim religion to be a bad thing?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Judaism said:

    < continued>

    ​​Okay. . . I'm lost here. I'll admit it. You claim that the Christian Bible recommends for its followers to worship a Devil? Than what are you saying here about "the way?"

    Shalom, .. look;
    Just because a Roman Emperor (don't forget how the Romans felt abut the Jews, and that hate never subsided, only went under cover) and his Temple priests (RCC) took possession of the Jewish Historical writings, including the N.T. does NOT give them the right to call it the; "Christian Bible".
    It is the "Christian" interpretation of the Bible that recommends people to follow the Devil/Satan/Lucifer, by a new doctrine/edict that came from Constantine and his RCC church. It is called the "Trinity Doctrine", which makes God of the Bible, our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a plural Deity.
    I have shown you from the N.T. one such deity/demon, his name was "Legion", .. because that is what deity means; either deified men like Pharaohs and Popes, or idols, or stars, or the sun or the moon, or spirits who dwell in the supernatural realm, ..  these have all been deified and become deities, .. gods.

    The Christian gods are deities, in other words, they are deified "whatever" that the Gentiles choose to deify and worship, which goes straight against Biblical (O.T. & N.T.) teaching. The 'word' "Christian" was a name calling word used to mock the early Believers, disciples of "the Way". Because it was clear that Jesus came to abolish all Religions (including the hypocritical Religions of the Jews) the early Disciples would not dare name their 'way of Life' which they took on when they took up the cross of Jesus so it could be referred to as a Religion, so they referred to themselves as the followers of "The Way", .. who was none other than Jesus Christ, the King of the Jews, the long awaited Messiah; As He said: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me!"

    Yes, the trinity is false, it came from Nicea, and that's where it will stay.  So are you then saying that Christians are liars? That they say they worship G-d when in reality, behind closed doors, they're on Satan's side (a fictional human construct for evil)?

    I tell you this question bothered me something awful; "do Christians know who they worship?" and the answer bothered me even more.
    First, I defined the Christian gods, who it is that when I was a Christian really worshipped? And like I keep saying, the Christian worship deities, and those who are to become Ministers, or Leader in the Christian faith (Religion) go to schools of Divinity and get a degree in none other than Divination.

    Hand signs and the Christian Jesus (no translation, but the message is clear, their Jesus is Baphomet/Satan/Lucifer)



    You next claim that you're Jewish for sure, I'll believe it, but I find it hard to believe that "Rabbi" could be anything but a title. A surname? Perhaps, I just never heard of it. 

    Here's how "Jewishness" works. We go by the mother, now a Jew can be an atheist, Buddhist, whatever, you're still a Jew. It doesn't matter, it's ethnicity. so those three brothers of her are still Jews. This is in Tanakh buddy.

    You know, it's kind of funny because I am both Nazi (father) and Jew (mother), yet in Christ I am neither Jew nor Gentile, for we are all One In Christ. But like I said, I don't care about my labeling, I just told you what my mothers maiden name was. 

    The term "Nazi" was political. It's like me saying I'm a democrat, or American via nationality.

    Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter any longer since they are both under Nazi control, as the whole world is.
    And just like the Jews demonize Germans with the Holocaust with the 6.66 million Jewish deaths, the Germans today demonize the Jews with Zionism/Illuminati/Jewish World Domination, .. the mix of these two Satan worshipping leaders is just like Revelations clay mixed with iron. I'm not an interpreter of Revelations, but say what I see, or have seen.

    Daniel 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. 41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

    I see this last iron kingdom as the German Nazi, which broke into pieces with WWII, and spread everywhere (Operation Paperclip, UN, NASA the World) and with Agenda 21, 2030 will crush all the others. They stick together by the glue called the Vatican, the RCC, the Pope.
    I see the Nation of Israel, aka Zionism as the clay (no God, no Messiah, no foundation, the LGBT capital of the world, etc.) held together by the Nazi/German iron.



