Glad to see this site is back up. I bet it was some fundie hackers trying to close down this site.

Dave, This is a great site, and I am so glad that someone finally had the balls to put up a site like this... And keep it running despite the haters out there who would try to shut it down.

Thanks cdom!

This is a response to "Lemming".

You said: (Disgusting words deleted)...You should " RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!! If my Pagan Spirituality is Wrong, then I will gladly go to hell. The good thing is... people like you won't be there.

Why should anyone respect your "authoritah"? Who are YOU? (You can't spell, for one thing....) Trust me, you WILL go to hell for your "pagan spirituality"! And when you're there, you won't like it one bit.

What is it you people hate so badly about God? From the looks of what 99 percent of you have written, you don't even have a clue as to who He is! So, what's your problem? Are you simply letting off steam because you can be anonymous?

And to "cdmon" who said, "I bet it was some fundie hackers trying to close down this site." - Why don't you PROVE your unfounded allegation with some facts. Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!

All you people on this site love to accuse and rant and resort to name-calling. Somebody told "Carmen" to "grow up". What makes you think she's NOT grown-up? Do you know her? Are you simply angry because she dared to post something on your precious site that you don't agree with?

I've read much of this thread, and most of you haven't said anything coherent. So what's the purpose of responding? You just want to rant?

If anybody should "grow up" it's those who have written a bunch of stuff and said NOTHING!

Anonymous: "What is it you people hate so badly about God?"

Define God... and provide a means to discern between the singular term of god, and the many gods that can exist metaphysically...

Anonymous: "Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!"

Really... Well, seems god is still no more competent than when he created our species, who are naturally defective and born sinful, according to religion...

Since you are here, "Anonymous"... and its obvious you have nothing to lose here, so no cool points are going to fall off of your plate... Can you answer a few questions... Why are many religious people in general ashamed to be nude in front of other people in society? Is it because, its natural to be ashamed of ones' body, or... is it because they were taught shame and guilt as little children based on the episode in the garden of eden... Do you think there should be laws banning nudity in society?

Why?

Anonymous: "Trust me, you WILL go to hell for your "pagan spirituality"! And when you're there, you won't like it one bit."

Already been there it was called church!! And you know what? You're right, I didn't like it one bit.

Then I woke up and started to see that it was all an illusion. That the few grains of truth got mixed up with too many lies.

Love your enemies... No problem with that. Treat each other good... I'm down...

But,

Suffer not a Witch to live, Slay the Philistines, kill their wives and infants, and even there livestock. Gentiles are dogs. Women are second class citizens, homosexuality an abomination, Hate your parents... beat your slaves... sell your daughters... eat dung, drink piss... need I say more?

Basically, you are hiding behind your religion to spread your brand of religious bigotry... No thank you!! Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, bought the book, read it.... woke up!!

And back to "you will go to hell for your Pagan spirituality."
Here's proof you are a bigot. You automatically ass-u-me that your religion is superior to anyone else's. With self righteous indignation and arrogance,
you are spreading hate, not the love of jeez you guys profess whenever it is suitable for you.

Anonymous: Why don't you PROVE your unfounded allegation with some facts. Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!

Me thinks you doth protest too much. Those who are guilty generally yell the loudest... Small wonder you signed on as anonymous.

WM, keep an eye on this one.

And if gawd wanted to shut this site down, AND if he was as all powerful as you pretend he is, then why is this site still up? Did he goof?

Re: PROVE unfounded allegations; I think you just did it for me. Thank you.

PROVE your gawd is real. Arrange a personal appearance, do not invite me to church and pretend he is there. I'd like to meet him face to face, shake his hand and pass him the bhang and have a serious theological discussion.

Honestly, if he's real, and truly wishes to save the world, you'd think he'd come here and show us himself. Then he could tell us what he really wants concisely and without all the confusing contradictions in the buy bull which have sparked over 10,000 different denominations.

Didn't jeezus say he'd return in his kingdom and power during the lifetimes of his disciples? They're all dead now, where's jeez?

Blind faith does not work here, lets see something tangible. Sorry the buy bull is not proof.

RE: Carmen, Did she not first resort to name calling... But I suppose that's okay because she is a jeezus worshipper. DO I detect a double standard?

Anonymous: "If anybody should "grow up" it's those who have written a bunch of stuff and said NOTHING!"

What worthwhile information have you added to this thread?

Please explain how telling Pagans that we're going to hell should entice us to join the jeezus brigade... After all, that is what you are here for, right? To try to save us from ourselves? Before it's too late?

Well let me enlighten you on something sunshine. If because Lemming and I are going to hell for being Pagan, I will most assuredly meet you there. Why? Because xianity was based upon Paganism and Judaism.

Only problem is hell is a xian invention that we Pagans do not believe in. We Pagans have been around 30,000 years while xianity has only been here a small fraction of that.

So while we go back to nature you can roast your weenies near the furnace of your own fearful imagination. Because the history of xianity is totally interwoven in Paganism... So what's that make you? An unwitting Pagan... OOPS! BE VERY AFRAID!

Those who kindle the Witches ire, shall burn and whale within the fire... (Author unknown)

Careful who you play with here... RRRRRibbit! lol ;-)

Cheers

This is a response to Anonymous:

You dumbass. I HAVE THE FUCKING T-SHIRT. It says in simple english.
"RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH". I guess you never watch the show: SOUTH PARK. It is above your intelligence to understand. That is why you are a CHRISTIAN LOSER.

If my PAGAN & WICCAN ways are wrong, and I do go to YOUR HELL. I will go happily. Is SATAN that bad???? Who told you so??? Thew same folks that told you Mary Magdalene was a WHORE. She was no WHORE, that was you mother.

Ok Ok Ok. A simple solution. I want GOD to appare here, right now. Tell me I am wrong. Show me a few easy magick tricks. You bet your ass I will be on my knees, blowing his cock for all eternity.

well well well!!! He is a no-show. I am still sitting here typing. No God. No burning bush. Not even a fart outa the old GEEZER.

BLIND FAITH is not for me. So Anonymous if you can base your whole life, on BLIND FAITH that is your choice. Not mine. You will never win me over to your DARK SIDE.

Now go away and cry like the babe you are.

Blessed Be
Lemming

Anonymous said: "...Trust me, you WILL go to hell for your 'pagan spirituality'!"

Trust you? Why in the world would I trust an anonymous poster on such a matter? I think it far more prudent for me to rely upon my own research and reasoning, and to reach my own honest conclusions. If you think otherwise, please give some justification.

Anonymous: "What is it you people hate so badly about God? From the looks of what 99 percent of you have written, you don't even have a clue as to who He is!"

Those are some very broad and inflammatory assertions. By "you people" do you mean to include all the regulars here? Maybe just those you disagree with? Who? And how does one "hate" something that is thought to be nonexistent? I don't hate the god of Abraham any more than I hate Zeus, Qetzaqoatl, or poltergeists. Many other here will tell you the same thing.

As for not knowing who "He" is, I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. Most of us know the Bible very well, and were at one point believers. We discuss points of theology continually with visitors like you, and have earnestly studied your religion. So, what is your assertion based on?

Anonymous: "So, what's your problem? Are you simply letting off steam because you can be anonymous?"

The only "problem" I have is with those who wish to push their religious beliefs on others, and who fail to show basic courtesy toward those who disagree with them. I am not "letting off stream," but confronting what I think to be groundless accusations, and also trying to understand what motivates belief in supernatural entities. Finally, I am not anonymous, but you are. As a rule, I do not fault those who wish to remain anonymous; however, you are the one who raised the issue, so perhaps you would like to explain.

Anonymous: "And to 'cdmon' who said, 'I bet it was some fundie hackers trying to close down this site.' - Why don't you PROVE your unfounded allegation with some facts. Maybe God Himself wants to shut it down!"

First, cdmon made no allegation; he prefaced his statement with "I bet", which indicates that it is a "guess" or a "conjecture." Given the venom that is routinely directed at the webmaster, this site, and its participants from fundamentalists, I'd say there is more than sufficient grounds for voicing such a guess. And, of course, your guess has even less to back it up (unless you're simply not sharing your evidence with us).

Anonymous: "All you people on this site love to accuse and rant and resort to name-calling."

I do not accuse, nor do I rant, nor do I name-call. Thus, your statement is false.

Anonymous: "Somebody told 'Carmen' to 'grow up'. What makes you think she's NOT grown-up?"

How about this: She came to this site, which is populated by people who have made a deliberate decision to leave Christianity, and she started a thread with ugly threats of Hell. She asked incredibly simple-minded questions, which betray little or no understanding of the historical roots of her own religion, and she made broad accusations (as you too have done) with absolutely nothing to back them up. To me, all of that indicates immaturity, so I think the admonition to "grow up" was not out of place.

Anonymous: "Are you simply angry because she dared to post something on your precious site that you don't agree with?"

No. I discuss things daily with people who disagree with me. In fact, I feel that such discussions are a good way to learn and to grow. Are you angry that we don't agree with you?

Anonymous: "I've read much of this thread, and most of you haven't said anything coherent. So what's the purpose of responding? You just want to rant?"

To me that looks like an excuse to not reply. If you want to discuss something of substance, I'm always open to that, as are many others here. And, by the way, I believe I've been perfectly coherent. If you think otherwise, then it's up to you to demonstrate where I have lacked coherence.

Anonymous: "If anybody should 'grow up' it's those who have written a bunch of stuff and said NOTHING!"

As cdmon said above, you protest to much... (and say nothing). Your blanket dismissal suggests to me that you do not care to face any of the substantive issues raised here. For example, can you explain the extensive similarities between Christianity and older religions? Can you explain why nothing specific was written about your purported savior until decades after his (alleged) death? Can you provide any evidence or cogent argument to support the existence of *anything* supernatural? Can you articulate *one* attribute of your god that can be supported by evidence?

Looking forward to a substantive (and civil) response from you.

Lemming: "I guess you never watch the show: SOUTH PARK. It is above your intelligence to understand."

I guess the holey spook just can't interpret South Park, so xians can't possibly understand it *snerk*. LMAO!!!

To the churchy minded things of the natural world are beyond their comprehension. The holey spook filters out such things as reality, tolerance, humor, rationality and logic. These things are replaced with racism, homophobia, making sense out absurdities in a holey book and making lies sound just like truth through apologetics.

The holey spook also gives them an unnatural repulsion to natural sexual desires, a neurotic need to control the sexual behaviors of others and the need to feel superior to others even though they don't understand reality even if it bit them right square on their nipples.

It also gives them a misplaced sense of urgency to gather others together to join their religion. Misery loves company!!

Besides that it gives them an out by letting them do what they wish; i.e. rape, sodomy, murder, theft and violently attack others who they disagree with... Then all they have to do is ask forgiveness of their lawd, and they go to heaven... How convenient huh?

Remember the immortal words of Betty Bowers, America's best xian, "Gawd told me to hate you!!"

cheers

Response to Jim Arvo:

Well, I just checked back to see what other responses my initial comment got, and it seems nothing has changed. Now you’re all over somebody for wishing to remain “Anonymous”. If you don’t like people being anonymous, why do you offer that choice in your “Post a comment” link?

You are all still very snotty and sarcastic. That being the case, why do expect believers in Christ to lay down and play dead? I couldn’t help but smile at your latest comment to “Anonymous”:

“Looking forward to a substantive (and civil) response from you.”

It’s amazing that you didn’t make the same comment to “Lemming” whose vocabulary seems limited to cussing and childish rants, and who has no problems spouting off that he is a Wiccan and ends his posts with “blessed be”. Nobody seems to mind his cussing or his belief. There wasn’t ONE response to his “blessed be” post! But that’s typical for unbelievers and those who believe in pagan gods….

It seems all beliefs are tolerated in your chatroom – except, of course, belief in Jesus, which immediately has people all over it like dung flies, spitting and hissing and screaming bloodymurder. The Bible tells us that this would happen, and sure enough, it’s just another truth gleaned straight from the Word of God.

I know you asked the following of “Anonymous” but since he/she is obviously not bothering to respond, I will do it for him/her.

Jim said: “Trust you? Why in the world would I trust an anonymous poster on such a matter? I think it far more prudent for me to rely upon my own research and reasoning, and to reach my own honest conclusions. If you think otherwise, please give some justification.”

Carmen’s response: Anonymous, or not – if someone has some insight, why not listen? If you were ever a “Christian”, then you know that it’s dangerous to rely on your own limited, human mindset. Although we’re an intelligent species, we are not God; we ARE limited. If you don’t believe that, then just try to create a planet from nothing, or explain why water is the ONLY liquid substance that freezes from the top down, or why it is impossible for bombardier beetles to evolve. Explain, if Man evolved from apes, WHERE did the apes come from? And if your immediate response is “From some warm pond at the beginning of time” then please tell me WHERE the pond and its amoebas came from….

We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing. For instance, I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence. But it wasn’t until I “found God” that I became free – free from the bigoted and arrogant “anything goes” world which is slowly going to hell in a hand basket. If Man is so smart, then how come we have high school “graduates” who can’t read or write? How come we have college graduates who couldn’t tell you how many moons the earth has, or how many continents there are! Why didn’t Man stop Hurricane Katrina or any of the other Bible-prophesied natural disasters (“the worst in history”) that have already or will take place in the near future? (For that matter, if Man is so smart, why the heck did he build New Orleans BELOW sea level?) Why hasn’t Man conquered all the diseases of the world? Why is it that even old diseases such as Foot and Mouth, or Bubonic Plaque are returning?

GOD put everything in the universe exactly where it needed to be. For instance, the earth is placed "just the right" distance from the sun; any closer and we'd burn up. Earth's orbit is nearly circular, this slightly elliptical shape means that we enjoy a quite narrow range of temperatures, which is important to life, and the speed of Earth's rotation on its axis is perfect for humans because it allows the sun to warm the planet evenly. What causes this phenomenon? Do you honestly believe it "just happened" that way? How could so many things working in perfect tandem "just happen"?

Unless you are willing to realize that God truly IS, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that He IS in charge, you will be bound up in Man’s condition – Satan’s plan.

I don’t say all this to make you angry, but think. I’ve got an article (still in draft form but already uploaded onto my website) which tries to explain God. If you’re honestly interested in an answer to your questions, please read it: http://www.therefinersfire.org/personal_relationship.htm

Anonymous said: "What is it you people hate so badly about God? From the looks of what 99 percent of you have written, you don't even have a clue as to who He is!"

Jim responded: Those are some very broad and inflammatory assertions. By "you people" do you mean to include all the regulars here? Maybe just those you disagree with? Who? And how does one "hate" something that is thought to be nonexistent? I don't hate the god of Abraham any more than I hate Zeus, Qetzaqoatl, or poltergeists. Many other here will tell you the same thing.

Carmen continues: I don’t know what “Anonymous” meant by “you people”, but I happen to agree with him/her. None of the comments in this thread indicates that anyone actually KNOWS a thing about God. And you all indeed DO “hate” Him. Just re-read the threads! The moment anyone mentions the name of Jesus, people go bonkers! Only Jesus can provoke people like that, and that’s because the Truth hurts, and their “carnal” selves simply cannot take it because they think THEY are in charge…. Nobody seems to think about the fact they don’t have any “power” or real control over anything, or that their lives could end at any time, and there’s nothing they can do to stop it. We are NOT in charge of anything, really. We are very limited.

Jim said: “As for not knowing who "He" is, I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. Most of us know the Bible very well, and were at one point believers. We discuss points of theology continually with visitors like you, and have earnestly studied your religion. So, what is your assertion based on?”

Carmen’s response: I wouldn’t go so far as to say “most” of you know the Bible. (“Most” said nothing of value and gave only their own unproven opinions about the Bible.) SOME of you might have read the Bible, but even so, just because you’ve read a book doesn’t make you the author. Unless you have the Holy Spirit residing in you, you can’t understand the Bible. This is evident by the comments from various atheists that “God is evil” and “He eats children”, or whatever. If you truly KNEW God and what the Bible actually says, then you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s the TRUE Word of GOD and He is NOT evil: He is JUST. Most people can’t handle that fact. They don’t want anyone telling them what to do, let alone adhere to the Ten Commandments – all of which were GOOD for Man, yet Man has turned them upside down to where “good” is now considered “evil” and vice versa.
If you had really read the Bible WITH the help of the Holy Spirit, then you would realize that hundreds of prophecies have already come true and are unfolding before our very eyes. No other “holy book” in the world can make the same claim. And if hundreds of prophecies have already come true, what makes you think the rest of them won’t? See my Israel, Bible and Prophecy page: http://www.therefinersfire.org/ibp.htm along with http://www.therefinersfire.org/accurate_messiah_prophecies.htm

I challenge anyone in this thread to refute these prophecies using actual PROOF that they didn’t happen! I also challenge YOU to prove that God doesn’t exist….

Jim said: The only "problem" I have is with those who wish to push their religious beliefs on others, and who fail to show basic courtesy toward those who disagree with them.

Carmen’s response: So why don’t you tell people like “Lemming” the same thing? Does he show “basic courtesy” to believers? I don’t think that his comment “You bet your ass I will be on my knees, blowing his cock for all eternity” is exactly courteous…..So, how about YOU showing some fairness to all sides. Why do you even allow such nastiness at all?
Jim said: For example, can you explain the extensive similarities between Christianity and older religions?