    You're claim about the RCC is right, the original Church would have been the Jerusalem Council via James.  The Catholic Church divorced its roots from Judaism long ago, but that still means there can be no Christians. James' group did not believe in a half-man, half-god. They did not believe in a trinity, or that he ever resurrected from the dead.  Everything came from Paul. Period. Remember, had those Jews been right in worshiping a man as G-d, they why weren't they preserved? Why did the Pharisees win out after Rome's conquest? How come the Messianic Jews are lost to time? You say you're not Christian, but you'll also not a Messianic Jew? I? just want to know what you are? A follower of the way, what does that mean? How is that distinct from Rabbinic Judaism we know today?

    The Bible NEVER mentions a half-man and half god, .. neither the OT or the NT. The Jews rejected Christ, but those who believed have entered the Eternal Kingdom of God, with the Messiah Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords ruling over us. 
    You can accept Jesus your long awaited Messiah and enter into that Kingdom also, but not in the flesh OK, .. but in the spirit, giving your life (not this dying corrupted flesh) to God, where you won't be afraid to call on His name like you do now; 'G_d', but will freely call Him "Father".
    Nor will anyone cry out ever again as millions of us Jews have for the last 2,000 years of being persecuted: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken us?" because even if we are fed to the lions, we are already in the Kingdom, so we go with joy!
    I am a Believer, but my faith is NOT built on Religion and the blind-faith they require to be in them. My faith is built on evidence with substance, I search, seek and knock till I am sure by empirical evidence that what I see/understand is solid, so my 'faith' is actually built on a rock.


    You wrote: " OK, lol if you say so!? Just  a thought; The planet Venus sure has a big influence on Jews/Zionists and the World don't it?"

    You still don't understand Hebrew, right? Lucifer was never a name, it meant Venus. The passage is about how the evil king fell from his throne after having conquered many nations for Babylon. Isaiah was after a man, not some hypothetically demonic being. The concept doesn't exist in the Jewish Bible.

    I have shown you, and explained how Isaiah was told to address two beings, the king, and the one possessing him, Lucifer.

    You say you'd rather be labeled a Nazi, those brutal murders who killed innocent blood - over 6 million - then be considered a Jew. Why? What's wrong with being Jewish? Because of ideology? I support the LGBT community (even though many in my Shul would oppose it). I'm a liberal at heart. Many of these people are geniuses. 

    .. the ones that orchestrated the Holocaust were all considered geniuses, and I'm not just talking about just the Jewish Holocaust, but the much bigger ones, where hundreds of millions have been exterminated, .. throughout the world, .. lead by the same being that hates all of us humans created in Gods image!

    You then claim that your Nazi father was far more superior to your Jewish mother? END OF CONVERSATION RIGHT THERE. How could you ever dare support them?

    My father had a much more merciful heart than my mother, .. but that was only in my case, one of 7 siblings. I just referred to the German Nazis because they at least loved their children. Again, this was something just between me and my mom. I don't know why she hated me, or why the Germans hate me now and are always out to kill me??

    You see no difference between "I Am what I Am" and "I will be what I will be". . . well, G-d DOES! Yes, we get it, He's not a being, not even a He! The Ein Sof. Infinite. No image. No boundary. But still, he chose to express Himself in just a way, are you going to cross swords with G-d when not needed? 

    G-d is NOT a man. Read your Torah.

    No, God is NOT a what as you say, or how the RCC Trinity Doctrine describes Him;

    Related image

    continued

  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Before Shabbat . . . . . 

    There is no god besides HaShem. Jesus included. You still have to explain to me how Jesus is G-d/man 100% without the trinity concept. Others have tried in the past and failed, that's why they invented it at Nicea. Good luck!

    You claim Christians are truly worshiping the Devil behind closed door? Which Christians? I've never met them. They're sincere in their beliefs, they'd LAUGH at you!

    You claim you don't care to be Jewish, fine, Stanley Kubrick would agree with you. However, he's wasn't religious, had he been so, he'd see the responsibility all Jews face in being a light to the world. To him, it didn't matter. 

    Me:  The term "Nazi" was political. It's like me saying I'm a democrat, or American via nationality.

    You: Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter any longer since they are both under Nazi control, as the whole world is.

    Are you crazy? Okay. . . that's a change, haven't heard that one before! At least you're not like most despicable anti-Semites who say it's all Zionism. seriously, all this bull shits old.

    You:  And just like the Jews demonize Germans with the Holocaust with the 6.66 million Jewish deaths, the Germans today demonize the Jews with Zionism/Illuminati/Jewish World Domination, .. the mix of these two Satan worshipping leaders is just like Revelations clay mixed with iron.

    Where are you getting this number from? If we're not rounding anything, the death toll really comes to about 5,860,000.

    You:  I see this last iron kingdom as the German Nazi, which broke into pieces with WWII, and spread everywhere (Operation Paperclip, UN, NASA the World) and with Agenda 21, 2030 will crush all the others. They stick together by the glue called the Vatican, the RCC, the Pope.
    I see the Nation of Israel, aka Zionism as the clay (no God, no Messiah, no foundation, the LGBT capital of the world, etc.) held together by the Nazi/German iron.

    Yep, everyone, that's a conspiracist here!

    I call "God," "G-d" out of respect. "Father" comes from the Catholic Church. Okay. . . we're done here. I've seen enough. No of us need Jesus. You know this.

    You:  I am a Believer, but my faith is NOT built on Religion and the blind-faith they require to be in them. My faith is built on evidence with substance, I search, seek and knock till I am sure by empirical evidence that what I see/understand is solid, so my 'faith' is actually built on a rock. 

    Okay. . . which evidence? Josephus? We all know that's a joke.

    You:  I have shown you, and explained how Isaiah was told to address two beings, the king, and the one possessing him, Lucifer.

    Really? Did you write it but forgot to post, because I never got ANYTHING! Can you prove it? I've done my part, will you?

    You then mention G-d, but you STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HEBREW!

    I never imported my beliefs into the Bible, as YOU did. I'm only concerned with what G-D THINKS! Period.

    I really think we're getting nowhere with this conversation. Maybe it's time to quite? I'll stay an ORthodox Jew, and you. . . a follower of The Way, whatever that means. You can still believe in conspiracies and the false fact that all Christians are really worshiping the Devil and are going to hell FOR ALL ETERNITY. . . i, on the other hand, will stick to reality. My G-d will not punish us for things we don't know, Christians have a shot to paradise if they live decent lives, like everyone else.

    Good luck in your minority beliefs and fantasy lifestyle. 

    GOODBYE!
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  


    BaconToes said:
    @Judaism
    @Evidence

    Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    Very good, and I agree 100%   Like there is no absence of evidence that all Religions worship the Devil/Lucifer/Satan/Venus/U.N./NASA/CERN/Pope/We have landed on the moon/the earth is a globe/Chem-Trailing is good/Agenda 21, 2030 is the answer to a sustainable planet spinning, swirling through the dark, cold vacuum of space, .. and so on, any belief system that yo-mama and yo-daddy, yo-science guy, yo-Pastor Dawkins, Hawking made you believe

    Logical Forms:

    X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

    X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

    Example #1:

    Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

    Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them.  Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much.  People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.


    Again I agree 100%
    There is only one problem, that even if I PROVE X is true with undeniable evidence through honest, and simple logic, you can still claim the "logical Forms" above. For instance:
    God exists, yet He is not part of existence.
    God is real, I call Him Father, yet He is NOT a being.
    We cannot see God, yet we can see/feel/sense Him in His creation
    Nature is not God like here-
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_deities
    instead it reveals Gods nature, the most accurate image of God is man, created in His image.

    BaconToes - 

    Example #2:

    To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.


    False claim, since Game-Programmers create life from non-life every day, .. like those game-worlds (which, surprisingly from what I've seen from my son playing them, are all flat)
    The problem here is; what do we call "life"?

    You know what is said about the 'first law of thermos dynamics': "energy cannot be created nor destroyed", .. actually that's false, energy was created, it's only that we the created cannot destroy it.
    Just like my sons video games, his game character/avatar cannot create nor destroy the existing program, but can blow things up, or alter things. The program itself is just like the "energy" in our universe.
    But, .. God the Infinite and Eternal conscious Mind Creator can, and just as He created this world, He will destroy it and make a New updated version of it.