Carmen’s response: Can you PROVE that Christianity “borrowed” from “older religions”? The Jewish religion is “older” than any of the pagan religions. Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. The idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah. That was at least 8,000 BC, right after we are told that God created the universe and everything in it….

Mithraism, for instance, only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

In the meantime, many have copied from the Bible. Take Islam, for example. Their “final prophet” Mohammed (who was a murdering, thieving pedophile) took Scriptures straight out of the Tanach (Old Testament) and twisted them to suit his purposes – 600 years AFTER Yeshua (Jesus) was nailed to the cross.

Jim said: Can you explain why nothing specific was written about your purported savior until decades after his (alleged) death?

Carmen’s response: Partly because most people of that time couldn’t read or write. However, His teachings WERE written down because they ultimately reached through generations and time and STILL touch people! Immediately after Yeshua’s death, numerous followers spread his teachings, and the result of those teachings eventually developed into what is known as “Christianity” (even though Christianity is off the mark because they keep forgetting that Yeshua was a tallit-wearing, synagogue-attending, Sabbath and feast-keeping, Torah-observant Jew who said He came not to abolish but to fulfill/establish/confirm the Torah).

“Nothing specific” was written down about most of our forefathers until decades later, either…. And NONE of them are able to say they are known worldwide to the extent that Yeshua is. None of them touched the world and changed people’s lives like He did.
Jim said: Can you provide any evidence or cogent argument to support the existence of *anything* supernatural?

Carmen’s response: In order to believe in God, all you have to do is look at the universe and life. If you can’t see something “supernatural” in that, then I’m wasting my time here. Also, since I “got saved” I have had several supernatural experiences – which I won’t bother to post because no doubt everyone reading it will jump all over and try to debunk it. But the fact remains, I WAS instantly cured of a “lump” immediately after God “touched” me 12 years ago. I WAS rewarded in several ways including financially after I became a believer. Those are facts that happened and nobody can take away from me.

Jim said: Can you articulate *one* attribute of your god that can be supported by evidence?

Carmen’s response: One attribute? Besides the fact that He was able to create the universe out of nothing and that you were able to be born as a result of His making the wonderful anatomy of male and female reproductive systems? How about His grace and mercy which allow you to have eternal life, should you desire it? He sent Himself to earth in the form of a man so what Man could better understand God and the things of God, and then that aspect of God allowed Himself to be killed on the cross as the Final Sin Sacrifice. Yeshua alone is evidence of God’s grace and mercy, for rather than to kill us all off and start over again, He has given us a final chance to live with him forever. Since you’re an “ex Christian” you should know that it’s all in the Bible – the very Bible which has been and still is unfolding before our eyes.
Unfortunately, most people don’t and won’t understand. They prefer to think we evolved from apes and that Man has the power to chart his own course. Well, keep your eyes on current events. It won’t be long before the Anti-Christ signs that seven-year peace treaty with Israel. And then all hell WILL break loose!

Carmen @ The Refiner's Fire

Carmen:

First of all, I know it is hard for you to believe, but most of the people that frequent this site are indeed ex-Christians. A few have been quite rude and used words that would warrant a slap from grandma, but most are actually quite normal everyday people.
I believe the webmaster himself was a Christian for over 30 years. I am sure he was able to absorb about everything about Christian theology that you could possibly tell him.
I'm sure you haven't taken any time to read anything on this site or you would realize that most of these people stopped being Christians, not because as you put it, "decided to become an anti-Christ and take as many people to hell..",
Rather they for various reasons stopped believing in the existence God, Christ, Hell, the Devil, the whole thing.

I haven't come across anyone here, or any Atheist/Agnostic that just woke up one day and said, hey, I think I will start hating God today!
How can someone "spew lies about God" if they don't believe he exists? How can they hate God if they believe he doesn't exist? That would be like you hating the easter bunny, even though you know there is no easter bunny to hate!

In response to the "End Times" comment. I'm sure you realize that the end times have been predicted every year since the dawn of Christianity. It says in the Bible itself that Jesus would return before all of the disciples were dead.

You can say, well, nah, the times are more obviously ripe for it now than ever! The signs are there:
Natural disasters, civil problems, and other catastrophes.
The problem is, those are all things that happen every year in every part of the world.

The only beheading I have been hearing about is related to the Iraq war, and they (the fundalmentalist nutjobs that horrify Muslims themselves) are beheading people that are working with the "coalition forces", and they could care less if they are Christian, Muslim or Atheist. (read up on news articles about this)

In any case if you are trying to witness, you are not doing a very good job at it, no offense, but in the first place, you're preaching to the ex-choir here- we've seen everything you posted many many times before (lots of us used to even believe it!)
Second of all threatening and namecalling is not very "Christ-like", and whats more, even human nature tells us you gather more flys with honey than vineger!
You should study the Atheist/Agnostic positions on various subjects to understand them better to help you in your debates.

Carmen: "If you were ever a “Christian”, then you know that it’s dangerous to rely on your own limited, human mindset."

However, we are graced with your human mindset, and rhetoric.

Carmen: "We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing. For instance, I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence."

And, now you no longer need intelligence to respond to posts, just pure faith.

Carmen: "If Man is so smart, then how come we have high school “graduates” who can’t read or write?"

Carmen: "We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing. For instance, I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence."

Its obvious that high-schoolers are taking the advice of the religious, to leave intelligence behind, to the point, that all they have is faith in what someone tells them, because faith did't teach them to read and write.

Carmen: "How come we have college graduates who couldn’t tell you how many moons the earth has, or how many continents there are!"

Because all they need is faith. No knowledge, and they are happy to be led around mystified by some religious leader.

Carmen: "Yeshua’s death, numerous followers spread his teachings, and the result of those teachings eventually developed into what is known as “Christianity” (even though Christianity is off the mark because they keep forgetting that Yeshua was a tallit-wearing, synagogue-attending, Sabbath and feast-keeping, Torah-observant Jew who said He came not to abolish but to fulfill/establish/confirm the Torah)."

"Pronouncement about the Sabbath - Of all the problem passages plaguing the New Testament, Mark 2:23-28, Jesus' pronouncement about the Sabbath, surely ranks as one of the most troublesome. It reads as follows:

"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And Jesus said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."

Here the disciples were clearly breaking the law of the Sabbath as the Pharisee correctly pointed out. But Jesus defended them by saying that they were hungry and needed food. So their situation made an act that would otherwise have been wrong proper for them to do. This story has Jesus advocating situation ethics, an anathema to most Bible believers. Situation ethics denies the doctrine of absolutism so fundamental to the devout Christian. But there are other problems with this passage more serious than that of the application of situation ethics. Jesus here condones the breaking of the law - - 4th Commandment. It reads - Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. How does this square with Jesus' famous statement in Matthew 5:17-19? While delivering the hallowed sermon on the mount he declares with passion, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

The writer of Mark obviously did not do his homework before composing this passage. He has Jesus make two statements that are inconsistent with the Old Testament story to which it refers. This story is found in I Samuel 21:1-6. In it the high priest is Abimelech not Abiather as Jesus says. Also according to I Samuel, David was not in the company of other men. He was alone. He only pretended to have others with him. It makes Jesus appear foolish."

Jesus, didn't follow the Sabbath, Carmen.

___________________________________

Lesson One:

TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (613 commandments enumerated in the Torah (five books of Moses), or (b) any Jewish law at all.)
remain binding forever, and anyone coming to "Change" the Torah is immediately identified as a FALSE PROPHET (Deut. 13:1-4.

Deuteronomy 13:1 - If there arise among you A Prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

Deuteronomy 13:2 - And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; (The Romanized God, starting at Paul, using Jesus as a Prophet or the Sign)...

Deuteronomy 13:3 - Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deuteronomy 13:4 - Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. He if fact, is keen to disregard the Sabbath, on a number of occassions.

Jesus claims the following, which contradicts the Torah, or commandments, which said false prophets would come and attempt.

John 1:45 - Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 9:16 - Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Jesus fulfilled the prophesy that there would be false prophets, who would show up, and teach against the Torah, any self respecting Jew who has a modicum of understanding of the Torah understands this, well, that is, if they are intelligent and capable of reading, which requires slightly more than blind faith, that seems to be running rampant in the school systems.

“Jesus didn’t follow the Sabbath, Carmen.”

WRONG! He most certainly did - Read the Scriptures! He was a Torah-observant, Sabbath and feast-keeping Jew!

In John 15:10 Jesus said "I have kept my father's commandments" and we can also find from scripture that Jesus attended church on the Sabbath day. "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16

Most Christians don’t even understand the fact that He said He came NOT to abolish but to FULFILL Torah. The Hebrew word properly translated is “establish” or “confirm”. He never said He came to do away with His own, original teaching and instruction!