    So what is life in the computer Gaming World? (I never thought I will be able to use something as evil as todays Gaming to prove the existence of God, and how He made creation itself!? But God does work in mysterious ways, don't He?)
    Life is NOT the characters, we know that both the A.I. and the ones the kids control are no different than what the landscape and the buildings are made of, which is only an illusion on a screen made up of laws and rules created by a program language (same as John 1:1- )

    So just like in the Gaming World, what we call real, is actually an illusion. Same with our world, our universe, us humans and the animals, plants that we can touch, see, taste were created by the same type of rules and laws, .. only infinitely more complex.

    BaconToes Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it.

    But we can, and we do! Take the game-controller of any computer video game character, and you give it "life". And it now has free will too, only limited by the program.
    Same with us here in this world, in this physical body, the "breath of life" that God breathed of Himself into this body is what we really are, controlling this body making it do what we want, .. within the physical programs limitation of course.


    BaconToes  Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

    Sure is!

    BaconToes  Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning. 

    Jimbo: , did you spit your gum out in my drink?

    : No comment.

    Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...)  Jackass!

    Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence.  You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof


    But we CAN be certain of things, especially the Evidence for God, especially now that "knowledge has increased"

    Daniel 12:4 “But you, Daniel, the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

    What more evidence do we need for "many running to a fro", when we have tens of thousands of different Religions offered for people who are too lazy to seek for answers,
    Or more proof for "and knowledge shall increase", where men have learned to map the human DNA, and can play with it, .. which in comparison is like a 4 year old who was given a box of 30 piece Legos, and because he finished putting it together thinks he can improve on Gods creation, like the human body, or the brain for instance, .. lol.
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    You're a nutcase.
    Nope
  • AlfredChanAlfredChan 35 Pts   -  
    @Judaism
    Thank you for responding.

    A quick search online provided me with two possible definitions of "Sophist":
    1) a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in Greece in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning
    2) person who reasons with clever but false arguments
    I'm not very sure how logically and simply explaining how "everything is relative" associates me with either of the two definitions above.
    If you were able to address the falsity in any of my above statements with verifiable information, I will have no choice but to detract my statements. 

    Why would it be of any importance if "Socrates, Plato and Aristotle" disagrees with me? And in what way are these three philosophers (Socrates of the classical Greek school, Plato of the school of Platonism and Aristotle of the school of Aristotelian-ism) being used as a valid prelude to a discussion about "certainty"?

     Whether I am certain I "love my wife, kids, job and life" has no bearing on whether "God Is Real". 
    "God" can be real and I can still believe in relativity, "God" may not exist and I can still believe in relativity. 

    Stating a paradox ("There are certainties, and there is absolute truth, for if you doubt it, you're absolute in your doubt!") does not help clarify your stand.
    There may be certainties, but the extent to which you are certain is also relative.
    Any "truth" may seem absolute to one person, but may not always be absolute to another person.
    This is because "truth" depends on an individual's perception, which itself is subjective. 

    I may not be able to absolutely prove or disprove "Plato's Theory of Forms" because every theory (regardless of which school of thought they stem from) should always be freely interpreted and re-interpreted.
    I have to disagree with your request to just go along with any argument just to be "on the safe side". 
    This is essentially requesting that I suspend my skepticism and critical thinking to believe that "God" does exist.
    The universe proves nothing of the sort that "God" exists according to your interpretation of your religious texts. 

    The only thing I can agree with you for certain is that life does have a purpose indeed.

    Evidence
  • AlfredChanAlfredChan 35 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes
    Thank you for sharing your views.

    I do quite agree with the way your two examples are presented.
    I find this an excellent example of critical thinking, which is largely discouraged or at times abandoned by people of religious faith. 
    Every argument or train of thought can be claimed as a logical fallacy, as long as you have another more logical reason to consider the thought or argument a fallacy. 
    This is yet another example of relativity in reasoning. 
     

  • AlfredChanAlfredChan 35 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Evidence
    Thank you for sharing your religious views as well.

    Even-though I do not subscribe to the same religious beliefs as yourself, you may very well be right in your reasoning (until proven wrong by experts in theistic reasoning).  