Matthew 5: 17 Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah – not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot (words/commands) and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachers and P'rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Has everything happened that must happen? Have heaven and earth passed away yet? If not, why are you NOT observing Torah?

What did the Apostles do?
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2. "Paul and his company ... went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14. "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13. "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Did the Gentiles also worship on Sabbath?
God commanded it: "Blessed is the man ... that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it." "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer ... for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:2, 6, 7, emphasis added.

The apostles taught it:
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44, emphasis added. "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.
Please read my article at http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_not_christian.htm.

Furthermore, you won't find anything in the Scriptures that references the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday. Some argue that Constantine was responsible for changing the Sabbath because he hated the Jews. No matter who instituted Sunday worship, in Yeshua's time, both Jews and Gentiles alike, regularly attended the synagogue for worship on the seventh day, and the fact that interested Gentiles in Antioch requested further instruction of Paul "on the next Sabbath" is irrefutable evidence that no separate Sunday (1st day) meetings were being held there by those early Christians: The Gentiles were willing to wait an entire week, till the next Saturday, for a meeting because they knew that Paul and his companions did not normally meet for worship on a Sunday. Acts 13:42-44 tells us that, on the next Sabbath (Saturday) almost the whole city arrived for the meeting.

Furthermore, the fact is, neither the Father nor the Son has ever claimed the first day as His own in any higher sense than He has each or any of the other laboring days. Neither of them has ever placed any blessing upon it, or attached any sanctity to it. The Bible tells us God expressly reserved the seventh day to Himself, placing His blessing upon it, and claimed it as His holy day. (Genesis 2:1-3.) Moses told Israel in the wilderness of Sin of the sixth day of the week, "Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Exodus 16:23.

You people are unbelievable. I’m sorry, but the responses you’ve been giving me are typically “Christian”. Christians all think “Jesus nailed it to the cross” (a totally misunderstood prhase!). That is because you are looking at the Bible through a Gentile “Greek” mindset. You’re not grasping the smallest facts because you haven’t got a clue about the Hewbrew language. For instance, the woman with the “issue of blood” supposedly touched “the hem” of Yeshua’s garment. That would imply she crawled down on the ground to touch the bottom of his “dress”. But the Hebrew says she touched his “tsit-tsit” – which are the braids/tassels (no English word for them) on the four corners of his tallit (prayer shawl). These “braids” spell out the Name of God….

Someone said: “Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. He if fact, is keen to disregard the Sabbath, on a number of occassions.”

Yeshua NEVER contradicted Torah! READ your New Testament again because YOU are seriously misunderstanding what He said! Paul’s teachings, especially, are the most misunderstood in history. Read: http://www.therefinersfire.org/book_of_romans.htm
The following is a small sampling of some of the misinterpretations of Paul's writings:

Question: Did Paul say the Law (Torah) was nailed to the cross?
Col 2:14 - He wiped away the bill of charges against us. Because of the regulations, it stood as a testimony against us; but he removed it by nailing it to the execution-stake.

Answer: No. He wiped away the documented opinions of men (bill of charges) against us and took them from our midst....

The Torah is holy, righteous and good. To suddenly have it "nailed to the cross" would mean that the things of God were originally evil, something to be done away with.

Paul also said, concerning the opinions of men:

Col 2:16 - So don't let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat.
This doesn't mean Paul was negating Torah. He was warning about the opinions of men concerning these things - NOT giving permission to transgress or dismiss them.

Someone said: “The only beheading I have been hearing about is related to the Iraq war, and they (the fundalmentalist nutjobs that horrify Muslims themselves) are beheading people that are working with the "coalition forces", and they could care less if they are Christian, Muslim or Atheist. (read up on news articles about this)”

Excuse me, but WHO are the ones doing the beheading? It’s the MUSLIMS and the Muslims ONLY! WHO flew airplanes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers? The MUSLIMS! The Muslims have been busy terrorizing the US and the world for over 25 years, and the worst is yet to come. The Bible warms us about them. Islam is the “beast” of Revelation. If you don’t believe me, check out this link which includes a link to an Ex-Muslim’s website that shows actual beheadings by MUSLIMS: http://www.therefinersfire.org/islam_peace_or_beast.htm
Someone said: “ I believe the webmaster himself was a Christian for over 30 years.”

Someone can be a “Christian” for a hundred years. That doesn’t mean he was “saved”. If you’ve truly been saved, you CAN’T turn back. I know this from experience. I’d venture to say that many , if not most Christians, are nothing more than “pew warmers” who wouldn’t know God if they fell on Him. Yes, they talk a good game, or they might know the Bible inside out, but if their head and their hearts have never connected, then they are just as lost as atheists. Like that old adage goes: Just because you eat at McDonald’s it doesn’t mean you’re a hamburger….

Well, it’s the Shabbat, and I’m through for the weekend. I would suggest you all open your hearts and try to digest what I’ve said. But, judging from your responses, you won’t. You are all too busy being snotty and arrogant, with a driving desire to lash out and put people down.

I love the comments about my not being “Christ-like”! You can’t take it when someone tells it like it is, can you? It really irks you to think that a believer in Christ would DARE to talk back to you like you talk to us. Well, these are the end times and there isn’t much time left. The time for pussy-footing around is over with. I’m not “witnessing” as someone tried to insinuate.

Personally, I couldn’t care less WHAT you believe! I just like to let people know that God IS, and whether you accept Him or not is not my problem. Like I always say, “At least on Judgment Day, you won’t be able to say, ‘I didn’t know’.”
Carmen

Carmen, since you began your post with "Response to Jim Arvo:", I will interpret your comments as if they are all directed at me (even though some of them do not make sense as comments to me).

Carmen: "...Now you’re all over somebody for wishing to remain “Anonymous”..."

I think you are confused. Go back and re-read my comment regarding this.

Carmen: "You are all still very snotty and sarcastic. That being the case, why do expect believers in Christ to lay down and play dead?"

You are calling me "snotty" and "sarcastic"? Let me ask you a very straightforward question, and I do expect an answer. Who has been more civil in this discussion: You or Me? Next, asking questions is in no way equivalent to expecting someone to "lay down and play dead". In fact, it's quite the opposite. I've quite consistently asked believers to STAND UP and DEFEND their ideas.

To "Anonymous" I said “Looking forward to a substantive (and civil) response from you.” Carmen replied "...It’s amazing that you didn’t make the same comment to “Lemming”..."

I did not enter into a discussion with Lemming. I don't have the time to engage every poster.

Carmen: "...But that’s typical for unbelievers and those who believe in pagan gods…."

What is typical? I don't follow.

Carmen: "...It seems all beliefs are tolerated in your chatroom – except, of course, belief in Jesus, which immediately has people all over it like dung flies, spitting and hissing and screaming bloodymurder."

This is an EX-CHRISTIAN site, so CHRISTIANITY is more germane than, say, paganism or Buddhism. As for "spitting and hissing", far more of that issues from believers than the regulars here. But it proves absolutely nothing, regardless of where it comes from.

Carmen: "...The Bible tells us that this would happen, and sure enough, it’s just another truth gleaned straight from the Word of God."

Yes, the Bible does indeed "predict" that there would be those who will not believe, and will rise up against the church. Frankly, I can't think of a safer bet than that, so it seems totally unremarkable to me. EVERY religion has its detractors.

Carmen: "...Anonymous, or not – if someone has some insight, why not listen?"

You miss the point entirely. The TOTAL content of the message was "X is the case, Trust me." There was NO insight of any kind offered. Thus, the full weight of the argument rested upon the trustworthiness of the poster, who was ANONYMOUS!

Carmen: "If you were ever a “Christian”, then you know that it’s dangerous to rely on your own limited, human mindset."

Human reason is not foolproof; with that I agree. I've rambled on about this countless times on this site. As a mere human, I (like everyone else) am susceptible to all sorts of errors, and I've committed practically every fallacy in the book at some point in my life. However, I've yet to see what alternative is available, other than making my best effort to learn and to honestly look for and try to mitigate errors in judgment. You clearly believe that an there is a channel of supernatural knowledge that can be tapped into; however, after extensive study, I have reached the conclusion that your claim is based on myriad fallacies, and I therefore reject it. That does not make my reasoning perfect; it simply circumvents one more source of fanciful and ungrounded thinking.

Carmen: "...If you don’t believe that, then just try to create a planet from nothing, or explain why water is the ONLY liquid substance that freezes from the top down, or why it is impossible for bombardier beetles to evolve. Explain, if Man evolved from apes, WHERE did the apes come from? And if your immediate response is “From some warm pond at the beginning of time” then please tell me WHERE the pond and its amoebas came from…."

Water is NOT the only substance that freezes from top to bottom. Other substances also expand when they form crystals (e.g. bismuth and gallium). You ask where the apes came from. You could as well ask where any multi-cellular creature came from. The evidence from paleontology, genetics, embryology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, etc. all point to the very same answer; from a single common ancestor. All of your subsequent questions of the form "Where did X come from?" have two properties: 1) at least partial answers can already be given by science, and 2) even if they were completely mysterious, they would still not indicate the presence of a deity. (The latter would be a fallacious argument from ignorance, which is a species of ignoring alternative explanations).

Carmen: "We must come to God like a child, trusting and believing...."

No, I think that is exactly what we must NOT do, for the simple reason that if belief precedes reason, then belief is unfounded. Having no rational grounds for a particular belief means that it is left to chance: i.e. to the prevailing beliefs when you were raised, etc.

Carmen: "...I used to be like you, relying on my own intelligence. But it wasn’t until I “found God” that I became free – free from the bigoted and arrogant “anything goes” world which is slowly going to hell in a hand basket."

How is it that you can claim to have once thought like me? You know very little about me; you know nothing of my education, or my beliefs, or how I came to hold those beliefs. Then you seem to imply that I am a resident of some imagined "bigoted and arrogant" world. You have no basis for that either. It appears that you are simply hurling accusations at me because I do not subscribe to your particular belief system. If so, then I could quite legitimately pin the labels of "bigot" and "arrogant" on you.

Carmen: "If Man is so smart, then how come we have high school “graduates” who can’t read or write?"

Because many schools are abysmal. Because many teachers are sub-par. Because many kids have a terrible home environment.

Carmen: "How come we have college graduates who couldn’t tell you how many moons the earth has, or how many continents there are!"

Same a above.

Carmen: "Why didn’t Man stop Hurricane Katrina or any of the other Bible-prophesied natural disasters (“the worst in history”) that have already or will take place in the near future?"

Just because man cannot accomplish something, it surely does not follow that there is a god who can. Also, please show me where Katrina is unambiguously prophesied in the Bible. Does it specify a time, location, severity, or anything that could not apply to countless other disasters at virtually any time in history?

Carmen: "GOD put everything in the universe exactly where it needed to be."

You've not provided one iota of evidence that said being exists, let alone that he/she/it is responsible for any specific action. Thus, your statement is simply a dogmatic assertion. It does not further the discussion at all.

Carmen: "...the earth is placed 'just the right' distance from the sun; any closer and we'd burn up. Earth's orbit is nearly circular...."

All such arguments are fallacious, as they *assume* a collection of a priori attributes that must be satisfied, rather than acknowledging the possibility that the environment SHAPED THE ATTRIBUTES. More on this below.

Carmen: "Do you honestly believe it 'just happened' that way? How could so many things working in perfect tandem 'just happen'?"

No, I don't believe it "just happened". However, I like to have my cart BEHIND my horse, not the other way around. That is, our needs match what is available on this Earth, it is not the Earth that was provided by divine fiat to fulfill our needs.

Carmen: "Unless you are willing to realize that God truly IS, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that He IS in charge, you will be bound up in Man’s condition – Satan’s plan."

So, unless I believe in one invisible conscious entity, another invisible conscious entity will do harm to me. Yet neither one of these invisible conscious entities can be directly detected, and neither wishes to show themselves. Moreover, the evidence that you provide for these entities comes from 1) personal (subjective) experience, 2) ancient scripture that exhibits all the hallmarks of legend, and 3) unexplained phenomena in the physical world. I see no reason to think your explanation is any more real than those of other religions.

Carmen: "I don’t say all this to make you angry, but think."

And I wish to make *you* think. Fair enough?

Carmen: "I’ve got an article (still in draft form but already uploaded onto my website) which tries to explain God. If you’re honestly interested in an answer to your questions, please read it: http://www.therefinersfire.org/personal_relationship.htm"

I just took a quick look at what you wrote. I'm going to try to be as civil as I can in expressing this, but I'm afraid it's going to sound harsh if I am honest about it. Virtually every sentence of your article is filled with absurd assumptions, so it would take a tome to sort through it. Let's take your very first paragraph....

From Carmen's article: "It seems that people will argue to the death about the fact that Man evolved from monkeys. But hardly anybody ever says, 'Okay, so where did the monkeys come from?' Evolutionists always want to start with a "warm little pond" someplace on Earth, as opposed to discussing such incidentals as the source of matter, space, time, planets, stars and operational laws such as laws of planetary motion, First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc. They never tell you that there is Evidence Against Evolutionism From Molecular Biology, or that some things that couldn't possibly have 'evolved', such as the bombardier beetle."

Your first "observation" about scientists not wondering where the monkeys came from is so outlandish I'm almost speechless. To me it indicates that you've not availed yourself of any scientifically sound treatments of the subject. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You are projecting a six-year-old mentality onto scientists, and then scoffing, which is simply a straw man argument.

Concerning a "warm little pond" (Darwin's quaint phrase): Evolutionists are generally concerned with EVOLUTION, not the origin of life. The two issues can be and are routinely studied independently. In fact, many choose to believe that life began through divine fiat, then evolved. There is nothing inherently contradictory in that statement (albeit, I see no reason to believe it is so). Similarly, the "origin" of space and matter is another independent question. Modern physics has shed considerable light on this, although I think it's prudent to still regard it as largely a mystery. As for molecular biology, it is a STUNNING VINDICATION of evolution. It's one of the pillars of the theory. Yes, there remain many unanswered questions, and a few pieces that seem not to fit, yet the overall theory is an absolute goldmine of confirming evidence for evolution. The existence of pseudo-genes is the "smoking gun" that Darwin could have scarcely imagined, and the detailed comparisons of proteins and their encodings has validated the overall structure of the phylogenic tree. The argument about the bombadier beetle is a tired old fallacy, used by creationists, that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. But the fact is that such mechanisms have very plausible evolutionary paths (just like the flagellum, the eye, blood clotting, the mammalian inner ear, etc.), which are described in numerous sources if you care to look. One book I recommend is "The Blind Watchmaker", by Richard Dawkins.

Your first paragraph is so completely off base that it would take me far longer than I care to spend spelling it all out (and besides, I've already addressed most of these fallacies in other posts). I'm not even going to touch your comments about thermodynamics because I've explained those misconceptions ad nauseam already in dozens of other posts at this site. However, if you can show me that you are resourceful enough to look up the actual definitions of these laws, and spell out what difficulties you think they present, I will be happy to discuss it further with you. I'd also like for you to consider why thousands of competent scientists who use these laws on a daily basis in fields such as molecular biology do not see any contradictions with evolution.

Carmen: "...None of the comments in this thread indicates that anyone actually KNOWS a thing about God."

None of your comments indicate that you "know" god either, if you interpret that word in the personal sense. However, nearly all of us here "know" god in the academic sense (i.e. having learned about the purported being through books and discussions). Moreover, most of us *thought* we "knew" god/Jesus (in a personal sense) at one time, then came to realize that it was a mind-game of sorts that exploits our inherent human proclivity to see things in the light of interpersonal relationships. (Recent scientific evidence points to this inherent tendency as the root of religious conviction.)

Carmen: "...And you all indeed DO “hate” Him. Just re-read the threads!..."

You've simply asserted the same faulty proposition, only with an exclamation mark this time. You did not address the issue of how one "hates" something that is thought to be non-existent. Until you can address that issue squarely, the ball remains in your court.

Carmen: "...The moment anyone mentions the name of Jesus, people go bonkers! Only Jesus can provoke people like that, and that’s because the Truth hurts, and their “carnal” selves simply cannot take it...."

You are projecting imaginary mental states on those of us who deem your god mythical. That type of ad hominem attack is both foolish, as you have no means to back it up, and it's also fallacious, as it ignores the substance of the arguments.

Carmen: "...Unless you have the Holy Spirit residing in you, you can’t understand the Bible...."

Perhaps one cannot understand the Koran unless one believes in Allah. Perhaps one cannot truly understand the communist manifesto unless one is an ardent communist. The problem with this type of reasoning is that it is actually circular. It boils down to this: "You will not choose to believe until you are a believer." It's also another species of ad hominem attack, for it asserts "You disagree with me not for legitimate reasons, but because of a personal shortcoming." In other contexts, you would not buy such an argument, so why should I buy it from you?

Carmen: "If you truly KNEW God and what the Bible actually says, then you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s the TRUE Word of GOD and He is NOT evil: He is JUST...."

This is circular. If I were a BELIEVER (i.e. "KNEW God"), then I would be a BELIEVER (i.e. "know... that it's the... Word of God"). Unless you can present some REASON for me to believe in your deity, all else is a non-starter.

Carmen: "Most people... don’t want anyone telling them what to do, let alone adhere to the Ten Commandments – all of which were GOOD for Man, yet Man has turned them upside down to where “good” is now considered “evil” and vice versa."

Another fallacious ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the arguments that have been put forth, you dismiss your opponent(s) by asserting a personal shortcoming (for which you have no evidence, I might add).

Carmen: "...hundreds of prophecies have already come true and are unfolding before our very eyes...."

The "hundreds of prophecies" are not the least bit convincing to me, nor to most who examine them critically. I've gone through those lists many times, and virtually every purported prophecy fails for one or more of the following reasons:

1) They are not prophecies are all when read in context.
2) Those that ARE prophecies are not MESSIANIC prophecies when read in context.
3) They are midrashic inventions after the fact.
4) They are too vague to be of value, or the words need to be greatly distorted to make them specific.
5) They are too easy to guess ahead of time, and hence fail to indicate divine foreknowledge.
6) There is no corroboration from known reliable sources that they actually took place.
7) There is no reliable evidence that they were written before the purported event.

I invite you to offer up a few of your "favorite" prophecies, and we can all examine them together, including their original context. We'll see (for the 1,000'th time) if any of them stand up.

Carmen: "I challenge anyone in this thread to refute these prophecies using actual PROOF that they didn’t happen!"

Asking for "proof" that they didn't happen is a red herring. For most of them the issue is WHETHER THEY ARE LEGITIMATE PROPHECIES, regardless of whether they actually happened or not. See my comments above.

Carmen: "I also challenge YOU to prove that God doesn’t exist…."

Lacking infinite knowledge, I cannot prove a SINGLE empirical negative (i.e. "X does not exist anywhere in the universe"). However, that is once again a red herring, for that is not the issue. The issue is whether belief in your deity is WARRANTED. If you still insist on "proof", then I will insist you first prove that Zeus does not exist. Deal?

I said "The only 'problem' I have is with those who wish to push their religious beliefs on others, and who fail to show basic courtesy toward those who disagree with them." Carmen replied "So why don’t you tell people like “Lemming” the same thing?... So, how about YOU showing some fairness to all sides. Why do you even allow such nastiness at all?"

That's the first good question you've asked, in my opinion. Here is a short answer: 1) I have on many occasions tried to tone down the rhetoric from *all* sides, not just from Christians, 2) I am often more interested in what the visitors here have to say, so I frequently skip past the comments of the regulars, 3) by default I give the ex-Christians far more slack in what they say *at this site* because one stated purpose of this site is to allow ex-Christians to vent if they wish, and 4) despite all of that, I probably *should* be more vocal from time to time when Christians are attacked.

Carmen: "Can you PROVE that Christianity “borrowed” from “older religions”?"

Of course not. Another red herring. What is at issue is evidence, not proof. We cannot *prove* that Julius Caesar existed either, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Carmen: "The Jewish religion is “older” than any of the pagan religions."

Not true. Krishna, for example, dates back approximately 5,000 years. And the "dangerous child" motif seems to have originated with Krishna, by the way. It turns up it a surprising number of religions, including Christianity and Judaism. But, more importantly...

Carmen: "Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament."

You are making an enormous assumption here. You are *assuming* that motifs such as the virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, etc. are actually foreshadowed in the OT. That is a peculiarly Christian perspective. As a Jew you no doubt realize that the such claims are generally rejected in Judaism. That is, most Jews do not accept the midrash that validates the NT stories by means of the Torah, and there is no evidence that anybody EVER entertained these interpretations before the advent of Christianity. Thus, the notion of other religions borrowing these specific motifs from Judaism is extremely far-fetched.

Carmen: "The idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah."

Please be specific about the messianic prophecy you allude to. Which verse? Was it recognized as a messianic prophecy before the advent of Christianity? Why do you think it points to Jesus, specifically?

Carmen: "That was at least 8,000 BC, right after we are told that God created the universe and everything in it…."

Where did the 8,000 figure come from? The genealogies in Matthew and Luke?

Carmen: "Mithraism, for instance, only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism)..."

Of course. No two religions are identical.

Carmen: "...What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts."

It clearly *was* influenced by Christianity! No historian familiar with the time would deny that, as both Mithaism and Christianity flourished in early Rome (up until the 4'th century CE) and therefore competed and influenced one another. It is also fairly well established that Christianity was influence by Mithaism. What is at issued is the EXTENT and NATURE of the influence in both directions. There is evidence that many specific motifs adopted by Christianity first appeared in Mithraism (e.g. the notion of a god-man savior, which was alien to Judaism). Furthermore, Mithrism has roots in Persia that are centuries older than Christianity.

Carmen: "In the meantime, many have copied from the Bible. Take Islam, for example. Their “final prophet” Mohammed (who was a murdering, thieving pedophile)..."

That's rather disrespectful of Islam, don't you think? Can you offer any evidence to back up those allegations about Mohammed?

Carmen: "...took Scriptures straight out of the Tanach (Old Testament) and twisted them to suit his purposes..."

As happens with every religion I am familiar with.

In response to "Can you explain why nothing specific was written about your purported savior until decades after his (alleged) death?", Carmen said "Partly because most people of that time couldn’t read or write...."

So it took decades for the message to reach anyone who had the means to write it down? Why did the historians of the time not take note? Did none of the great poets and philosophers of the time catch wind of the fantastic events that were unfolding? Did Jesus not see any advantage in having his words committed to paper (or papyrus)? Was nobody inspired enough to make a statue of Jesus?

Carmen: "“Nothing specific” was written down about most of our forefathers until decades later, either…."

Who do you have in mind? Are you talking of statesmen, or philosophers, or other religious leaders? If so, many had copious material written about them in their lifetimes, or wrote themselves (e.g. Julius Caesar, Plato, Confucius), so why would GOD HIMSELF not warrant such a record?

Carmen: "None of them touched the world and changed people’s lives like He did...."

Buddha did. Allah did. Krishna did. Osiris did.

Carmen: "In order to believe in God, all you have to do is look at the universe and life. If you can’t see something “supernatural” in that, then I’m wasting my time here."

I'll take that as a "no", you cannot offer evidence for anything supernatural. I do not "see" anything supernatural, and nor do you. We are both left to infer from what we do see. How is it that you can infer something that is infinitely more fantastic than anything in this world simply by the existence of things that we cannot (currently) explain? I readily admit that there are things I do not know; I refrain from CONCLUDING anything from ignorance, however.

Carmen: "Also, since I “got saved” I have had several supernatural experiences – which I won’t bother to post because no doubt everyone reading it will jump all over and try to debunk it...."

How do you know the experiences were "supernatural"?

I asked "Can you articulate *one* attribute of your god that can be supported by evidence?". Carmen responded with "One attribute? Besides the fact that He was able to create the universe out of nothing and that you were able to be born as a result of His making the wonderful anatomy of male and female reproductive systems?"

You are asserting that these were performed by your god. On what evidence? Scripture? If so, then you must show why scripture is reliable. Prophecy falls far short, as I explained above. There is also far too much evidence that scripture underwent extensive embellishment over time; it appears to have undergone the same process of incorporating bits and pieces of existing legends, just as countless other religions have. (There is a vast assortment of evidence supporting this.)

Carmen: "How about His grace and mercy which allow you to have eternal life, should you desire it?"

That is circular. If I believed that was the case, I would already believe in your god, wouldn't I?

Carmen: "He sent Himself to earth in the form of a man so what Man could better understand God and the things of God, and then that aspect of God allowed Himself to be killed on the cross as the Final Sin Sacrifice."

He sent himself to be sacrificed TO HIMSELF. Is that right? And what was the sacrifice? It could not be his life, right?, because he was only dead temporarily. And why did god "require" a blood sacrifice? Could he not forgive without it?

Carmen: "Yeshua alone is evidence of God’s grace and mercy, for rather than to kill us all off and start over again,..."

As he did once before...

Carmen: "He has given us a final chance to live with him forever. Since you’re an “ex Christian” you should know that it’s all in the Bible – the very Bible which has been and still is unfolding before our eyes."

I think it takes a very vivid imagination and selective reasoning to see any such thing.

Carmen: "Unfortunately, most people don’t and won’t understand."

I agree that most people simply want to believe what they were taught to believe. There is an acute lack of critical thinking which, in my opinion, is precisely why religions still exert so much influence in the world.

Carmen: "...They prefer to think we evolved from apes and that Man has the power to chart his own course."

I prefer to follow the evidence where it leads, as best I can. I try my best to not decide which outcome I prefer in advance, and then look only for confirming evidence. This is another way in which religions mislead, in my opinion. They legitimize conclusions that are based on preference (e.g. wishful thinking).

Carmen: "...It won’t be long before the Anti-Christ signs that seven-year peace treaty with Israel. And then all hell WILL break loose!"

How many times, in your estimation, would Christians, Messianic Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. need to make erroneous predictions in order for them to begin to lose credibility? Just curious.

Carmen said: "Personally, I couldn’t care less WHAT you believe!"

That about sums up my opinion of all your rants too, Car-Main.

And, if you hadn't stopped by to share your cute little viewpoint, the only thing we wouldn't have the "privilege" of knowing, is that you believe.

You believe in your flavor of Christianity - you believe it - that's all - it's just your belief - it's not anything else, except YOUR belief - believe it.

Oh, my, it appears we have la fem magus. I appreciate your quotes to show the contradiction below wehre Jesus in fact, did not recognize the Sabbath, when it benefitted him. Its called siutatiional morality. I understand it, but then, I'm not an absolutist, and it appears the Jesus wasn't stuck on absolutes, either.

"John 9:16 - Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them."

And you state, that Jesus in fact did attend the sabbath. Is there something about, "keepeth not the sabbath day" you don't get.

___________________________________

Since, you claim to be of MJ background, care to explain the following. And, if you want, I can pull out some Hebrew, to make you feel more at home.

Jesus, The Jewish Messiah?

KJV:
Matthew 1:22-23 - "22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Per Christian proposition, Matthew is supposed to be fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14.

KJV:
Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

However, Here is the direct Hebrew translation from Isaiah.

Hebrew Translation:
Isaiah 7:14 - "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

Lets take a closer look, at the context of the book of Isaiah, with the following facts in mind.

1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars;

2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and

3) The verse implies "the young woman" "shall call", his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call." Again, referring to the "time" of this "young woman" to be known to Isaiah.

Now, this child who is to be born during Isaiah's time, from a young woman, and was to be called Emmanuel. What is the signigicance?

The Christians claim, that the Book of Matthew is accurate, as it refers to the birth of a child, during Isaiah's time to be none other than The Jewish Messiah, who was to have lived and died on the cross, to save the world from sin.

However, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, this chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth.

Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). As its obvious Jesus was not a 600+ year old geriatric, hanging on the cross.

Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear:

KJV:
Isaiah 7:16 - "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to a young woman. As prophesied, while Isaiah was indeed living, 600+ years prior to Jesus.

KJV:
Isaiah 8:4 - "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria."

This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.

Isaiah: Isaiah lived during the late 8th and early 9th centuries B.C., which was a difficult period in the history of Jerusalem. He was part of the upper class but urged care of the downtroden. At the end, he was loyal to King Hezekiah, but disagreed with the King's attempts to forge alliances with Egypt and Babylon in response to the Assyrian threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Carmen, no matter how you slice this, most biblical scholars accept almah to mean "young woman". However, that aside, if Matthew is accurate, and refers to the child delivered to Isaiah, via a female of his time, the child could not be Jesus, who was said to have died on the cross CE.

If Matthew is accurate, meaning the child in the Book of Isaiah was born 600+ years prior as prophesied, it sure wasn't Jesus/Yeshua, seems someone needs to go figure out who that child is. In any event, Jesus is then a fraud, either by circumstance or choice. Oh, and the Child wasn't "The" child, as its obvious the OT messianic prophesies never came to pass.

Oh, and the word Messiah, per Hebrew, described a mortal to the Jews who was sent to carry out their Gods' will. Not a man-god. But of course, being MJ, you know this, right.

Since it's Shabbat and I'm off to synagogue to worship MY GOD, I don't plan on spending hours refuting your "stuff" today. However, I just can't help but get "Anonymous" (who is obviously a Jewish anti-missionary), started reading my "Challenging the Anti-Missionaries" page where ALL of his allegations have been refuted, including the "almah" thing, along with a host of other Jewish allegations: http://www.therefinersfire.org/ca.htm

The thing I actually like about "Anonymous" is that he actually has something tangible to say (however misguided it might be)....

I find it really strange that the "webmaster" jumped all over the other "Anonymous" poster for posting "anonymously, yet he doesn't say a thing about this Jewish "Anonymous". It goes to prove what I said earlier - anything goes UNTIL you mention Christ.

Carmen doth proclaim - 'I find it really strange that the "webmaster" jumped all over the other "Anonymous" poster for posting "anonymously, yet he doesn't say a thing about this Jewish "Anonymous".'

It is such a pity that Webmaster didn't do any jumping on anyone except you...

Carmen vomits forth - 'It goes to prove what I said earlier - anything goes UNTIL you mention Christ.'

No, but it does prove that you can't manage to keep the facts straight...

Carmen, I am struck by how frequently you complain and hurl accusations and insults. You *have* tried to answer a few of the questions put to you, I'll give you that, but my goodness what a whiner you are! You see malevolent intent all around you, and your posts are filled with nasty jabs at people. You are also very careless with facts, particularly when it comes to what has been said by others here. If you think you have something important to say, then by all means go ahead and say it. But we've heard and discussed claims of prophecy and argued over alma/bethula countless times. If you have something new to add to the discussion, you are well advised to focus on that rather than attacking people. Capisci?

Carmen: "The Messiah was to be a descendant of David. Jesus was! (Luke 1:32, 33)"

Jesua was born of a spirit per the Christian account, and per your account as you believe in the emmaculate conception. Therefore, there is no "biological" ties to he house of "David". Leniage is passed from the father.

Carmen: "Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Its been refuted per earlier post. The word "almah" means young woman in context, you haven't provided a refutation on your website, just this biblical passage as "proof" of "itself". Again, it doesn't matter, the fact is, the prophesy of a child being born was to occur during Isaiah's time, 600+ years prior to a Jesua. If you hold that the prophesy fulfilled, you have to hold that a child was born six centuries earlier than CE.

In your addendum, on your website, you quote this passage. Making claim that there would only be one alpha and one omega.

"Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

And, of course you posted a passage to support the claim, while not engaging in the true underlying argument.

The Jews believed in only "One" LORD, and he was to be in heaven and never come to earth. The Jewish Messiah, was to be mortal, and there were "many" Jewish messiah's back in the day.

Accordingly, lets see if Jesua is from the line of David. Even if he were to be considered a mortal messiah.

Luke 1:32-33 - "The Messiah was to be a descendant of David. Jesus was!"

Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14)

I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

Well, Carmen, perhaps the Jews are wrong. However, the Jews believed that a "messiah" was someone doing service in the name of their Lord. The Jewish god by all accounts was a god of war, the almighty warrior. He didn't need to martyr one of his servants to bring in the New Kingdom. The Messiah, once on earth would bring in the New Kingdom with the help of the Jewish god, and not be left to "hang" on a cross, as per the Christian belief.

There have been many messiah's throughout the bible. And, because none of them fit the bill for "The Messiah", they have all been discounted. To include; Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Furthermore, the claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance per the Hebrew OT/Jewish Tanakh. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure

The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as the second coming don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.

The first coming perspective where the Jews will live as a united community in the New Kingdom and age of perfection; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.

Well, Carmen, as an MJ, one could assume that you know enough of your religion, to realize that the TaNaKh, and NT conflict based on cultural perspective, and thus, the shows in the personality of each of the god concepts portrayed. The Jewish God, a warrior god, who is to save the Jews and bring them into their New Kingdom in "one" powerful shot, is a far different god than the NT god, who has to re-send his son back to earth again because he couldn't get the job done right the first time, and who is so weak that he has to sacrifice himself, or his son in order to get the job done right.

Oh, and Carmen, I don't want to be considered oned sided, or biased, as portraying myself as a "Jewish Missionary". So, I'll end with a few Talmudic laws, to allow the gentle reader to ponder, regarding Judaism in general.

Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass."

Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung."

Schabouth Hag. 6b: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

Zohar 1,160a: "Jews must always try to deceive Christians."

Hilkkoth Akum Z1: "Do not save Goyim (gentile) in danger of death."

Choschen Ham 388, 15: "If it be proven that someone has given the money of israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of this earth."

The true Jewish business ethic above, coupled with the below, makes for a great business partner, well if ethics are necessary.

Choschen Ham 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

Well, Carmen, enjoy Shabbat. There have been a few posts recently stating that man-kind has a stronger tendency towards yetzer ha'ra rather than yetzer ha'tov. Do you believe the Talmud and its guidance pulls many towards yetzer ha'ra. If you want to speak about, Christ, please by all means, throw it out there.

Peace

To “Any-Mouse”: Er – NOTHING was refuted “in an earlier post about almah.” What you said was absolutely wrong, and EVERYTHING you have mentioned HAS been refuted on my website! I suggest, if you’re really interested, go through some of the articles and take the time to read my proofs to the contrary. If anybody’s interested, they’re certainly welcome to read the articles at http://www.therefinersfire.org/ and then refute each and everything I’ve said - BIBLICALLY (meaning NOT personal opinions), and then write me at Carmen@therefinersfire.org because I don’t intend to spend my life in this chatroom ….

Since someone made the comment about almah (again), here’s what it says on my website:

According to the 70 Jewish rabbis who worked on the Septuagint translation of the Old Covenant, the Hebrew word "almah" (Isaiah 7:14) is translated "parthenos" meaning virgin. Furthermore, the word "almah" is used just seven times in the Old Covenant and refers every time to what can only be a virgin. So when you say "almah" is mistranslated, you are disagreeing with traditional Jewish thought.

Even if the word almah in Isaiah 7:14 meant "a young woman" - in the context of the Tanakh it always referred to "a young woman of unsullied reputation," which is why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Tanakh prepared 200 years before Yeshua's birth, rendered this word into Greek as parthenos, "virgin". This is also the word used at Mat 1:23.

There are hundreds of Jewish and Gentile Bible scholars who believe that the prophet Isaiah was predicting the virgin birth of the Messiah. A list of the Jewish scholars alone would include such names as Dr. Sanford C. Mills, Milton Lindberg, Dr. Arthur W. Kac, Dr. Henry J. Heydt, Dr. Leopold Cohn, Dr. Jacob Gartenhaus and Dr. David L. Cooper. All of these eminent Jewish theologians believe that the Hebrew word "almah" is best translated by the word "virgin."

In Isaiah 9:6, you will find a description of this special child who was born to a virgin: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

A child will be born who will be called "Mighty God"? Jewish commentators did not dispute the Messianic nature of this prophecy until modern times. As proof, let me cite the paraphrase of this passage given in Targum Jonathan:
"And there was called His name from of old, Wonderful, counselor, Mighty God, He who lives for ever, the messiah in whose days peace shall increase." (Targum of Isaiah)
Granted, one shouldn't read something into the Biblical story that isn't there. However, it is just as dangerous to delete or ignore things that are there....

And if you wanna discuss Yeshua’s genealogy, go to my website. It’s all there…In fact, you can find the answers to many of your assertions at http://www.therefinersfire.org/leah_rafaeli.htm

Jim Arvo said: Carmen, I am struck by how frequently you complain and hurl accusations and insults. (Say, Jim, have you read what the other posters wrote??? Have you looked at some of the things YOU’VE said?) You *have* tried to answer a few of the questions put to you, I'll give you that, but my goodness what a whiner you are! You see malevolent intent all around you, and your posts are filled with nasty jabs at people. (If you want to see nasty jabs, Jim, check that “Blessed Be
Lemming” guy’s comments – to which NOBODY said a word in protest! But the moment I dare “talk back”, I get 15 people jumping down my throat! If you want to view my “backtalk” as whining, that’s your prerogative.) You are also very careless with facts, particularly when it comes to what has been said by others here. (Good accusation, but can you provide some examples?) If you think you have something important to say, then by all means go ahead and say it. But we've heard and discussed claims of prophecy and argued over alma/bethula countless times. (Well, now you’ve discussed one more time!) If you have something new to add to the discussion, you are well advised to focus on that rather than attacking people. Capisci? (Perhaps you should take your own advice, Jim….Verstehst du?)
Like I said before, Jim, you people can’t take it when someone talks back to you the way you talk to them! I’m not whining; I’m merely stating the facts. You people love to rant and rave and toss out your tidbits of “wisdom”, yet you don’t bother to respond to my questions - and when you do, most of them are opinion only, and nothing substantial that would convince me what you are saying is true. Case in point, read “CT’s” comment, above. What was his/her point in posting anything at all? Did he/she add anything to our discussion? No hardly!

Same as “webmaster” who never has anything to say, either. He just jumps on the bandwagon of jumping on, and belittling people without ever making any comments of substance – and his testimony is the reason I made my initial comments in the first place! He’s allowed everyone else to do his talking for him….

Response to “Any-Mouse” who said: “Well, Carmen, as an MJ, one could assume that you know enough of your religion, to realize that the TaNaKh, and NT conflict based on cultural perspective, and thus, the shows in the personality of each of the god concepts portrayed. The Jewish God, a warrior god, who is to save the Jews and bring them into their New Kingdom in "one" powerful shot, is a far different god than the NT god, who has to re-send his son back to earth again because he couldn't get the job done right the first time, and who is so weak that he has to sacrifice himself, or his son in order to get the job done right.”

Yikes! You are SO lost! Actually, the Tanach and the NT DON’T conflict; MAN’S hard-headedness is the problem. The OT is the NT concealed; and the NT is the OT revealed.

Yeshua was foreshadowed throughout the Tanach, but the traditional Jews didn’t get the picture! Yeshua has fulfilled four the seven Biblical feasts so far, with only three more to go (http://www.therefinersfire.org/feasts2.htm), and traditional Jews don’t get the picture. Yeshua fulfilled everything He had to fulfill while on earth. Just because there are a few more prophecies to go doesn’t mean “he couldn’t get the job done right the first time”. The prophecies will be fulfilled in GOD’s timing, not ours. (See http://www.therefinersfire.org/the_prophecies.htm)
How do you explain the fact that Yeshua has fulfilled around 300 prophecies in HIS short LIFETIME? Have YOU ever fulfilled even ONE prophecy? If not, then give some credit where credit is due, okay? Let's discuss THE ODDS of so many prophecies being filled by one Person:

Speaking, for instance, of just eight key prophecies fulfilled by one person, Peter Stoner, a mathematician, points out, "We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled eight of the prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000" (Science Speaks, Moody Press). And the probability of any one man fulfilling all of these hundreds of prophecies is a number too large to write down: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

He also discussed the probabilities of just the 48 prophecies (http://www.therefinersfire.org/accurate_messiah_prophecies.htm) being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157!
As for “Any-mouse” and his Talmud stuff, I guess he doesn’t realize that, unless you can read fluent Hebrew and translate/understand it from a Hebrew mindset, you can mistranslate and misinterpret anything!

I’d like to submit that you got your “wise sayings” from some moronic Jew-hating webmaster who hasn’t got a clue. For instance, “Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass" doesn’t exist. I challenge you to find an actual TALMUD (not some moron’s stated opinions) and look up what it actually said. If you will READ it for yourself, you will see this whole lo-o-o-o-n-g commentary (not just one little sentence telling us that Jesus is a fornicator) is about several entities including Baalam (Satan). Jesus’ name is nowhere to be found!
Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung."

Really? Again, I CHALLENGE you to read an actual Talmud for yourself – and then do some research into the names mentioned there. Yeshu (which means “may his name be blotted out” – as opposed to Yeshua whose name means “Salvation”) is NOT Jesus of the New Testament. He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism. While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE.
Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together. In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam's mother being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus. You can't have it both ways.

You must remember that the Talmud is a commentary on the Oral Law
You obviously picked these stupid things off some idiotic KKK or other “white supremacist” website. If you are trying to push your supposed Talmud “proofs” off as truth, then you are not only deceived but also a liar…..
If you are willing to find the TRUTH, check out the Truth about the Talmud: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html#balaam .

Carmen asked "Say, Jim, have you read what the other posters wrote???"

Once again you abdicate responsibility by pointing a finger at others. It does not change nor justify YOUR behavior. YOU, Carmen, have engaged in name-calling from the start. Is there some justification for THAT fact?

Carmen: "Have you looked at some of the things YOU’VE said?"

Have I *looked* at them? Of course, I *wrote* them, and they are consistently more civil than your rhetoric. Do you disagree with that?

Carmen: "If you want to see nasty jabs, Jim, check that “Blessed Be Lemming” guy’s comments – to which NOBODY said a word in protest!"

Frankly I'm not that interested in what Lemming wrote. (Sorry Lemming... there's just too much stuff to wade through.) More importantly, how would his behavior justify yours, especially toward others?

Carmen: "...But the moment I dare “talk back”, I get 15 people jumping down my throat!..."

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

Carmen: "...If you want to view my “backtalk” as whining, that’s your prerogative."

I don't know what you mean specifically when you say "backtalk"; I am referring to your continual complaints about name-calling when you yourself engage in it, and your numerous complaints concerning anonymous posters, which have been misrepresentations on your part.

I said "You are also very careless with facts, particularly when it comes to what has been said by others here." to which Carmen replied Good accusation, but can you provide some examples?"

1) You accused the webmaster of jumping "all over" someone for posting anonymously when he did nothing of the sort.

2) You accused me of being "all over" someone for posting anonymously when I did nothing of the sort.

3) You insinuated that I expect "believers in Christ to lay down and play dead" when my words suggest nothing of the sort.

4) You insinuate that I've been nasty to you, when in fact the worst you can say of me of is that I called you a "whiner" and I sarcastically referred to your questions as "tricky".

I said "If you have something new to add to the discussion, you are well advised to focus on that rather than attacking people. Capisci?" to which Carmen replied "Perhaps you should take your own advice, Jim….Verstehst du?"