    In response to the example you provided of your parents and stating that the "German Nazis at least loved their children", I have to say that the "love" a parent feels for their child is instinctive in nature (paternal and maternal instinct). 
    In fact, it seems that medical studies have also been done to investigate this instinct (e.g. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/maternal-instinct-is-wired-into-the-brain/).
    As such, it is nothing particularly significant as long as we fairly consider German Nazis as fellow human beings. 


    Evidence
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @AlfredChan

    Why should I debate you? Will you change your opinion, will you, mine? Probably not. It's all a waste of time, and you don't understand half the concepts I presented.

    So I see no reason to continue here, claim victory if you want, again, you're wasting your time.

    If life has no purpose to you, or that weird fiction that you're just a lump of dirt is true to you, that's fine, it means nothing to me. If you wish to believe that the universe was an accident, and that we live in a cold, dark place with no hope after our short "blink-of-an-eye-lifespan" ends, again, it means nothing to us people of faith who have hope for a better future. 

    I'm sorry you have to be so closed-minded. Good luck! This conversation is terminated. 
    BaconToes
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    We can't prove that God exists, but we can't prove that he doesn't exist either. That is why I'm an agnostic. 
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -  
    Fascism said:
    We can't prove that God exists, but we can't prove that he doesn't exist either. That is why I'm an agnostic. 
    An agnostic what?
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @DrCereal ;
    Just an agnostic. 

    agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

    I'm agnostic when it comes to any religion. Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and others are equally likely in my eyes. 
    Nope
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    I am heavily leaning towards no. I do not think the one that many claim to believe in so much in fact the loving, just God they claim. I think really, each one that says they believe in God, has VEY different definitions from each other. We do not know what each other is thinking or what/how they imagine things. The concept of God, Religion, etc, ends up being defined by the user, especially given it's so old and quite hard to know EXACT, first of all, which out of the HUNDREDS of religions is CORRECT, and as well, whichever on IS correct, which definition of it is 100% accurate and true. Humans are ALL too different to have the EXACT same image of a particular God or whatever. Even with common ties, there are going to be differences, huge ones, even in a close, tight community that has stuck together for hundreds of years. I want you to direct attention to one of my favorite scenes in my favorite pieces of media in existence. It is not meant to make people specifically happy, but rather really think about God, their life, etc. Skip to 0:07 for the main info. If anyone cries during this, I assure you, you are not alone. This anime, Welcome to the NHK, is a underrated masterpiece in my opinion. And God specifically, is discussed in this part. I highly suggest watching it from the beginning to truly understand, but this bit says quite a bit by itself. 



    Yes, Religions create their own gods, but scientific reasoning proves there is only One God, He is Infinite, thus there can be no other god besides Him, and Infinite is also, .. by reason Eternal, so there is your proof right there.
    And since we know creation exists, and that we can reason and create, it tells us that Infinite and Eternal God is conscious, and He speaks through His creation to us in many different ways.

    The video is a typical description of God from an atheistic religious perspective, where God is always evil, someone to blame, never shows Himself since He won't perform for me, .. like do a miracle of my choosing, which of course I could just as easily deny as I could accept. All this says is that you will not accept a God who you cannot control, who you cannot attach strings on, .. so either He doesn't exist, or you stick with the one you CAN control through religious doctrine.

    The theistic gods are always good, because they perform exactly as the Religion that created it want's it to perform.

    Try reasoning from the 'outside of the box', the box being theistic/atheistic Religions.
  • AlfredChanAlfredChan 35 Pts   -  
    @Judaism
    Thank you, I understand where you are coming from.
    It has been a fair discussion thus far, with everyone being equally able to share their point of view.
    Although I most certainly do not subscribe to your beliefs, I conclude by neither insisting that you are wrong nor that I am correct.


  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    AlfredChan

    Now that's a good sport! I wish everyone on here could be that respectful and polite. Thank you.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Judaism said:
    @Evidence

    You're a nutcase.


    Awesome, now you show me where I am a nutcase?
    Is it my description of God? Or my interpretation of the Bible?
    But hey, at least you told me what you thought of me, and I don't blame you for thinking that way of me. We are all to blame, following Religions and their doctrines is so much easier, takes so much off ones shoulders, .. every religion will tell you about their gods and how to follow them, .. blind faith is a bliss.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch