jump to last post 1-46 of 46 discussions (478 posts)

Jesus Was Jewish So What Religion Was He Leading His Followers To?

  1. AEvans profile image71
    AEvansposted 4 years ago

    In the Bible it is clear that Jesus was Jewish. You will find it written multiple times, however what religion was he leading the followers to? Catholicism believes that Jesus told Peter, " And I say unto thee, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Then the Church would have began around 32CE. Others believe Constantine started the Catholic Church around 312 CE, which would be approximately 100 years later.

    Before Constantine Christianity it was noted that Christianity was a calmer form of Judaism, keep in mind Christianity and its many forms originated over 2000 years ago. So when Jesus was leading his followers was he leading them to Judaism or the milder form? Was he truly leading them to Christianity? Or was it Catholicism?


    Can this be debatable with an open-mind? I have wondered about this for a long-time even when I took 'History of Religions' in College. Is there a real answer to this unknown question?

    1. sofs profile image86
      sofsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Love and obedience to His word.. he did not form groups and sects he just preached and went about doing good! smile

      1. AEvans profile image71
        AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I like that answer Sofs. smile

      2. calpol25 profile image75
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi AE - personally I dont think Christ was leading us to a religion as such, that was more those who wanted to spread his word and teachings, but I think Jesus was leading them to a deeper understanding - trying to teach acceptance and love for others such as spiritual  education and understanding and caring, as well as teaching choice and respect and the goodness of others.  thats just my opinion smile x

        1. AEvans profile image71
          AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I like and you responded to Sofs comment. smile XO

          1. calpol25 profile image75
            calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks AE smile xo

            1. AEvans profile image71
              AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No problem. smile

      3. 0
        kiasumamaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I agree with you

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's simple Christianity, not necessarily any particular denomination.  Its foundation is simple belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and as God Himself (the book of John spells that out).
      John the Baptist was probably the first "preacher" of Christianity.  His message was Repent! for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  He did that without founding any particular "church" since he preached alone. It doesn't mean that Baptist is the only "religion" or denomination of Christianity; it certainly isn't Catholicism as that denomination was set up; and even Catholicism cannot lay claim to being the "religion" because the word "catholic" was intended to mean "universal" (the body of Believers from everywhere; yet it turned into a man-made denomination as many of the denominations did).  It's just that it is Christ who we should be following, period.  The foundation is written in the word of God, from the facts in Genesis to the facts in Revelation.
      Yes, Jesus was a Jew. And indeed the old Jewish Law is the foundational information that God set in place; they are His laws.  Yet Jesus fulfilled those laws, because no other human being could.  He didn't change those laws; He just provided the way for humans to be saved from the letter of those Jewish Laws. (The "letter of the law" kills; people are unable to totally follow those statutes.  The disciples, as someone else said, (following John the Baptist's lead) set the true "church" in place as they assembled together and set out to spread the Gospel to the world; the Apostle Paul was a main preacher of Christianity and led the founding of several churches in different cities.   Even his naming of those as "the church at Philadephia" and "the church at Ephesus", etc. were simply meant to be gathering places of Believers for the sake of edifying Believers and bringing lost souls to Christ;  not for making any particular denomination or separate religion, even though there have been some made of it!  False copycats like the denomination of Watchman Nee (I think it is) comes to mind---his followers set out to set up churches that are called "The Church" in whatever cities they can set up in.  Yet they don't even recognize Jesus for who He is; instead they try to separate Him from God and put each person in His place as though each person is Christ.
      It's messed-up.
      I think different people in different denominations example true religion, yet it seems no one can rightly put the correct name to it.  Mother Teresa is one who practiced (from what I hear) the true religion---the Bible says that's "to visit the widowed and fatherless in their affliction and to keep one's self unspotted from the world".  I think there are many in different denominations who do that.  But not in different "religions".  Simple Christianity is the only true "religion".

    3. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
      Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Christ name, in his native Galilean-Aramaic language was Isa, what translates in to Hebrew Esau, not Jesus. Check the Talmud if you don't believe me.

      Christ was not a Jew; in John 8 the Pharisee Jews mistakenly called him Samaritan:
      New Testament - John 8:48

      " 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan".

      In fact, Christ was Minaean (after origin of Mary his mother), from Capernaum in Galilee, and Galilee was separated from Judea by Samaria.

      All apostles of Christ, except Judas, were Galileans also called Gentiles, but not the Jews.

      James the Just was the bishop of Jerusalem, the oldest of Christ' half-brothers and early recognized as the most prominent overseer of the Jerusalem Church. He was the son of Joseph Phasel II of Herodian dynasty (Idumean – Edomite).

      James was certainly not a Judaizer, at the time of the Jerusalem Council he distinctly recognized the legitimacy of Gentile Christianity.

      For 11 years under the guidance of James, the Gentile Christians were left undisturbed. As long as they were considered part of the Jewish people and worshiped in the Temple and the synagogue with their unconverted countrymen.

      In the year 62, the procurator Festus died and the delay in the arrival of his successor Albinus offered the high priest, Ananias, a son of Ananus the elder an opportunity to call for the death of James.

      Ananias called a Sanhedrin together and brought before the Jewish rulers, James the brother of  who was called the Christ, and "certain others" who were also probably Christians.

      They commanded James to proclaim from one of the galleries of the Temple at Jerusalem that Christ was not the Messiah. But instead James cried out that Christ was the Son of God and Judge of the World.

      Then his enraged enemies hurled him to the ground, and stoned him. While on his knees praying "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"

      The murder of James showed a growing tension between the Christians and the Jews, and the flight of Gentile Christians from Judea to Pella in 65 marks the final severance.
         
      The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe.
      That is where Nazorean sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem.


      Christians so called Nazarene, writes St. Jerome in the letter to St. Augustine of Hippo, were known as Minaeans; and Minaeans we know from history as Minoans.

      1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
        Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No no true. smile

        1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "No no true"

          consider (-x)*(-y) = +
          Minus Minus Equals Plus wink

          1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
            Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            His name is not Esau! Just because you read a book you think you know something. Not true in any kind of way!

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Shall we go and see who was Esau, and how much Esau and Christ have in common?

              1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                man I would love for you to show me. But do me a favor send it too me in a direct message as well as post it on here. With all these replies I cannot keep track of them. Thanks.

                1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                   The  ancient  Kabbalist,  not the new age ones, were saying that "Esau and Jesus are one".           

                  This statement comes from the book:

                  Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Old Testament…
                  By Sabine Baring-Gould

                  Esau and Jacob
                  Page 248

                  “The Cabalists say that the soul of Esau, whom the Arabs call Ais, passed into the body of Jesus Christ by metempsychosis, and that Jesus and Esau are one.”


                  I have found this statement very interesting and worth to be explored.

                   After all, Esau was the first born and beloved son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham.

                  Although beeing the firstborn and the heir of Isaac, Esau also called EDOM was nither Jew nor Israelite. 

                  In fact, Jews consider him to be the founder of Rome and Christianity.

                   We see that in Ancient times Edom was to be found amongst several Ancient Peoples. Other sources show Edomite elements in China (as claimed recently by an erudite Chinese scholar) and possibly also Japan. 

                  Edom on the whole may well have had a major civilizing influence amongst many of the world populations.

                  What do you think about it?

                  1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                    Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Interesting! Tell me more but I wont be back till next week as I am gone out of town. So tell me more. Send me it in an email or direct message. Thanks.
                    Jesus was not Esau, but he was a type of Him, as to the part made sin and much more I will share when I return!  have a great weekend!

    4. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed Jesus was raised in the traditions of the Hebrew Faith or the Jewish faith and Jesus adopted many of the Jewish teachings, but Jesus led his followers to a more passive jewish faith which after his death becomes know as "Christianity" it tore down amny if the more rigid teachings and rituals of judaism and incorporated Jesus "Love theme" The Love of God the Love of Self, the love of your fellow man including even your enemy along with the teachings and rituals introduced to the Apostles by Jesus, such as the "Last Supper" the forgiveness of sin, etc.

      Catholicism took this and expanded upon it plus adding its own rituals and teachings and rites creating the teachings of Roman Catholicism and that was later attacked when Protestanism began.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ********************

        Yahshua's laws were more rigid and detailed, not less.

        Paul is the one who made it easier and unimportant

        1. jacharless profile image83
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, and scripturally, that is entirely incorrect.
          Paul imposed extreme lawful abode to everyone -including traditional circumcision, marriage rights, etc. Y`shua proclaimed thorough abandon/absolution from textually based memorization/application and ritual system regarding the common temple practices of Judaism [Mosaic Judaism] -the precise system you prefer and defend, as Paul did, for a rigorous freedom from those impositions, by applying practical faith -simple 'do the word in you' and be righteous versus compulsion of lawful Judaism and its curses/consequences to appear righteous, in the eyes of the ego and other like minded egos.

          Your judgment is off on this by a mile.
          Y`shua's core doctrine (if it can be called such) was: is no need for ritual, law or any such imposition; the old ways are superseded by just one way -the original way- Father first, then your fellow man. A thorough loosening from tradition, birthright, blessing under Coven A in exchange for manifesting heaven-earth here and now under the new and BETTER Coven B.

          Again, ironically, you bash Paul whom you are following to the yod, with every crumb.

          What a waste of good energy.

          James

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ************

            I am not interested in your delusions Twenty-one

            1. jacharless profile image83
              jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, am 42, if you please. Thank you.
              Always good to see that positive attitude, selfless, ego-less -and certainly-  unquenchable life giving water spilling over from you. You really make a good grafted in Jew (although still not a Hebrew) and an even better [Pauline] Christian. Well done, Senorita.


              Also, for the record, hat you are interested in is, well, irrelevant! Especially to HubPages forum. your personal exclusivity fan club does not exist here. and you flock either sorcerer/priestess.

              But, apart from jibes, your information is incorrect -textually. And it is rude to misinform the general public, to further the smoke/mirrors. Humanity has had enough parlor tricks for the last 6000 years.

              James.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                *****************************

                I am very hard to fool and I am very discerning.

    5. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Since Catholicism didn't exist, and many of the tenets of that church were created by Paul and later prelates (not set down by Jesus), I don't see how he could have been leading them to Catholicism specifically.

      1. Dave Mathews profile image60
        Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nobody says that Paul was leading the "Christians into Catholicism. He was though leading them into a Christian life style as taught by Jesus Christ fo whom "Christianity is named.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ********************

          Paul was the one who taught to call and entreat the Elders as Father (Elders as in church leaders) Although Yahshua told us to call no man father.

          And Catholics are Christians.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            but they call their priests father
            Persecute one but not the other?

            1 Timothy 5:1   Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him AS a father; AND the younger men as brethren;

            to intreat, (invite, call near, comfort, desire) as a father is not the same as to call him father.

            Because Paul clearly labeled the father (God) as father G3962

               Colossians 1:3   We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
              Colossians 1:12   Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
            Philippians 2:11   And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
            Philippians 1:2   Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
            Ephesians 6:23   Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
            Ephesians 4:6   One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
            2 Corinthians 11:31   The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knows that I lie not.
            2 Corinthians 1:3   Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

            I can go on copying what Paul said about God being our father, but it is interesting to note that the translation does also name parents as fathers, Abraham as a father and fathers in law. It seems habitual if i may use that word to define g3962 as father, 382xs in the NT.

            But directly concerning the verse out of context and in question, I would say would have better been translated parent instead of father keeping more in align with the next sentence, brethren. But i am sure you will add not such grace to such an interpretation.

            G3962 has two definitions father, parent.

          2. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Scripture references Deborah?

            Would like to look this up.

            Please.

            smile

          3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Deborah Sexton, Hi, can you please give me references when Paul said we may call elders Fathers? Seems to me unusual. I cannot find it.

            1. BDazzler profile image81
              BDazzlerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Greetings my brother!  I don't know about Paul giving direct instructions, I can't find that either, but John called the more mature men of faith "fathers" in 1 John 2:14.  I know that Paul instructed Timothy to treat older men as though they were fathers, 1 Timothy 5:1.

              I do know that the "title" Father has been a point of contention within Christianity for a long time.  I consider titles to be among the "disputable matters" in Romans 14:1.  When in doubt, God is Gracious! When you're sure. God is even MORE Gracious! wink

    6. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hello sis. Jesus did not come to create religion. Religion is man created system. It is based on opinion. The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus.  The Law curbed flesh from sin and Grace made people free. Jesus did what He seen of His Father and said what He heard of His Father. Jesus is Junior Elohim. He was Jewish OK.

    7. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      *********************

      I believe Judaism. He went to Temple (Jewish Church) and used the old testament.

      But his message was "The Kingdom of God"

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because that is where the people were at and the OT was all that they had.
        The church was instituted because the temple people would not preach Jesus as messiah and because they would not teach or preach that, they could not expound on the rest of the person and works of Christ Jesus. So to speak freely about Jesus they had to have their own place.

        Jesus is the kingdom of God

    8. 0
      Virgil Newsomeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus was only half Jew.  His mother was a Jew but His Father was not a Jew.  Unless I am mistaken, the Jews would call him a Samaritan, which is another race mixed with the Jewish race.

      Please correct me if I am wrong.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ********************

        In Hebrew you can be a Jew, only if your mother is.

        Since Yahshua's mother was, it made him completely a Jew.

        That's why Hebrew men were forbidden in marrying non-Hebrew women.

        Yes, the mother determines if you are a Jew or not.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The mother determines the Jewishness of the person in the eyes of the jews.

      2. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jesus earthly father was not his biological Father..

        Virgin birth. Member?

        smile

      3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Virgil. Jesus was incarnated Son of G'd and His mother Miriam was Jew. Their origin was Bethlehem but they lived in Nazareth. If they call Yeshuvah Nazarene in means faithful, not nationality. Jesus said: I came to children of Israel, not to gentiles refused for moment minister to gentiles.
        Yes, God is creator of nation of Israel, but He is greater than being national.

    9. ro-jo-yo profile image86
      ro-jo-yoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, the Messiah was Jewish, and if you look in Strong's concordance, you will see that his name in Hebrew is Yehowshuwa.
      The Hebrew name of the Almighty is Yehowah. this name is hidden by the word LORD in the KJV.
      Yehowshuwa was sent by his Father Yehowah to bring us all back to the his Father. He also came to declare his Father's name

      John 17:25  O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
      John 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare : that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

      Yehowshuwa declared his Father's name in the following verses:
      When asked by the scribes what the greatest commandment was, Yehowshuwa replied:

      Mark 12:29 And Yehowshuaw answered him, The first of all the commandments , Hear, O Israel; Yehowah our God is one Yehowah:
      Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love Yehowah  thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this  the first commandment.
      Mark 12:31 And the second  like,  this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
      This is a quote from Deuteronomy 6:4 where the Almighty's name is  but replaced with the word LORD in the KJV, but in the Hebrew scripts his name is there over 6000 times in the OT.

      And when he was contending with Satan he replied:

      Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
      Matthew 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
      Matthew 4:10 Then saith Yehowshuwa unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yehowah thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

      So the Messiah clearly states that we are to worship the Almighty Yehowah and him only. That was the teachings that the disciples had, but as time goes by, and they are killed and this teaching slowly gets stomped out as the generations go by. So by the time of Constantine, who was the priest of Sun worship, people no longer know these truths, and sun worship gets implanted, disguised as the true belief. Christianity is Sun worship, that is why they introduced the Trinity, because in sun worship you need three. The Father Mother and Child, Where the Child becomes the Father thence becoming God.
      And that is why the have everyone worshiping Jesus Christ as God/ this is a false God for we are to worship the Father and him alone.
      So who is this Jesus Christ?

      Yehowshuwa the son of Yehowah was leading his followers back to his Father.

    10. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
      Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Great Question! I do not believe he was trying to put them in to an organization so to speak, but He knew it would turn to that.  Jesus was showing them and us a "Way of Life", a Way to Live, not within ourselves as to our own works, but that by accepting His sacrifice that we could receive a new life, a new nature, a new mind, and through that newness of life we would have our conversations in heaven, we would walk streets of Golden Faith,  We would be able to walk in fellowship with God all the time, and we would have Love for one another and in doing so would create a society, a world, a way of life that we will call The Millennium! We would banquish death, sickness, disease, sadness, hatred, racism, genocide, wars, pain, poverty, rape, crime and murders and we would establish the way of Life to the whole world as only His Spirit would have it. We would restore this world to its blissful state before the world fell in the Garden. I believe God is not so much against being organized, but He is against the carnal mind of men who defined him with their carnal minds and propogated lies and made burdensome laws that they themselves do not keep and force it upon mankind as a torment and a bondage way of life and not a true joy and peace and happiness as it would be in a real Church. A real church being ONLY those who have His Spirit within, a many membered body of born again Saints called The Manchild! A Way of Life, Not an organized man made and man taught religion, either Judaism, or Christianity, it was all about Christ being in You and with you and His Nature and Love from one to another establishes a Great Society where Christ reigns Surpreme!

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        One world religion, satan's domain.

        1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
          Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, Christians are not against a One World Religion or Government, it is the answer as we are already headed that way, even the fact we have the "United Nations" so it is already in place. The only difference we have is WHO will be the Head of it! Jesus Christ! Amen!

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No.

            Christians following a one world religion must give way to other religions deity.


            I nor any other absolute loyal Christian will bow to another name than Jesus Christ.

            That is the very reason people point fingers at Christians because we refuse to deny Christ Jesus above all others and claim Him the only way to life and God.

            We believe Jesus is God, and they say He isn't. Therefore, yes, Christians are against one wlrld religion and government as the religion will be anti-Christ and the one world government has been fortold for centuries by revelation.

            By peace the anti-Christ will deceive many, and lead them away from salvation through Jesus Christ.

            I will not serve anyone but Christ Jesus. The Son of man.

            Not putting you away, But one world religion and gov't is headed by anti-Christ fortold by the Bible. Don't have all the details, but will collect my info if you want it.

            smile

            1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
              Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks  V7 smile No problem! I hope you know when I say a One World Government and Religion, I am speaking of the One World Government and Religion that Jesus Christ will establish upon His return. I will not bow to any other name or King but Jesus Christ my Lord. Remember now Christ is for a one world government, His! and a one world religion, His, and as His Elect We will be a vital part in establishing this with Him. Amen

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Amen.

                For future reference, Jesus uses the kingdom of God for that.

                Distinguishes what people aee referring to.

                smile

    11. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
      Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I must say also, I do not believe Jesus was a Jew as to those natural people called the Israelites. God was His Father, Mary was a carrier of that precious Seed, but As Science tells us there is not a drop of the Mothers Blood in a child but only the fathers. So he was neither Jew nor Gentile, but a New Creation. Now He will return and through those Born Again Jews he will rule the World and establish the Great Millennium. I believe a new way of worship will then be established as He will be here again in physical form with us.

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol It just gets dumber and we have all been made stupider by it... Notice I used the word stupider, that's how dumbfounded statements like that make me feel. We are all God in the flesh, you're just so busy stuffing your nose up your pastors butt, that you don't even see it. Christ was trying to show us how to be part of God, he never once stated he was God, that was his idiotic pack of morons, incapable of living their own lives. So now you've picked up on it and propegated the idiocy, no more original than any of the other regurgitants...

        1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
          Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well what do you do with the fact Jesus Himself called those Jews A bunch of serpents and snakes and children of the devil, not of God. How can that be? Plus WHERE do you get any idea of Who or What God is at all?

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus wasn't speaking to 'those Jews' as much as he was speaking to the religious. You know the ones. They considered themselves special. They thought they spoke for God through quoting scripture. They went on and on about how others weren't right with God, not like they were.

            Sounds a lot like the typical Christian poster. You know, kind of like the things you post. I wonder, if Jesus was here today, if you'd understand when he called the most vocal Christians vipers and snakes. At the very least, he'd probably politely ask for his name to be removed from the first part of yours. smile

            1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
              Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know He was not speaking to all the Jews, but the self righteous leaders of that day who made it a man made religion with their own carnal interpretation. The Churches of today (99%) of them have done the exact same thing. if he came back today, (Well I have a secret, he has came back) but He did not reach out to the churches of this day but strongly rebuked them all and found His Elect and gave them The Revelation of Jesus Christ which is the translation from this world to heaven which means the Spirit World. You won't understand it, but if you hungered and became humble He might share it with you as well. : )

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No thanks. If I thought there was a snowball's chance in heck that you had  the faintest glimmer of a half truth, I might be interested in hearing it. I'm afraid I don't think that. But, you have every right to enjoy your fantasies. smile

                1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                  Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just a coloring book to you little one, but a living breathing awesome incredible reality to me and all of Gods Elect, which by your own words are not. Change your ways humble yourself, time is so short! The door is closing to you hurry!

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Okee dokee. I guess I'm just not 'special'.

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ****************

                He was mostly speaking of the Pharisees and some to the Sadducees.

          2. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A writing narry constitutes fact, if that were true, then a comic book would be litterally true...

            1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
              Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Mich - All you know is from a book where a He said and a  She said all down through the ages. All of your so called "facts" are built upon someone elses opinions who based them upon some one elses opinions etc etc.
              Paul the Apostle said, he received a Revelation that no one on Earth ,in the seminary, the theologians, the priest, the preachers, nor any man nor book nor institution gave Him what he had came too. Oh my, it is absolutely glorious! And the beautiful part is God only shares it with His true Elect and not another. And no one will understand it nor receive it but His Elect! And they do see it and have it within and the whole world will never ever find it! The Election Obtained it and all the rest of those ever born were BLINDED to it!!! hallelujah! Glory to Jesus Christ my Lord! take that! : )

              1. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Whether you choose to accept what I say or not matters little. I am pointing out my position on the matter and even that is of little consequence. We are the same, us and the animals, the universe, the whole of exsistance. It's all one thing and God is the nature of man; anger, jealousy and love. We gave God a persona, none of which would apply to such a being.

                1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                  Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Misch- If you would humble yourself I could clearly share things with you that would reveal God to you, show you that he rent from Himself that "Animal, beastly, evil" side of Himself and became a brand new creation! it is called, "Jesus Christ, The Beginning of the creation of God" man the thing I could share with you that are SOOO NOT your average common general view of God! I can show you How God veiled Himself in Darkness and what that darkness was and why He did so, and then How He walked the Earth veiled in that darkness and the reason why and then why and what he made that darkness and why He rent it from Himself and even died! yes he died he Himself, God almighty died and executed Himself by is own Word and authority and committed Suicide so to speak and Had to be REBIRTHED, RECREATED and God Himself literally did become Born Once Again! Oh My it is absolutely fabulous, astounding and beyond the scope of 99 percent of all religious people including all of humanity! I could show you, what he became after that and How He truly made all and when I say All I mean ALL THINGS NEW!!!! How When He died that He literally brought the End of the World and by executing Himself to Death and then Had to be brought back to Life from the dead! My God it is altogether fantastic and would make you weep in total shock and awe and tears of Love and Joy would fall from your heart and eyes if you seen what would be shown to you about this God that you think you know but he said I am altogether not such as one of you. I shed tears just thinking of such Love, such a God, Such a Being who did what he did to Himself and for all of Creation to save it because of What God Himself had done! : )

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol lol Ok give it up. You can't be for real. That would just be unfathomable.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then, stop rambling and show us. We await to see your God.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol WOW! lol

                I'm glad to not be part of the "Elect" as it would appear insanity is a prerequisite.

                1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                  Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes you would be right, it is called You must lose your own mind, They said of Paul, you are beside yourself and another one not understanding said, Paul much learning doth make you mad. So yes we are fools for Christ! You must die to your self and to all you are to be His Elect. Those who wish to save their own lives, Christ said, would lose it! But He said if you will lose YOUR life for His Sake, You will gain it in a Eternal new way without Sin ever again!

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ************************

                    I hope you know what this means, tell me your view

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ****************

        The mother's and child's blood doesn't mix while the baby is in the womb. However, what does this have to do with being a Jew or not?

        A mother has to be a Jew for a child to be a Jew. It does not matter about the father.

        Seems you know as much about medical things as you know about the Bible and the Jewish way of life.

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I dated a jew and converted for a time... Oy vey did she drive me meshugeh!

        2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
          DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Curious of something...If Matthew is correct in his family of Jesus...Then if the "Jew" part comes from the mother...Jesus probably isn't "jewish" in that aspect...but in "tradition" only I suppose..

          Solomon's son Rehoboam was born of Naamah the Ammonite....From Lot's Line...

          I don't know if I would count this as "Jew"...What are your thoughts?

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ****************

            Being a Jew is not a Nationality, being a Hebrew is. You can convert, as I did, to being Jewish. It is an ethnicity

            Jews see their community as close family and a part of them, no matter what Nationality

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
              DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No...

              Never Mind...I am thinking off...The linage was Males...it doesn't mention much of the mothers....

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ********

                It will be helpful to read this

                http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

                In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [i.e., the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

                Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).

                On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

                Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I was not thinking along the right lines in the context of what the whole mother part was...LOL...I am back on track now...

        3. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
          Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why thank you! : )

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ***********

            You're serious?

            1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
              Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              oh you wasn't? : )

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        1. AEvans profile image71
          AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Imagine that miracle. :)Only the father's blood isn't that amazing?

          1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
            Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes it is amazing! it means He is accounted as a Jew by His Mother though her blood is not in Him, so it has to be that way for Him to return and be the King of Israel! Yet He is God as to headship of all humanity! it is "perfect"!

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ***************

              No Mother's blood is in her child nor mixes with it. What's your point. I asked you before what does the blood have to do with him being a Jew? or with anything?

              1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                it means a Jew being a religious sect, and Christ clearly was not a practicing Jew of their day. Now Him being an Israelite, that he is accounted as being His Mother was an Israelite, But blood wise he was not truly an Israelite, thought he is by Jewish Law an Israelite, but by Blood line he is not. he did not have no other human beings blood in Him, it had to be that way for His blood is what carries the Spirit and our blood is corrupted by Sin, and He had to be without Sin to be the perfect sacrifice. he was a New Creation, A Woman gave birth to a Child not having know a man. This way the Sin issue was bypassed altogether and created a perfect sacrifice without spot or blemish. Plus I know this will throw a cog in your will but sexual birth will come to an end in the millennium and a brand new way of a family having a child will come about and talk about a Holy Priest Hood and a Holy Nation! Astounding what God is doing and gonna do. Sex life is the beast life and that is coming to an end already.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ***********************

                  So you think sex is dirty and a sin?

                  1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                    Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No it is not that it is a sin or dirty, Sin is not an act or deed, it is a state of ones being, it is a nature of ones self that automatically in a state of unbelief and must die before it can be reborn or "born again". So sex is not a sin nor is it dirty but to those who esteem it to be dirty. The Bible clearly says nothing is unclean of itself, which makes us to think then the only thing dirty is the mind of mankind. All things are pure to the pure in heart.
                    Now what I am speaking of is the act, that the act itself is done in such a way because mankind had fallen to the level of the beast and therefore we had to begin reproducing the same way animal life was reproducing, through the means of the serpent that hangs between heaven and earth or between the head and feet of man, being the head shows heaven, as God is the head of every man, and the foot has to do with the earth in that it is Gods foot stool and the Serpent hangs between heaven and earth the same way Jesus did on the cross.  He said, If I be lifted up, showing the erect serpent of the male stem, I will draw all mankind too me, in that God is considered spiritually speaking the only male and all flesh is female, so we receive the serpent that hung upon Calvary into the vagina or the secret place of our heart and by doing so we let Christ "Know" us and by receiving the deadly serpent side of His sacrificial body on the cross we then receive the semen or the Spirit that "cums" through that serpentine image that Moses held up in the Wilderness and the Seed of God comes into the Vagina of our hearts and we let it grow inside as we have become the Virgin Mary and we now carry the Manchild within,  then that glorious day comes that we give birth to the Son of God, our veil of our vagina, being the heart is rent into and we have now revealed Christ, We have Birthed Christ once again, We are now, "Born Again"! So much more I could say concerning the Ark of the Covenant and what was within and the two covering Cherubim. But the Sex act we have today is because of the trail and seed of the Serpent, but God has a new way and in the Millennium it will be altogether different.

                2. Disappearinghead profile image90
                  Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sexual birth will come to and end? Where do you get that from? Are we all going IVF and Caesarian?

                  Besides which no child is a blood descendant from its parents; each one manufactures it's own blood during gestation. Hence I for example do not share the same blood group of either my parents.

                  1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                    Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I could tell you how it will be, but you would not understand it. No you are wrong, that bay always has its fathers blood, DNA even proves this, it is why they always check the the blood to see who the Father is.

                3. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  *************

                  After Judah was Called Israel they were no longer called Israelites, but Jews. Mary was called a Jew.

                  Israelites and Jews are the same people.

                  A rose by any other name..................


                  It's funny and sad how you post gibberish as facts

            2. AEvans profile image71
              AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is. smile

              1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                it is what? The forums get so dragged out after awhile, I cannot make heads or tails as to who is replying to what anymore? LOL

    12. peterxdunn profile image61
      peterxdunnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The New Testament was written by guys who intended to seize the theological control of Judaism away from a despised priesthood that collaborated with their Roman overlords.

      'Christians' - and their were a great many claimants to the titles 'Christos' (anointed: Greek) or 'Messiah' (anointed: Hebrew) at the time - began to demand that the Roman Empire recognised them as being adherents of a religion distinct from Judaism when it was realized that by doing this they wouldn't have to pay the fiscus judaicus: a tax that was levied on jews for simply being jews. The fiscus judaicus was introduced by the Romans after the destruction: in 60 AD,  of the second temple built by Herod the Great at Jerusalem. The money levied was spent on the upkeep of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. This tax continued to be levied: upon the jews, by the Christian Papacy until somewhere around (I think) the mid 1600s AD.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        peterxdunn. Please give us sources.

    13. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, Jesus is not leading anyone to a certain religion, He is leading them to repentance and faith in God. read John 1: 14, John 17: 3; John 3:16. You will not find here any particular religion because religion cannot save anyone. Only He can save you. are you save in Him?

    14. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is "NOT" clear he was Jewish in any of the Bibles, it is suggested.

      All "found" writings, untranslated ones- pin n a man, and of or from Palestine in that time, and that the people called him by the name Christ.

      There is no definite evidence of anything proving him alive or his nationality, "NONE"

      and Now we are so far away from what really was, and so seperated in Religious Predujice, we will never get back to truth.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        & dutchman1951 your point sir is non-discus-sable.

        1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Vladimir,
          my bratanec, I think everything can be discus-sable with an open-mind. Only God knows the whole truth; we are here to search for one.

          Sometimes we are told a lie and without searching for the truth, we are repeating the lie; like the lie you said about Esau, calling him a man without honour.

          Unless we discus-it with an open mind, we may never find the TRUTH.

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, boy. See there are many Arabs or non Jewish who are born of God (Elohim) and His Word but they believe in truth. What is different in genealogy since we are fall away from God and He readopted us? It is Word of God we are born again. Religion is different and not good.
            Regarding of Esau, He was flesh man and Jacob was chosen one, since it was based on "spirit", rather than the flesh. Religious insist on lines and different fleshly staff. It is not work but faith we are saved by Grace. BTW some my comment are missing. Did you save them?

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vladimir,
              Once you have said:

              “See you do not have any idea about the Bible or what we believe. We believe in facts.”

              and then you write:

              “Regarding of Esau, He was flesh man and Jacob was chosen one, since it was based on "spirit", rather than the flesh. “

              Vlad, surly you know that this is not true; because in fact Jacob/Israel was flesh man, caring about possession of this world, and Esau/Edom was man of God’s Spirit; it is all written in the Book of Genesis.

              All started in :

              Genesis 25
              New International Version (NIV)

              http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV

              Jacob and Esau

              “ 19 This is the account of the family line of Abraham’s son Isaac.

                Abraham became the father of Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram and sister of Laban the Aramean.

                 21 Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.

                 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.
                 23 The LORD said to her,

                  “Two nations are in your womb,
                     and two peoples from within you will be separated;
                     one people will be stronger than the other,
                     and the older will serve the younger.”


                 24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her   womb.

                 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.

                 26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.”



              BTW I didn't save the comments, can you please post them again?

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sagittarius. Because someone favor Esau tribe it does not means he is right. I am not Jacob tribe and favor his, since I favor truth. First, the line of faith has also blessings (property and so on) but it is about faith and not possession. In the contrary Esau was murderer in his heart. This is why fear came on Jacob and called him adonay. He expected worse.  Esau sold his heritage for dish of food and then got mad. Hate has one step to murder.
                Not Esau but Jacob was line of our Saviur, YeHosHuVah.
                God wanted to preserve 1. Word 2. Faith and 3. Prepare road to Messiah. You may see genealogy, Hub:… THE FAMILY TREE OF MARY AND JOSEPH on my HubPages.  http://vladimiruhri.hubpages.com/hub/TH … AND-JOSEPH
                Additionally "...and the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob).

                1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  In the past people did not have luxury, having books. They were able to listen, retain and reproduce perfectly without deviation. I remember my uncle or grandma talk and we as kids use to reproduced exactly what they said.
                  Today people lies and pactice doubt and writing it down. Blessing of writing some become lies and curse. They are using the fruit of Tree of Knowledge Good and Evil. Without God even good become spoiled and become evil.  Many are lazy to memorize right.
                  Please use only right resources and do not be part of Serpent’s lies.
                  Jacob (Israel) was listener. He was favor of Rebekah his mother. She also listened Isaac talking what he learned from Abraham. But Isaac was cared away for awile trying to keep tradition of firstborn. Many people get into the flesh but they return.
                  If not Jacob we would not have treassure the Bible. He was listerer and not (flesh) hunter.

                2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Vladimir, there is nothing in the Bible Luke 3, what would indicate that it is Mary's genealogy.

                  " 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. 
                  He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
                   24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki,   the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 
                  25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,   the son of Nahum, the son of ......"

                  All it says, is that it was thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, when in fact He was the Son of God.

                  Both nativity stories, of Matthew and Luke, contradict each other and do not make much sense.

                  As you have noticed in your comments:

                  "One last thing is that someone commented about Mary having to go back for the census. I don't believe that is correct, seeing as Hebrews only counted men in the families on the census"  Preach 22

                  "You are right, I think, about man had to be registered. Then I do not have an idea why Mary in very high time of pregnancy should go to Bethlehem, which was extremely risky. She could stay home. I know it has to happened since Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, but not logical and prudent.

                  I wanted make the point about Jeconiah, if family tree of Joseph would go to Jesus then either prediction is wrong or it is prove that Joseph was not the father."

                  In addition, Matthew writes that being afraid of Herod, who suppose to order massacre of innocent, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt, however, Luke states that they took Jesus straight to the temple of Herod in Jerusalem. 

                  Vladimir, Buck noticed in your comments:
                  " You MUST do better than this. It's from GOD, so it MUST be conclusive, like everything else GOD said."
                  and I agree with him.

                  I will get to Esau soon.

                  1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    & Sagittarius. If you are Esau-ite I really have nothing to say or discuss.  I do not argue with religious. Sorry I label you as religious and even I do not know you.  I wonder what language you speak beside English.  I pray for them those who do not believe. I already told you the Bible is about the Faith and Love. You can be what you want to be. You have freedom. I am descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by faith not by flesh or religion.  By the way I wonder who are you and who is your God?
                    People do not understand what purpose record is about genealogy of Jesus.

                  2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Mary's Father was Heli (Luke 3:23), Joseph father was Jacob. Please read again.

                3. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Only dead fish go always with the flow.

                  A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth.
                  – Chairman Mao



                     Vladimir, I hope what you are writing down is not what you think, but what the mainstream ideas are today.

                  But remember that only dead fish go always with the flow.
                  For some people a lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth; I am not one of them, if something doesn’t make sense, then I am searching for the truth.

                    I think this is what you should do as well, before making statement like this:
                  “Esau was a murder in his heart”,
                  or before accusing Esau about neglecting Blessing and being preoccupied with earthly possession.

                  Vladimir, this is not what the Bible says, just opposite; you have to search for the TRUTH, not people’s opinion.

                  There is nothing in the story, about Esau and Jacob, what would indicate that Esau was capable of killing, stealing, cheating, hate or doing any mischief.
                   
                  As we read the Bible we see Esau a person who was:
                  1. Generous
                  2. Considering
                  3. Very spiritual
                  4. Great leader
                  5. Forgiving
                  6. Loving & Caring for parents and brother
                  7. A person with Charisma


                  In the archaeological record of Sumer, Esau is mentioned as Lipit-Eshtar who inherited the throne of Isin from his Uncle and Father in Law Ishme-Dagan (Ishmael).

                  Esau/”Lipit-Ishtar (Lipit-Eshtar), was the fifth ruler of the first dynasty of Isin, and ruled from around 1934 BCE to 1924 BCE.
                  Esau/Lipit-Eshtar was the author of a legal code of Sumer and Akkad, preceding the famed Code of Hammurabi by over 200 years.

                  Esau intermarried with Hittites, Ishmaelite and Hurrians (Amorites), thus created union of dominating nations of Patriarchs time. His descendants were later known as Hyksos.

                  Jacob was trying to use deception, motivated by his mother Rebekah, to lay claim on his father Isaac's blessing that was inherently due to the firstborn, Esau. However, the truth (what you are so concern about) is that Jacob/Israel was not able to steal the Blessing from his brother Esau/Edom; if you follow the story you will clearly see that all he got was the curse of living by the sword, and this is what Israel is doing for the last four thousands of years.

                  In fact it was Jacob who was murder in his heart, and this is why the fear came on him when he had seen his brother Esau coming with his 400 men.

                  From outside biblical sources we know that Esau was killed by his brother Jacob/Israel.
                  In the book “Testament of Twelve Patriarch” and “The Book of Jubilees”, we are told that Jacob/Israel had murdered his brother Esau.

                  IV.—THE TESTAMENT OF JUDAH (son of Jacob/Israel) CONCERNING FORTITUDE, AND LOVE OF MONEY, AND FORNICATION.

                  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.vi.html

                  9. Eighteen years we abode at peace, our father and we, with his brother Esau, and his sons with us, after that we came from Mesopotamia, from Laban. And when eighteen years were fulfilled, in the fortieth year of my life, Esau, the brother of my father, came upon us with much people and strong; and he fell by the bow of Jacob, and was taken up dead in Mount Seir: even as he went above Iramna was he slain.
                  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.vi.html

                  The Book of Jubilees
                  http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/38.htm

                  [Chapter 38]
                  1.And after that Judah spake to Jacob, his father, and said unto him:
                  'Bend thy bow, father, and send forth thy arrows and cast down the
                  adversary and slay the enemy; and mayst thou have the power,
                  for we shall not slay thy brother, for he is such as thou,
                  and he is like thee let us give him (this) honour.'
                  2.Then Jacob bent his bow and sent forth the arrow and struck Esau,
                  his brother (on his right breast) and slew him.
                  3.And again he sent forth an arrow and struck 'Adoran the Aramaean,
                  on the left breast, and drove him backward and slew him.”
                  http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/38.htm

                  For killing his brother Esau, God sent Jacob/Israel, with his whole family, into slavery in Egypt for 400 years.

                  1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Vladimir you said:

                    "Additionally "...and the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob)."


                    You see, the true Christians are descendents of Esau, the first born son of  Isaac and they are followers of Christ.
                    If you doubt read some literature of the early true Christians writers like Tertullian.
                    He knew who the Christians were when he wrote:

                    Early Christian History

                    AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS
                    Tertullian
                    (Written in 198)



                    "among us, who have been called out of the nations, -'and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.'

                    Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices, - the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates?"

                    ________________________________________
                    CHAP. I.--OCCASION OF WRITING. RELATIVE POSITION OF JEWS AND GENTILES ILLUSTRATED.

                    IT happened very recently a dispute was held between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte. Alternately with contentious cable they each spun out the day until evening. By the opposing din, moreover, of some partisans of the individuals, truth began to be overcast by a sort of cloud.

                    It was therefore our pleasure that that which, owing to the confused noise of disputation, could be less fully elucidated point by point, should be more carefully looked into, and that the pen should determine, for reading purposes, the questions handled.

                    For the occasion, indeed, of claiming Divine grace even for the Gentiles derived a pre-eminent fitness from this fact, that the man who set up to vindicate God's Law as his own was of the Gentiles, and not a Jew "of the stock of the Israelites."(2)

                    For this fact--that Gentiles are admissible to God's Law--is enough to prevent Israel from priding himself on the notion that "the Gentiles are accounted as a little drop of a bucket," or else as "dust out of a threshing-floor:"

                    although we have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that "in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth;"

                    and that out of the womb of Rebecca "two peoples and two nations were about to proceed,"

                    --of course those of the Jews, that is, of Israel;

                    and of the Gentiles, that is ours.


                    /* or you can reaed Vladimir:

                    "--of course those of the Jews, that is, of Jacob;

                    and of the Gentiles, that is of Esau" */


                    Each, then, was called a people and a nation; lest, from the nuncupative appellation, any should dare to claim for himself the privilege of grace.

                    For God ordained "two peoples and two nations" as about to proceed out of the womb of one woman: nor did grace make distinction in the nuncupative appellation, but in the order of birth; to the effect that, which ever was to be prior in proceeding from the womb, should be subjected to "the less," that is, the posterior.

                    For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less."

                    Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and "greater" through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be "less" in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and "greater" people--that is, the Jewish--must necessarily serve the "less;" and the "less" people--that is, the Christian--overcome the "greater."

                    http://www.preteristarchive.com/Chur...swer-jews.html

        2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dutchman,
          I agree with you that it is “NOT” clear that Christ was Jewish, and I believe this is the main reason why we can not agree that He was historical person.

          However, I strongly believe that if we will separate historical facts from Religious Prejudice, we will be able to find beyond reasonable doubt, historical Christ and the religion was he leading His followers to.

      2. philmeyer profile image60
        philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know if this has been touched on in the comments, but I just re-read your original post and I'd like to comment on something you mentioned...

        Many - too many - Christians accept that when Jesus said to Peter "And I say unto thee, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it," that he meant Peter to be THAT rock (upon which he would build his church).

        The reality is quite different, and for that we have to look at the context (one of the biggest disservices anyone could ever have done the Bible was to divide it into chapter and verse).

        Jesus and his disciples had been at the highest point - literally - of Jesus' journeys through the Holy land. That's where Jesus asked his disciples who the people said he was, and then who THEY thought he was. That's when Peter said to him: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

        Immediately after that Jesus said to him:

        "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

        This was the first time Jesus was openly revealed as the Son of God, and the first time he openly accepted that revelation. It was a momentous occasion!

        Now we must understand the nickname that Simon had, namely "Petros" (Greek), which means "pebble" or "little rock." Jesus said to Peter: "And I also say to you that you are PETROS (little rock), and on this PETRA (large rock) I will build My church. Jesus was not referring to Peter as the rock on which he would build his church, but to something else.

        I could stretch this out into a long discourse or sermon, but for the sake of keeping it relatively short: Jesus was talking about the rock of the revelation of himself as the Son of God. That is, and always has been, the rock on which the church has been founded.

        So if we compare the church to a building, it would look basically like this:

        (1) The underlying rock: The revelation of Jesus as the Son of God
        (2) The foundation: The apostles, including Peter
        (3) It's bricks: Every true believer, as living stones

        1. Disappearinghead profile image90
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think the rock is the same rock that smashed the statue in Daniel 2. The rock became a huge mountain representing God's kingdom being established upon the Earth though Christ.

          1. philmeyer profile image60
            philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was trying to keep within the context of "building," as Jesus was referring to building his church upon the rock.

            But you are right in the sense that the church is the vehicle through which the kingdom of God (represented by the rock and the mountain in Daniel's vision) comes in the world.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hello friends, Rock is WORD of God. Remember what Yeshuvah said to Peter? He will build everything on what Peter said about Jesus: YOU ARE SON OF GOD.

            1. philmeyer profile image60
              philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hello Vladimir,

              Yes, that's exactly what I said above smile

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree and believe the same except, Word of God (LOGOS JESUS -PETRA) is Word the faith come from. Jesus is Word in envelope of prefect flesh. Jesus besides salvation (paid the price) came to restore the faith in the Word of God which trashed in Garden.

      3. 2besure profile image83
        2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He was leading those in His day to a personal relationship with God the Father.  Not sacrifices, not bringing ram, lambs.  No more scapegoats, but a directly line with God.  Fulfillment of the law, compassing one thing, to Love the Lord with all your heart and to love thy neighbor as thyself.

    15. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago

      how does it matter now?...in end he was made something he never was and new religion came into being...

    16. 0
      Larry Wallposted 4 years ago

      Jesus was Jewish. We have to remember that being Jewish can refer to religion and to ethnicity. All Jews do not practice Judism. All the people who attend Temple are not of Jewis heritage.

      Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin, walked the earth and died for our sins, so that we may have the gift of everlasting life.

      I am a Catholic. I use to be a Baptist. Catholics as a rule do a bad job of explaining Catholicism. Baptists as a rule have a hard time understanding it.

      I tell my friends in both faiths that we need to concentrate on what we agree upon and not be overly concern with the differences. We need to respect those differences. When Catholics receive communion we believe, through faith, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Baptists see it as a symbolic event. But both churches do it under the banner of "Do This In Remembrance of Me."

      Let us look for the common ground. The Jews are the chosen people. The rest of us have to accept and practice the teachings of Jesus. We will all receive the gift of everlasting life.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        jews are chosen people because jews wrote old testament...if chinese would have written it chinese would have been chosen people...so it is less to do with god and more to do with authors...

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @pisean -I can't take sides in this debate but it's more than coincidence that Jews have been disliked (hated) by so many for so many years.

          @Larry - You're the first Baptist I've heard of who converted to Catholicism. Every Baptist I've ever spoken with doesn't even believe Catholics are Christian. Talk about being uninformed, misinformed, or even narrowminded. As one who was raised Catholic, I agree about their lack of talent when it comes to explaining the origins of the faith. We heard the mass in Latin so you might imagine the lack of information.

          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image94
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Jews have been disliked for so many years" because many people are bigots and love to aim their arrows at minority groups.  This hatred has nothing to do with religion, except where religions have taught that the Jews killed Christ...which is not entirely true.  A lot of people killed Christ...but it's easy to pick on the Jews, so people do it.  We would all be better off without formalized religion.  It reinforces bigotry and hatred, rather than love and understanding.  All of it is man made, but people will always believe what they want to believe.

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              People kill christ everyday, by not living by the teaching. They talk about the crucifixion, as if it were the only event surrounding the teaching. To cling to an aspect, is to forsake the meaning.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jews are chosen because God made Covenant with Abraham.  God is keeping promises. He has with the Jews plan.

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            point is that no body knows that god had covenant with abhraham...what we know is that some book claims it and that book was written by jews...thats the whole point...authors where jews...if authors where from arab or india or chinese then chosen people would have been arab or indian or chinese..god had little to do with it and authors have more to do with it....

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              pisean&Sagittarius.
              Sagitarius said it all and well. Remember that in the time of Abraham Jewish nation did not exist. He made covenant with Abraham which aplied also of his descendants.

          2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
            Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think you have difficulty understanding what you are reading in the Bible, so let me give you hand:

            Genesis 17 (New International Version)

            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/... … ersion=NIV

            1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, 

            "I am God Almighty ; walk before me and be blameless. 

            2 I will confirm my covenant between me and

            you and will greatly increase your numbers." 

            3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 

            4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you:

            You will be the father of many nations.

            5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham,

            for I have made you a father of many nations.

            6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, 

            and kings will come from you.


            7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come,

            to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

            8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien,

            I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."



            And without mentioning of Israel 

            the prophecy has been fulfill:



            Genesis 36 (New International Version)

            31 These were the kings who reigned in Edom 

            before any Israelite king reigned:


            32 Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah. 

            33 When Bela died, Jobab/Nabi Ayoub (PBUH) son of Zerah from Bozrah 

            succeeded him as king. 

            34 When Jobab died, Husham from the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king. 

            35 When Husham died, Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, succeeded him as king. His city was named Avith. 

            36 When Hadad died, Samlah from Masrekah succeeded him as king. 

            37 When Samlah died, Shaul from Rehoboth on the river succeeded him as king. 

            38 When Shaul died, Baal-Hanan son of Acbor succeeded him as king.

            39 When Baal-Hanan son of Acbor died, Hadad succeeded him as king.

            His city was named Pau, and his wife's name was Mehetabel 

            daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-Zahab.... 

            This was Esau the father of the Edomites.

            Footnotes:

            Genesis 36:37 Possibly the Euphrates "



            And all it happened when Israel was in slavery in Egyt.

            He who has ears, let him hear .”

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              & Sagittarius. For practical point, God choosed one man (Abraham), one nation (Israel)  to implement His plan to save whole world, those  who believe.

        3. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not all Old Testament books are Jews text.

          Initially it was my impression too; however, after studying the Bible on my own, I got attracted to one particular book, as I have found later, to the oldest book in existence and masterpiece of world literature - The Book of Job.
          The Biblical OT Book of Job introduces us to the person of Job, and places him as one of 'sons of the east' generally referring to the Ishmaelite’s in the Patriarchs times. 

          The leading English poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson, praised this book as the: 
          "... greatest poem of ancient and modern times."

          Tennyson’s opinion about this book was shared by Victor Hugo, who wrote: 

          "Tomorrow, if all the literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job".


          Almost 250 years ago Voltaire wrote:


          “ARABS; AND, OCCASIONALLY, ON THE BOOK OF JOB. 
          - Voltaire, The Works of Voltaire, Vol. III 
          (Philosophical Dictionary Part 1) [1764]

          http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ … ;Itemid=27

          • Author: Voltaire
          • Introduction: Oliver Herbrand Gordon Leigh
          • Translator: William F. Fleming

          On Job, the Arab.

          It is clear that the Arabs at least possessed noble and exalted ideas. 

          Those who are most conversant with the oriental languages think that the Book of Job, which is of the
          highest antiquity, was composed by an Arab of Idumæa. (EDOM)

          The most clear and indubitable proof is that the Hebrew translator has left in his translation more than a hundred Arabic words, which, apparently, he did not understand. 

          Job, the hero of the piece, could not be a Hebrew, for he says, in the forty-second chapter, that having been restored to his former circumstances, he divided his possessions equally among his sons and daughters, which is directly contrary to the Hebrew law.

          A yet stronger proof—one to which there is no reply—is the knowledge of astronomy which appears in the Book of Job. 

          Mention is here made of the constellations which we call Arcturus, Orion, the Pleiades, and even of those of “the chambers of the south.” 

          Now, the Hebrews had no knowledge of the sphere; they had not even a term to express astronomy; but the Arabs, like the Chaldæans, have always been famed for their skill in this science.

          It does, then, seem to be thoroughly proved that the Book of Job cannot have been written by a Jew, 
          and that it was anterior to all the Jewish books, Philo and Josephus were too prudent to count it among those of the Hebrew canon. 

          It is incontestably an Arabian parable or allegory. This is not all. 

          We derive from it some knowledge of the customs of the ancient world, and especially of Arabia. 
          Here we read of trading with the Indies; a commerce which the Arabs have in all ages carried on, but which the Jews never even heard of.

          Here, too, we see that the art of writing was in great cultivation, and that they already made great books... “"
           
          So, people of EDOM are God choosen people because they wrote the best book of Old Testament.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ************************

            Our Jewish scriptures hasn't been changed and it is written in Hebrew and Aramaic which are basically the same

            Arabic was derived from Aramaic

            The Hebrews have always used Astrology

            Why does dividing his possession's make him a none Jew.

            Taking someone else's erroneous information and adopting it as your own again?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ****

              Edit

              The Torah we Jews have today is precisely the same Torah that we received at Mount Sinai over 3,300 years ago

          2. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There it is again, this "oldest book garbage". Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that the catholics may have burned all of the older books? The one's that don't quite fit their liking? I've pointed out the Upanishads and the rigvedas, they predate written language by tens of thousands of years, in oral tradition. The bible wasn't even compiled until about 1500 years ago. Who's to say that they didn't make it up, just for the need of attention? If I have your attention, then most certainly I have some kind of power over you and I can use it to control you in some way or another. That's what the holy Roman empire has been doing since Constantine... Like it or not, it's the truth. Look it up if you don't believe me, I can only tell you about it, you just have to be open minded enough to do some research.

            Oh, but I forgot, the church frowns on it's patrons thinking for themselve's, it would be "blasphemous" to do so. You are so afraid of the hell they preach about, it seems that you have forgotten how to be critical of it. A child is critical. Why else would they ask impossible questions?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *********************

              Yahshua read the scriptures in Temple..they existed a long time ago


              Mark 12:26
              And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

              Luke 3:4
              As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

              On top of that, it is in Jewish literature. They know as much about there History as anyone else.

              1. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They did as oral tradition and as it was spoken, it had room to change. As soon as it was written down, there was no room for debate, it became litteral.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  *********

                  Some was oral tradition, but not all.

                  The parts that you see in the Old Testament existed in written form.

                  It's amazing how those who are not Jew or Jewish say they know so much more about them than those who are.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The advent of written tradition, brought with it the feelings of the writer. It's a personal opinion and nothing else. Even if the bible had multiple writers, they were still singular points of view, following the same line of thought.

                    1. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      ***********

                      Whatever you say Master, you know everything about everyone.

                      I know a little about the Jews because I'm Jewish, but I'll try to learn from you.

                      Here read on this a while

                      http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/ageoftorah.html

          3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            &Sagittarius. Fascinating information.  I did home work on Book of Job and published book in Slovak. You mentioned Arabs. Arabs are part of descendants of Ishmael plus mixture of other nations. Yes Book of Job was written before Torah was written. But what is connection between Arabs and Job?  It said only UZ was on east. But its all. East is too big smile. --- Agree Job was lived before Moses therefore before Torah existed..

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vladimir,
              I'm trully happy I have found someone on the Hub who is sharing my intrest in Job, and I would love to see your opinion about Job on your Hub pages.

              I posted some info about Job on other hub so I will use it here:

              "I think, after Voltaire statement we can agree that The Book of Job is not Jewish/Israelite  book.

              It was also the opinion of Matthew Henry in intro to Commentary on Job,  St. Augustyn of Hippo in "The City of God", Eston in his Bible dictionary and many more serious scholars.

              Now we have to find out who was Job?

              The oldest references to the person of Job came from the Bible, however, not from the Gatway, which is controlled by the "God's chosen", but from Septuagint LXX ,  Job 42:17. 

              This verses never made to the present Bibles.

              This ancient version of the Book of Job, chapter 42 verse 17, provides us with detailed genealogical information and social position of Job. However, this verse has been removed from the present Bible.

              The Septuagint, LXX is the most ancient translation of Old Testament books to Greek, and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah). 

              The Septuagint was translated into Konya Greek for the newly established library of Alexandria during the reign of King Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC.). 

              Its oldest existing manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was written in the fourth century AD.

              In the Septuagint translation of the Book of Job, there is a long subscription; similar subscription is found in Arabic and Coptic version of the Bible. 

              Link -
              http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Job/index.htm

              The missing verse from the Book of Job, preserved in the Septuagint - LXX, Arabic and Coptic Bible reads as followed: 

              " 17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up.

              This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; 

              and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, 

              so that he was the fifth from Abraam.

              And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: 

              first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba:

               but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, 

              and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman:

               and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim.

              And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, 

              Baldhad sovereign the Sauchaeans, 

              Sophar king of the Minaeans." (Minoans)



              From this missing in present Bibles fragment about Job, which has been retained in Septuagint 42:17, we know that Job:

              -  will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up.

              - was living in Ausi (Uz) on the border of Idumea (Edom) and Arabia 

              - that there was description of Job in a Syriac/Aramaic Bible - which has been now removed

              - that his name before was Jobab - (Jobab is listed in Genesis 36 and Chronicles 1 as the second King of Edom)

              - he has taken Arabian wife ( what makes him ancestor of ancient Arabs)

              - that he had a son whose name was Enon

              - Job was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau - (from Genesis 36 we know that Zare was the son of Reul (name meaning Friend of God) and Reul was son of Esau and Basamath (daughter of Ishmael)

              - his mothers name was Bosorrha  

              - Job was the fifth from Abraham:

              Abraham
              Isaac 1
              Esau 2
              Reul 3
              Zare 4
              Job 5

              - Jobs name before was Jobab and he was the second king of Edom

              - friends who visited Job were:

              Eliphaz (the firstborn of Esau) - the king of the Thameanites (Thameans)

              Sophar (son of Eliphaz) - the king of Minaeans (Minoans)

              If we go now to Genesis 36 or Chronicles 1, we will find there more genealogical informations about Job, and read about the Kings of Edom:

              " 31 These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned:

               32 Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah.

               33 When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah succeeded him as king.

               34 When Jobab died, Husham from the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king.

               35 When Husham died, Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, succeeded him as king. His city was named Avith.

               36 When Hadad died, Samlah from Masrekah succeeded him as king.

               37 When Samlah died, Shaul from Rehoboth on the river succeeded him as king.

               38 When Shaul died, Baal-Hanan son of Akbor succeeded him as king.

               39 When Baal-Hanan son of Akbor died, Hadad[e] succeeded him as king. His city was named Pau, and his wife’s name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-Zahab."


              Vladimir, let me know what do you think about it.

            2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vladimir, you have asked:
              "You mentioned Arabs. Arabs are part of descendants of Ishmael plus mixture of other nations. Yes Book of Job was written before Torah was written. But what is connection between Arabs and Job? "

              You see, I cannot find any references regarding ARABS before the times of Abraham.

               Abraham was Aramean, while Ishmael was an Egyptian - after his mother Hagar, sometimes He is also called Hagarite.

              None of them was an ARAB.

              The twelve princes, sons of  Ishmael, the firstborn Nebajoth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah, as the Bible KJV says, these were their names, by their towns and their settlements, but none of them was called an ARAB.

              The daughter of  Ishmael, princess Basamath, we can call Ishmaelite because as a daughter of Ishmael, she was the Ancestral Mother of the Nation of ISHMAELITES - but not ARABS.

              Princess Bassamath married the first born son of  Isaac – ESAU. 

              Princess Bassamath and Esau had a son whose name was Reul, the meaning of the name is `God's Friend`. 

              Still don’t see any ARABS.

              Reul, the first Ishmaelite, was ancestor of two grate people. 
              The first JOB  - author and protagonist of The Book of Job.
              The second famous descendent of Reul – the Ishmaelite “friend of God",  was Jethro. 
              Jethro was Moses father-in-law, a Kenite shepherd and priest of Midian who taught Moses the law.

              The first time the name ARAB is mention shows up in the fifth generation from Abraham, circa the year 1600 BC. In fact it is not an ARAB but Arabian woman.

              You can find it in Septuagint. 
              The Septuagint, LXX is the most ancient translation of Old Testament books (Bible) to Greek, and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text - Massorah (Jewish Bible).
              The Septuagint was translated into Konya Greek for the newly established library of Alexandria during the reign of King Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BCE.). 
              In the Septuagint translation of the Book of Job, there is a long subscription; similar subscription is found in Arabic and Coptic version of the Bible and it reads as follow: 

              JOB - Chapter 42.
              " 17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up.
              This man, is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea (EDOM) and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; 
              and having taken an ARABIAN wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. 

              And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam.

              And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job….”

              So this is the first time the name ARAB is mentioned in the history – and it was Job who after marring ARABIAN woman become the ancestor of the famous ancient ARABS.

              From the previous verses in the Bible - chapter 42 we also know that his ARABIAN wife give birth to his  seven sons and three daughters.

              "14 And he called the first Day, and the second Casia, and the third Amalthaea's horn.
              15 And there were not found in comparison with the daughters of Job, fairer [women] than they in all the world: and their father gave them an inheritance among their brethren".

              Those children born to King Job and his Arabian wife were the first Arabian Princes and Princesses; as the book says, the fairer princesses in the entire world.

              It can make you wander who was the Arabian wife of Job. To solve this mystery you have to look in to outside Biblical sources.

              The second wife of Job, whose name was Dinah, was the daughter of Arabus.

              In the Eoiae (see Hesiod) Belus (known from the Bible as Bela - the first king of EDOM - Genesis 36) ,  was also the father of a daughter named Thronia on whom Hermaon, that is Hermes, fathered Arabus.

              Dinah, Job's wife and daughter of Arabus, was the ANCESTORAL MOTHER of ARABS, and her three beautiful daughters, daughters of Job - the second king of EDOM, happened to be the first Arabian Princesses.

              What's a glorious beginning for emerge of a Nation.

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sagittarius . I do appreciate your homework. It is interesting. My addition would be that Hebrew text is written in digital mode not in analog. I do not necessary care about translations too much to based on. Digital mode is authentic. The KJV is also translated from  Septuagint. NKJV is already translated from Hebrew. My point is I do appreciate Jewish people who preserved for us Scripture but it was not Arabs, who did it.
                Additionally also I must watch for authors, there are many biased authors.
                Some authors are no even Christians in correct meaning.
                Not sure I am interesting about extra Biblical sources.

                1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I was searching about who you are. I found nothing. You can be anybody. Then I am looking for what author believes, it reflects his writings, when was written and what are the sources.

                2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Vladimir, my bratanek,

                  the point of  this last post is lost on me; by digital mode, do you mean the real (not the fake ones) Bible Codes of Tanakh, which are truly impressive, or something else.

                  Bible  was preserved by God and badly messed up by Jews. 

                  Vladimir, I'm truly interested in decoding Tanakh, which will help us to restore the Bible and its message to its original condition, however, I don't know Hebrew. 
                  Will you be interested to work with me on it?

                  BTW, do you know that Herod the Great, who had build the Salmon Temple in Jerusalem, was Edomite after his father and an Arab after his mother?

                  1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    &Sagittarius. Hello, my bratanec. I am sorry I would not be able to work with numeric codes, since I am lacking nothing... I would like to say time. I have thousands articles to review and publish including books. I have perhaps an interesting article you would be interested in about Gen 1:1. There is Aleph-Tav which was not translated and there is -  "dash" instead. I went to comprehensive Hebrew (4 volumes) dictionary and found interesting answer. There are more Alef-Tav tranlatable words but one is unknown.  It is in Gen 1:1. Nobody knew what to do with this. Still they did not remove it since it was for their belief inconceivable to alter-ate Scripture. Aleph-Tav is first and last consonant in Hebrew alphabeth. Since Jews do not believ in NC (NT) they completely missed the fact. It means Alpha and Omega in Christian understanding and it is Jesus (Yehoshuvah).  It is in Hub pages under my name. There are two parts the first is: http://vladimiruhri.hubpages.com/hub/AL … TAV-Part-1

                    1. AEvans profile image71
                      AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      You are a man of God Vladimir, you always reply with love and knowledge. I hope both of you can work well together. smile

          4. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            & Sagittarius.Of course in time of Job's life there were not Jews, which name came from Judah son of Jacob. But Book of Job was preserved and is present in Tanakh - Jewish Bible.

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In the time of Job, Jews were in the slavery in Egypt.
              Job, in fact, was one of the Pharo's adviser regarding rapidly increasing number of Jews and Israelites, and the danger of their wars.

              This story is recorded in Talmud and ancient books, like The Book of Jasher.

              Moses obtained The Book of Job from his father in law Jethro, who was like Job, descendant of Esau.

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Talmud is not Bible. It is religious opinions and commentary of Jewish rabbis. They said many nonsense.  No extrabiblical writing. It is religion, opinion.

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        *************

        It's true not all Jews are Judaic,  The American's unlike the Jews call them Jewish. But Hebrews call themselves Jew and if they go to Temple Jewish.

        They do not refer to their own ethnicity as Jewish/ Judaism only their religion.
        As a matter of fact there was a court case over this because it bothered the Jews that everyone referred to them as Jewish even when they didn't even believe in God.
        The judge said we are to call them Jews.

        I will try to find something on this case.

    17. JamaGenee profile image89
      JamaGeneeposted 4 years ago

      Good question, AE! Christianity, the religion Jesus is credited with founding, didn't officially come into being until many decades after his death.  Small pockets of his followers would meet in their homes, much the same as followers of John Wesley did to found Methodism almost 2,000 years later.

      In any case, the ideas Jesus was teaching in his travels were radical enough for the times that Rome had some silly notion eliminating him would stop the spread of his ideas. Right...  cool

    18. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago

      I thought he wasn't leading anyone toward religion. The whole point of the ministry appeared to be focused on the fact that religion failed miserably and always would.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not really. The point of his ministry was to show people how to live in the new covenant.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen

    19. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

      Easy..

      Greek Orthodoxy...

      as specifically practiced in my dad's village smile

    20. suzettenaples profile image90
      suzettenaplesposted 4 years ago

      It was christianity that Christ was preaching.  It did turn into Catholicism and Catholicism was the religion of Western Europe for many years - until 1517 when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church.  Then the different branches of protestantism were founded.  But, Christ's teachings became Islam in the middle east.  So, I think Christ was preaching christianity and the other specific religions ultimately branched off from it.  Yes, Catholics believe Christ did set up his church with St. Peter, but I don't think they were called Catholics in those days.  Any theology students out there that can illuminate on this?

      1. Craig Suits profile image82
        Craig Suitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hiya J...
        Hey, you guys are way of of my league when it come to quoting biblical scriptures however, I find it completely outrageous that so many of you actually believe in an ancient manuscript known to be written and re-written by countless individuals of various persuasions and agenda's while turning one's focal point away from the FACT that totally un-proovable religious beliefs have sent billions of our children to war over the millenia only to be blown to bits defending your interpretation of fairy tale religious histories.
        When the hell are we going to learn???

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not until big money and the pedestal of the podium are taken out of the equation. Preachers have followers, not the church. Televangelists make millions and probably could care less about their viewers. It's all about power, if one can claim to have power over another, then ego has won over the religion.

          1. Craig Suits profile image82
            Craig Suitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You got that right MM...
            There's just one problem: For the first time in history, we now have the weapons that can annhillate man kind in a matter of days. Do you think for one second that any one of thousand of clinicaly insane religious idiots willing to blow himself up just to take out a few infidels wouldn't jump at the chance to spread a few drops of smallpox virus in a select group of airports around the globe. That's all it takes, one test tube and one moron and you can kiss your asses goodby...

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And it would all be over a silly bout of condition. My condition is better, but if you don't like it, I could always blow you up. Seems to be a running theme, no?

            2. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Please, find a moron..

              Heaven here I come. big_smile

              smile

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                *********************

                You were never promised heaven, only the new earth. Give scripture

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't care about where.. lol

                  Long as I'm with Jesus.

                  And if you want to get technical, we'll just say the kingdom of God. wink

                  Matthew 6:33

                  smile

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    *****

                    Very good, and yes, it's better to be technical than to be lost

                2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Heaven is not permanent residence for the man. The earth is. But we go there on vacation.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I can dig the oriental angle, it just seems more open and less exclusive.

    21. Peter Dickinson profile image82
      Peter Dickinsonposted 4 years ago

      Jesus Christ as a Jew was simply asking his followers to become good Jews. Somewhere along the way he was misinterpreted. Me? If I had to choose I would be a Pantheist but as it is I have no religion but I do feel right to an opinion.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Does the tiger worship the elephant? Does the mouse worship the ant? Does the baboon worship the eagle? No. I'm not saying we (humans) should only worship humans, I'm saying we should worship nothing.

      2. JamaGenee profile image89
        JamaGeneeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Pastafarianism is my choice, aka the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Its beliefs have as much historical validity as any of the others and services (such as they are) are a heckuva lot more fun than arguing about what did or did not happen 2,000 years ago. cool

      3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Peter, religion is an opinion.

    22. michellemoseley profile image79
      michellemoseleyposted 4 years ago

      I believe that "religion" is probably the worst thing that believing in Jesus Christ can be called. It's supposed to be about building a relationship with Him. How do we go about doing that? Religion would have us believe that we have to "do" stuff in order for that to be possible. I say, learn how to build a relationship, forget religion. Love God and love others. Simple. I am finding a ton of great stuff on a web site called Truth or Tradition. Love all they are talking about there.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not exactly. He came to fulfil the scriptures which is the true religion.

        Religion has a bad name because of the 'false god's' and idols that God commanded not to worship.

        Wolves in sheep's clothes you know. God is real, so is Satan - and Satan likes to make people look like liars because then who knows who the real true religion that serves the true God is?

        So that is where we are. But...

        Christ Jesus came to save and set the record straight. Those who TRULY seek God know Jesus is the Truth and the way to God and salvation.

        Christianity is the TRUE religion.

        Religion isn't bad, it's just the other religions and liars and false Christians etc, etc that confuse and lie and lead astray from rhe true God.

        Denominations are also wrong. It should be one Church of CHRISTIANS.

        Jesus never said 'go be baptists, and holiness, and methodist, and etc, etc..'

        That came from people arguing and fighting and finally seperating themselves until - well well, looky - a bunch of people who don't say Christian - But "I'm a baptist" or Pentecostal or w/e... No such thing Bible dossn't teach denominations. One of Satan's little devices...

        I love Jesus and the Bible. Ever have a question - I'll find the scripture. wink

        Going to start learning Greek soon.. mmhmmm - original texts here I come. big_smile

        They say it's like sucking in addictive perfum compared to the translation.

        God bless.

        smile

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good for you daniel. Most Christians refuse to admit they are religiuos. I've wondered if that is just here on the internet, since  the word religion is looked down on; or if it applies in the real world also. Either way, it's nice to see someone who isn't embarrassed to admit what they are.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well thank you.

            Though, I'll admit it isn't easy, I can't run from God anymore.

            He really did chase me down.

            I wasn't always like this. I've did my fair share of 'playing it cool.' lol

            And there are lots of people afraid of death, or loving the idea of Heaven who don't really believe much of what they claim. More like a comfort system than a belief. Makes things hard on those who are trying to be Christ-like. Especially when we ARE still human.  lol

            smile

    23. BDazzler profile image81
      BDazzlerposted 4 years ago

      The key to pre-Christian Judaism was the sacrifice system at the temple. This is what we now call "The Old Covenant" or "The Old Testament". Jesus made some unique claims:

      1. That he was the completion of the old covenant. Matthew 5:17.
      2. That the old covenant was really about Him. John 5:39.

      When John the Baptist called him "The Lamb of God" and with his own testimony at the last supper, he was further pointing out that the symbolic acts of the old covenant were a foreshadowing of His death.

      Prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, Christianity was considered a branch of Judaism.  Persecution of Christians began in earnest about that time.  The book of Hebrews was specifically written to Hebrew Christians who were thinking about "going back" to the old covenant system. The author of the book of Hebrews claimed that not only was it physically impossible (due to the destruction of the temple) but spiritually ill-advised.

      When Peter and Paul both found that the message of Christ was also for non-Jews (thus fulfilling God's original promise to Abraham that he would be a blessing to all nations: Genesis 22:8), Gentiles who didn't understand the rich Jewish tradition that was the basis of Christianity, began to come into the Church.

      This is where things began to get complicated.  Some Jewish Christians insisted that to become fully Christian you must first become fully Jewish.   This was the first major fracture in the Church. This fragmentation hurt the Paul personally, as he pointed out in several of his letters.

      If the New Testament is to be taken as Jesus' intent, it was Jesus intent to transition from an old law-based relationship with God guarded by a select few, who faithfully kept God's word until the right time was to be fulfilled (i.e Jews) into a more love-based relationship with God which was more open to everyone.

      As far as the fragmentation of Judaism and Christianity goes, Jesus knew that would happen too, Matt 7:21, Matt 24:5 etc.

      What follows in history was clearly not His intent.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Beautiful.

        1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Beautiful, smooth lie.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, that last sentence could use some elaboration.

            But i enjoyed the rest

      2. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said Dazzler..

        Splendid work there sir. big_smile

        But yeah, must say - I think God's got it under wraps.

        He is perfect, I'm not too worried.

        smile

    24. Disappearinghead profile image90
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago

      The rock that Jesus said he would build his Church upon was not Peter aka Mr. Pebble, but the same rock hewn from the mountain that crushed the Statue that Nebuchadnezzar dreamt about according to Daniel. That rock is Jesus Himself and it was the revelation that He was the Christ that was given to Peter that He was referring to on which the Church would be built.

      He was Jewish and He said that not one stoke of the pen would be removed from the law. Hence it is my conviction that He was bringing the people back to the spirit and heart of Judaism, not setting up a new organised religion. In all this He proclaimed that He came to the lost sheep of Israel. The Gentiles were initially excluded, hence the reference to the woman He called a dog.

      After His resurection, He then instructed His apostles, (Paul wasn't one) to spread the good news to the Gentiles. The good news being that He was now resurrected after paying the debt for sin, so job done, all finished. It was the paying of this debt that made Gentiles acceptable. But as the law was not given to them, they were not expected to be subject to it.

      Along comes the organised Church who then screws everything up again, (even changing the meaning of good news by attaching a load of strings to it) just like te Parisees did to Judaism.

    25. MickeySr profile image86
      MickeySrposted 4 years ago

      Rome made no distinction between Jew and Christian - Christians were a sect within Judaism to them . . . and indeed, the early church was initially just about exclusively Jewish. But here's the trick that so many, considering religious ideas and history, get wrong; Christianity is not a religion. Now, when I say 'Christianity' I mean the authentic, historic ideas based on Jesus' teachings recorded in Scripture. I understand that many bristle when it's suggested that Christianity is not a religion, but what Jesus, and later His apostles (most notably Paul) taught was not a regiment whereby men can follow certain rules and perform particular rituals that make them acceptable to God - Christianity, the teaching of Jesus and His apostles, was simply an announcement of the truth . . . 'this is who God is and this is what He's doing'.   

      Christians, ideally, are not people who are following one religion over others, we're not obeying 'this' set of commandments instead of 'that' set, we don't assert that you have to follow our religion to be right with God, etc - Christians are merely those who believe the message of the gospel and report it . . . Christians are people simply announcing to the world 'Jesus of Nazareth actually was the promised Messiah, He really did come and He really did accomplish an atonement through His sacrifice, and any and all who trust in Him as their only hope will be with God forever'. When true Christianity is twisted into a religion, just another among many paths to God, when it's all about not drinking & not dancing or making sure you baptist in just the right manner or speak in tongues or use 'Jehovah' instead of 'God', etc, etc, that's when Christianity is corrupted into something Jesus never was about.   

      The thing that makes some surmise that Jesus was teaching something new, something distancing itself from Judaism, is that the Judaism of His day had strayed so far from the practices and teaching given to the ancient Jews by God - Jesus was at odds, not with authentic Judaism, but with the false religious notions that dominated the Jews of His time. Jesus wasn't creating a new religion and Christianity is not a departure from Judaism - Judaism promised a Messiah and prepared the way for Him, it's sacrifices and laws, etc, were all to point to His coming, they were never intended as a means to make ourselves acceptable to God . . . Christianity is simply what the world has come to call the followers of Jesus as that promised Messiah, He is the fulfillment of the Jewish system and condemned the false legalistic religion men had corrupted Judaism into, He never was at odds with the actual Jewish Scripture.

    26. Joy56 profile image59
      Joy56posted 4 years ago

      he surely wanted people to be christian.  He was born a jew because it was foretold he would come in the Jewish line, but the Jews put him to death.  They were no longer the chosen race..... The Christian congregation came into play.

      1. Craig Suits profile image82
        Craig Suitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This forum will most likely continue for quite a while with possibly 100 or more contributors but there has already been enough for me to make this critical point if we are to survive as a race.

        Allmost all of the above contributors seem to have an above average intellect, are well versed in biblical history, and firmly believe in what they have posted here. A microcosm of global religious beliefs short of a few hundred other faiths that would all be stating the same facts given minor script adaptations.
        CONCLUSIONS:

        1...Each contributor completely believes what they have posted here to the extent where they would most likely go to war defending their beliefs and rights to live their life styles based on their beliefs...
        2...This is nothing new. It's been a human endevor for tens of thousands of years...
        3...THE FACT IS, NONE OF THE PEOPLE ABOVE KNOW THE SLIGHEST THING ABOUT WHAT WENT ON THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. NOT ONE PERSON, NOT ONE THING. YET EVERYONE SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE SOME SORT OF COSMIC AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT. HOW IS THAT? WHY IS THAT? AND WHEN ARE WE GOING TO ADMIT TO OURSELVES THAT NO-ONE ON THE PLANET KNOWS ONE DAMN THINGS ABOUT JESUS, ANY ONE, OR ANY THING THAT HAPPENED TWO THOUSAND PLUS YEARS AGO.

        WHY DO WE INSIST THAT WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS AND INEVITABLY SEND OUR CHILDREN OFF TO WAR DEFENDING OUR SANCTIMONIOUS ASSUMPTIONS?

        JESUS COULD HAVE BEEN A VACUUM CLEANED SALESMAN FOR ALL ANY OF YOU KNOW. WHO GIVES A DAMN ANYWAY. THE MAN GOT HIMSELF HUNG UP LIKE STRUNG UP 2000 YEARS AGO AND HE'S L-O-N-G GONE. HOW MANY MORE OF OUR CHILDREN ARE WE GOING TO  PUT ON A BATTLEFIELD TO GET THEIR FACES BLOWN OFF BEFORE WE REALIZE WHAT WE'VE DONE.

        YOU CAN SAVE BILLIONS OF LIVES TODAY AND SAVE HUMANITY FROM SELF-DESTRUCTION IF YOU JUST DO TWO SIMPLE THINGS.
        (A)...LEARN HOW TO SAY: "BEATS THE HELL OUT OF ME. I WASN'T THERE AND THAT WAS A VERY VERY LONG TIME AGE. I JUST DON'T KNOW"...
        (B)...TAKE YOUR NEW FOUND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SAVED RELIGIOUS SQUANDERINGS AND FEED, CURE, EDUCATE, BUILD, SOLVE AND DEFEND OUR WORLD OF TODAY WHILE WE STILL HAVE THE CHANCE.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          SAME TO THE POLITICIANS LOL

        2. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Go to war? Nah - I'll turn the other cheek.

          Jesus Christ saved me already remember?

          What they going to do?? Kill me??? lol

          Too bad I won't be able to thank them if they do.

          I'd LOVE to get to the gates before any of you...

          smile

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        *************************

        The High priests who were appointed by the Romans, and the Romans put him to death.

        You must be influence by Mel Gibson.

    27. leenamartha profile image60
      leenamarthaposted 4 years ago

      Christianity, the religion Jesus is credited with founding, didn't officially come into being until many decades after his death.  Small pockets of his followers would meet in their homes.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes because they did not have the tranquility to build a church, put a name on the door and feel protected. Remember the persecutions?
        Home meetings occur today in countries that don't allow open worship of christianity. Home meetings occurred then for the same reason also.
        Also the tabernacle and mosques would not preach jesus and so the messiah believers needed somewhere to go to talk openly about Jesus, his earthly ministry and his resurrection.

        We in North america have enjoyed such freedom we don't feel persecution to the level of not understanding what being persecuted would actually be like.

        Preaching of Jesus started with the disciples who were later named apostles and then after Jesus death and resurrection, preaching about the risen savior was announced as a point of the early creed.
        It wasn't written down until 20 approx years later but 'christianity' was being birthed - so to speak - from Jesus'  appearance before and after his death on cross, onward.

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A church is not a building, it's a gathering of followers. The temple is not a place, it is the dwelling you call a soul. "The temple will fall and be rebuilt in seven days". If I'm not mistaken, Jesus was talking about the resurection. Though maybe I interpreted it wrong and am doing nothing more than spewing nonsense?

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nope - that's right ..

            death on cross - rose three days later

            correct there sir.

            but temples are also places where the gathering is designated, and/or a building built for God in respect.

            smile

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              When Bodhi Dharma met emperror Wu Di (the yellow emperror), he said "Why do you build monuments to the buddha? Certainly, he doesn't care for such things". The emperror cast him out and told him never to return. I was chastized at church as a child, for asking why they never took christ off of the cross. It's part of the ten commanments, is it not? "Thall shalt not worship craven images before me". Could that not be construde as the same? The church as a  building seems more important than the practice, for some use it as a status symbol. In some respects, satan is very much a part of the church, in principal...

              1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                When the craven image commandment was given there was no christ on a cross, the images that were craven were usually of animals or gods. Although Christ on the cross is a powerful image the more powerful image is his resurrection. At christmas time Jesus is portrayed as a babe in a manger, again, not as powerful as the resurrected christ.
                I might hazard to say, that this image of christ on the cross could be displayed for many purposes: a reminder of what the reason is for this building, a reminder of what he did, etc, but usually its just a reminder.
                The weak need to be reminded while the strong have their eyes continually set upon the risen christ.
                So although it could be construed as the same, the intent is what, is possibly, different - I can not speak for how others approach these craven images, but, I can say that bowing in respect is very much different from worship. So not knowing the hearts or minds of the ones present before these images, i think i have shed a bit of light of the people who present these images and yes in architecture history the filigree of the building represented a light or less weightier structure than just solid stone. It was to give the building a more heavenly atmosphere and to adorn the house of God scrumptuously so when indeed God truly does not live in houses although he allows his presence to be focused there occasionally.

    28. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

      I found this:

      A mother determines if a child is a Jew or not

      http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Deb. It is only in recent time. In old time was opposite. Man had the family tree. In the Bible family tree in Matthew is going to Joseph and in Luke to Mary. It is very significant.  The reason for this is decline of morality one do not know who is the father. But in the pass was different.

        1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Deborah is right saying that Nation comes from mother, Tribe from the father.

          BTW both family trees, in Matthew and Luke are going to Joseph who was not father of Christ, and they are both different.

           Niter Matthew nor Luke were apostles of Christ, but they were pupils of Paul, whom Deborah rightly call Antichrist. 

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            John Usher was a boob... You actually believe that biblical timeline garbage? It was written 500 years ago, when people still had no clue. And you believe we have a clue now? I'm dumbfounded, truly awestruck...

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ***********

              The Jewish Bible can be traced back to the time of Moses.

              Why do you state all this stuff as fact when it isn't?

              1. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why do some state the bible as fact, when it isn't? Because we believe we are right, no matter what we are told. I believe it's called condition or for lack of a better word, attitude.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ***********

                  The Torah is taught in school as part of the Jewish history.
                  The Jewish don't tell the Americans what their history is or is not.

                  These are real documents dating back to ancient times, except the New Testament.

                  Revelations is a Jewish Mysticism document/ writing.

                  All Judicial Judges have to be literate in the Torah before they take office.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    As I tried to post before... I was jewish for a time through conversion, though I didn't convert for myself, which is probably why I walked away. Jewish law is hard to follow, for my oxidental mind would never grasp the why of it. Of course for a time I was open to all things, yet they are not as open internally. This is to say, that to stray is not reccomended. The jewish faith however is a little more open than others, a point of which the catholics are just now starting to practice. I know I can't speak for everyone, but until I find another word for it, it'll have to be pseudo-generalizations.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sagittarius. You are wrong. Read my Hub I explained it.

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Which Hub and where I am wrong?

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sagittarius: According to your statement about family tree, Joseph the carpenter had two fathers. Those two family trees demonstrates that Jesus was not father of Yeshuvah.

                1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Vladimir:
                  It is not according to my statement and it is not my opinion, but according to the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. 

                  Christ was the Son (Word) of God, so the bloodline of Mary's husband doesn't really matters.

                  You see Vladimir, nither Matthew nor Luke were apostles of Christ; probably none of them have ever seen Christ.

                  Matthew, Mark and Luke were pupils of Paul, and Paul was prosecutor of Christ' Apostles and early Christians.

                  Paul was responsible for stoning Stephen; he was on the mission to prosecute Christians in Damascus. 
                  He followed John to Ephesus and Peter to Rome and after crucifixion of Peter he left Rome.   

                  Paul's teaching is in opposition of Christ teaching.

                  Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, has been called "one of the greatest Christians of his time." He was a philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian. 

                  In his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul he writes: 

                  Quote:"Paul....did not desire to know Christ....Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded....What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?....The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority....The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.". 

                  His opinion was shared by Isaac Newton and other great scholars. 

                  “Matthew the Evangelist is complex for a number of reasons. Both Epiphanius and Jerome state that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The gospel to bear the name "Matthew" was written anonymously, with tradition ascribing authorship to Matthew at a later date. 

                  Both the style of Greek used and the means of describing events leads to conclude that the author of the gospel was not a companion of the historic Jesus.”

                  So the stories from theirs gospels are containing some truth mixed with lies and made up stories. One of the big lie is accusation of Herod the Grate regarding Massacre of the Innocent.

                  But don't gave up Vladimir, we still have John, Peter and James; they were the true disciples of Christ.

                  1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                    Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Baloney! To the max! Where do you intellectual darkies come from? Yours is all based on what someone else said, who based it upon what someone else said.

                    1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                      DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      The same can be said of any book read or lecture attended...Unless something was eyewitnessed, then it is based upon someone else...The question then becomes how reliable is the source...

                  2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                    1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                      Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Very well written,
                      however, consider updating it with some historical data about Joseph and his family.
                      http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Person:169304

                  3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Notice, father of Joseph was Jacov (Jacob), father of Marry was Heli. Joseph was his son-in-law. Jacob begot Joseph.... Mat 1:16.

            2. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Bob - "Read my hub."

              Bill -  "No. You read MY hub."

              Bob - "What? I'm not reading your hub. You read mine, I'm right."

              Bill - "If you'd just read MY hub you'd see that YOUR hub is wrong."

              Bob - "If you read my hub, then I'll read yours Bill..."

              Bill - "Hey Bob! I read you hub! I just misunderstood you!"

              Bob - "Like I said Bill. I told you my hub was right."

              Bill - "Hey.. Did you even read my hub??"

              Bob - "Of course. I read the subtitles......... smile"

              1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL!!! Love It!

          3. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
            Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sagit - You borderline blasheming the Holy Ghost by speaking so ignorantly of what you "Think" you know about Paul. If you have not do so already, you are close to cutting off your soul eternally by your  lighthearted and foolish words you speak! You have been warned!

          4. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
            Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My previous statement applies to Deborah and all those who agree with their demonic doctrine about Paul! if you do not agree with paul that is one thing, but calling Him Anti Christ is to blaspheme The Holy Ghost of Whom He was Born of and you will if not already cut off your own souls eternally with no hope of redemption! Dear God! I fear for you people! Do not commit the suicide of your very soul by being so biased and foolish in your dark understanding!

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              **********

              Blaspheming the Holy spirit is calling it Demonic. as you do.

              If you read the bible..Paul is a False prophet.

              Torah tells us if we know of a false prophet, we are to warn the people.

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey - get off my Paul.. lol

                None of the renown Christians of old denounced him like you do. wink

                Nor do the Biblical scholars.

                smile

        2. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ***********

          It was since ancient times. My husband and I are Jewish.

          Look it up. There is scripture indicating this.
          And it has been in Hebrew as long any of us alive can remember.

          Jews change very little,

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You mean like the Pharisees?

            smile

    29. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

      What's the matter Deborah? Afraid of admitting that you may be wrong or does it always take you this long to answer? I can understand protecting what you think you know, but not protecting yourself, that's just "crazy".

    30. lionswhelp profile image82
      lionswhelpposted 4 years ago

      Well, the main reason both the House of Israel and the House of Judah could not obey God is quite simple, they did not have the Holy Spirit in them, Romans 8:1-4. As predicted in Exodus 12, a Redeemer would have to come to restore Israel. This was also predicted in Genesis 3:15. Jesus has come and God's plan of salvation still stands and all Israel will be saved, Romans 11:25-26. Jesus did not come to do away with God's Laws and Holy Days, Matthew 5:17-18, Isaiah 66:15-23. All Israel will be redeemed along with the many gentiles that will be grafted in with them. Jesus christ will come to our rescue before we destroy ourselves. There has never been any replacement by any, Emperor Constantine 321 A.D., Hellenized pagan type of Christianity of God's plan for salvation of humans because God (Elohim)has never changed Their mind, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8. mankinds time will soon be up to bring peace on earth their own way with their evil ruler and king Satan the devil, Revelation 12:9. The End is getting very near, Revelation 19:1-7 ans 20;1-4.. God's religion is the restored Kingdom of God on earth that will last forever. The nation of Israel failed to be God's kingdom on earth in the Old Testament. It will be restored with Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of Lords forever, Revelation 19:16, Revelation 21:1-3. Amen.

      1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
        Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very well said! Thank You!

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

        2. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely beautiful teaching of truth there.

          WITH scripture reference, and Biblically sound.

          Ahem:: bravo  - -  It's better than shakespeeerrr . .

          I love seeing posts like that.

          smile

      2. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 4 years ago

        Jesus came to redeem us to God. His church or religion is based on His Truth as being the Son of God. This is why us Christians claim that we are more in a personal relationship with Jesus, the Son of God rather than dogmas of religion. The biblical scriptures are only guides to living the Son of God life.

        There will always be persons whose life on the cosmic scale is liken unto a flash bulb who want life to be centered around their little fannies, and they care not or know not what is required for a peaceful coexistence among the sea of people and their fruitful future. If we listen to those persons, than we shall self destruct for they fall short of God's wisdom which contains the beginning unto the end of our present state.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is exactly why we don't listen to believers who are far removed from reality.

      3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image94
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago

        That isn't exacdtly correct.  A "Jewish"mother who gives birth to her own child is considered, in Judaism, to be the mother of a Jewish child.  If the father is Jewish but the mother is not, the child is not considered to be Jewish.

        1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So, who was the first Jew?

          1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
            Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Adam or maybe Abraham, since he actually started the Jewish religion.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, I think Jacob was the first Jew. Wasn't he the father of the twelve tribes?

              1. livelonger profile image90
                livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You could argue that it's Abraham (he was the first person to make a covenant with G-d) or Jacob for the reason you mention. All of Jacob's descendants were Jews, while not all of Abraham's or Isaac's were.

                If you really want to be technical, Jews with the name "Jews" didn't exist until the kingdoms of Israel and Judah merged after Israel was sacked by the Assyrians. They were known as Hebrews originally, and then Israelites after Jacob was renamed Israel.

                It was certainly not Adam or anyone else before Abraham.

                1. BDazzler profile image81
                  BDazzlerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Correct, the word "Jew" is an Anglicized form of "Judean" ... specifically meaning, "From the tribe of Judah", or the region inhabited by the tribe of Judah.

                  Jacob, who became known as Israel, had 12 sons, one of whom was named Judah. These were the founders of the 12 tribes.  These tribes were united under the judges, King Saul, King David and King Solomon. After the death of Solomon, there was a civil war.

                  The result of that war was a split between the 10 northern tribes, who inter-bred with the surrounding people and became the "Samaritans" of Jesus' day, and the two southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin.

                  The capital of the two southern tribes was Jerusalem, which was in the land of Judah.  So, a "Jew" or "Judean" was someone from the southern kingdom.

                  As the family/tribal/geographical distinction became less important, the term was more broadly applied to those who followed the traditions that were originally centered in Judea.

                  1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                    Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Very well put! Thank You!

                  2. livelonger profile image90
                    livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Most of what you've written is correct. However, the northern kingdom was called Israel, and the people Israelites, not Samaritans.

              2. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
                Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are right, Jacob was changed to Israel, however that is not the religious side but their new National Identity. I would think Judah would have been since it is derived from His Tribe, people and religion.

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I was under the impression that it was David the lion...

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ***************

            Abraham. You gotta read.

          3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              & Sagittarius. Jews are the tribe of 12 sons of Jacob. One of them was Judah and the name came from it. Jesus is also call Lyon of Judah. See there were another tribes besides Ishmaelites and Esauites, like Hamatites, branches of Sham - Shamaites and Japheth-ites. Possible Hight Priest of Salem name was Melchizedek, then Abraham had also another 6 sons brought to him by Ketura. I think you should work on salvation of your soul, rather than to study Kab-allah even it could be interesting for you.

              1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Val,
                I study the Bible, if there is something missing then I'm looking in to outside Biblical sources.

                Esau was the firstborn of the promised son of Abraham.

                With the blessing, which Jacob/Israel was trying to steal from him, Esau become the carrier of Abrahamic religion.

                Esau was the ancestor of Job, Jethro and the Essenes of Christ times. 
                John the Babtist was Essene. 
                Was Christ one of them? Most likely.

                Mary  mother of Christ was Minaean from the House of Emran. 
                As Christ, she was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Check Catholic dogma.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  **********

                  Mary was a child of the Holy Ghost? What heresy

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ******************************

                  The gospels say nothing about Mary's parents, and there is no information outside the Bible, about Mary, her life or her family.

                  You have no way of knowing that Mary was "Minaean from the House of Emran."
                  That's made up stuff.

                  1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It is not made up stuff, it is call history.




                    Many people mistakenly believe that the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Christ. 

                    Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate…but the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus at all. 

                    The immaculate conception is a doctrine of the Romans 
                    Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Christ' mother.

                     An official statement of the doctrine reads, 

                    “…the blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the
                    first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.” 

                    Essentially the immaculate conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature, and was, in fact as Christ, the Son (word) of God.

                    Mary's language was Aramaic, language of Idumeans, not Hebrew. 
                    Mary's cousin Elizabeth was living in Hebron, and Hebron, in the time of Christ, was the capital city of Idumea (Edom).

                    BTW Deborah, you still didn't answer my question - who was the Ancestoral Mother of Jews or Israelites?

                    1. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      ********************
                      Did you write your own Bible?

                      They lived in Nazareth so they did speak Aramaic, but they were Jews and spoke Hebrew. They mainly spoke Hebrew.
                      Hebrew and Aramaic is almost exactly the same language.
                      They learned Hebrew from their parents. Just because you live in an Area who speaks a certain language, it doesn't mean everyone does.

                      http://www.godward.org/Hebrew%20Roots/d … hebrew.htm

                      Remember a while back, I told you not to ask me any more questions.

                      1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                        Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Deborah,
                        read John 8 in your Bible;
                        From this chapter, written by John, the beloved apostole of Christ - very reliable source, you will find out beyond reasonable doubt, who was Christ and who are the Jews and Israelites.
                        We know that the Pariarch of Jews and all the tribes of Israel was Jacob.
                        In John 8, Jews call Christ - Samaritan, surly they recognized that Christ was not a Jew.

                        Christ not only did not denai that He is Samaritan, not the Jew, but tell the Jews that they are the descendants of Devil, what He wouldn't do if He would be a Jew himself.

                        I thought you are Jewish teacher, and you will help me to find out who was the ancestral mother of the Jews.   
                        Every nation has it's ancestral mother.

                      2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                        Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Dear Deborah,
                        Galilea is separated from Judea by Samaria (check the map), and Jews had been removed from Galilea after the wars of Machaebees.

                        The dialect daily spoken by Christ and the disciples was Galilean Aramaic, which, was recognizably different from the Southern Aramaic dialect spoken in and around Jerusalem, and is different then the Hebrew.

                        Christ did not teach in Hebrew; and when we are told (Acts 21:40) that Paul spoke Hebrew, we should take this piece of information at face value.

                        Deborah, I don't know if you know that Hebrew was the language of Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob. When Israelites ended up in slavery in Egypt, they lost their Hebrew language. 

                        At the time when Israelites were in slavery in Egypt, Edomites - descendants of Esau, developed the Hebrew Script. 
                        When Moses was in Midian, Jethro, Priest of Midian and Moses' father in law, who was also descendant of Esau by his son Reul,  taught Moses the Hebrew script and gave him the law. 

                        Let me know if you are interested in history of Aramaic language and script.


                         

                  2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Deborah, do you know who were the Minaeans?

      4. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago
        1. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          what point r u trying to make?

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ***********************

            Someone said it was only 500 years old. That's the point. Try reading the posts

      5. Contract cleaners profile image61
        Contract cleanersposted 4 years ago

        Paul invented a new religion and named it after "christ" very cunningly; Jesus never believed in the creeds introduced by Paul. Jesus was at that time in India; Paul exploited his absence.

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          You people give Paul more credit than anyone.

          He'd have to be pure GENIUS, to change Simon Peter's mind about what Jesus taught.

          Peter KNEW Jesus' teachings! BEFORE Paul... lol

          Maybe he brain washed Simon Peter!!!! yikes

          lol

          1. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
            Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LOL Exactly Right! Peter said of Paul that He says things hard to be understood, not that Peter did not understand them, but for the common people they would not understand His mannerism. But Peter said this concerning Paul, or should I say that which Paul has received directly from God and no man, Peter said, "Gird up the loins of your Mind for the Grace that is to be brought to you at The Revelation of Jesus Christ"! In a type it was Paul the one likened unto the Son of Man in the midst of the Candlesticks, because those Candlesticks represented the very Churches He established therefore He was in the Midst of Them! Paul said also that the people esteemed Him as Christ Himself and would have literally plucked out their own eyes for Him had he asked. Paul baptized in Jesus Name, he prayed for and healed the sick, cast out demons etc. So it is for sure He was a God Man and even Jesus said if Satan cast out Satan that His Kingdom would be divided and would not stand, so it goes the same for Paul.

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *********************

              Scholars know Peter did not write 2nd Peter, someone else did. And he did not write all of 1st Peter. It had been altered.

              They believe by Paul, as I do.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                First and Second Peter was written around 90CE-110CE...

                Couldn't have been written by Simon Peter...He was killed in 64CE

                So I would have to agree with Deborah on this one...Someone else wrote it...And it appears to be tampered with as well...the writing styles do not match..

                1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                  Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Apparently, people would often write under the pseudonym of someone else in homage to the former writer.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Very True...Was a very common practice around that timeframe... and more than just "biblical" texts as well

                    1. vector7 profile image61
                      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Hey man, where is the site or who are the scholars you used?

                      I like studying old script origins. Gives backbone and keeps me sure I'm not mistaken.

                      Can't have too many sources to compare. Always helps.

                      smile

                      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        I posted a few sites above...

                        I would recommend looking into actual books or articles by Biblical Scholars, both those who are Christian and those who don't claim to be Christian...If one is in search of truth then one must look at all sides and not just the ones they feel would agree with what they already think they know or believe..

                2. brotheryochanan profile image60
                  brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    *********

                    You'll aways find, even so called Scholars who agree with you. It does not make it so.

                    Thanks

                    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Deb, I agree.

                  2. vector7 profile image61
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Read it, did the research before too. The scholars I trust affirm the same as the article. Thanks for that.

                    smile

                  3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Not a huge fan of catholic anything lol.
                      Not giving wiki much of a scholarly rating

                      Although true we can always find scholars on both sides of the fence, i enjoy when an article states things like... we shouldn't read more into this than what is there, and, this doesn't call for a later date.. open and intriguing sentences that don't force an opinion but are delicately put.
                      I find often that these kind of approaches are led by a spirit of concern for truth instead of an opinion about correctness. Doesn't make it truer i suppose, but I have read Peters letters and find no desertion from core christian beliefs and that's all the NT is supposed to do, put forth the core of the beliefs and ensample us toward holy living in the sight of Gods new covenant.

                      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        I agree...I am not taking anything away from the book itself...Authorship was all I was talking about...

                        I have no problems with the message contained in the bible...I would only discuss our personal interpretions and debate the actual authors...And of course...as you say...One can find agreement both for and against..

                        smile

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ***************

            No one changed Peter's mind

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Then you don't claim the scriptures of 2 peter either.

              [EDIT] - [addition] - Sorry, missed the above statement. lol, should have known.. another genius "Paul" took over the world scheme.

              smile

      6. Reuben Gwokto profile image59
        Reuben Gwoktoposted 4 years ago

        jesus christ...christianity. isnt it obvious.

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          God bless you..

          smile

      7. Reuben Gwokto profile image59
        Reuben Gwoktoposted 4 years ago

        jesus christ...christianity. isnt it obvious.

      8. philmeyer profile image60
        philmeyerposted 4 years ago

        I don't think the question should be "Judaism or Christianity"... In the days of Jesus on earth those terms were completely unknown. The Jews worshipped the God of Israel, creator of heaven and earth; they believed the prophets who proclaimed that Messiah would come, and they kept the Law which was given to Moses by God.

        The prophets, the Law - in fact, the entire Old Testament, is one big prophecy of Messiah who would come. And eventually He did come - God Himself, incarnated, as Jesus of Nasareth. 100% God and 100% man, the only one qualified to pay the ultimate price in order to reconcile us with God. In doing so he fulfilled the Law and the prophets, and gave us a New Covenant.

        Most Jews of the time were incensed at how this person could claim to be Messiah (since they expected Messiah to come in the splendour worthy of a King) and they rejected him. After his death even many of his followers (disciples) rejected him, since they expected Messiah to stay, get rid of the Romans and re-establish the throne of his forebear, David, over Israel.

        They never saw the bigger picture - that "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself" (Daniel 9:26). There are MANY passages of Scripture (from the Old Testament) that foretell the first coming of Messiah, the establishing of God's kingdom and the return of Messiah at the end.

        I think one of the biggest culprits in the confusion between the Old and the New Testaments is just that - the man-made division in the Bible.

        In short: Jesus never started a new religion - the Jews who rejected him did, and today it's known as Judaism.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ******************

          Judaism did exist.

          They did see the bigger picture, that's why some didn't believe because it did not line up with the prophecies.

          He won over thousands of Jews

          Yahshua is not God, that's blasphemy.

          1. philmeyer profile image60
            philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're wrong Deborah, Y'shua or Yeshua (how it's supposed to be written) is indeed God.  Remember how the people had to sacrifice year-old (and therefore adult) male lambs without blemish and then pour the blood on the seat of atonement of the ark of the covenant to cover their sins?  That whole procedure, done repeatedly for ages, was a foreshadowing of the final sacrifice that was needed and that was to be brought for the reconciliation of man with God.

            A man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, therefore a man would have to be the one to bring the ultimate sacrifice... but just as the sacrificial lambs were without blemish, so would the man have to be as well (i.e. sinless).  Since no person from the lineage of Adam could be sinless, the only one who could step into that role was God himself.  God's Spirit overshadowed Mary, a virgin at the time, and caused her seed to be impregnated.  The little boy that was born was not of Adam's lineage - his Father was God himself.  Indeed, he was God himself, as was prophesied by Isaiah many years earlier:



            Also:



            Also:



            Etc, etc...

          2. philmeyer profile image60
            philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, that last reply of mine had quotes in that didn't work so well... here it is again sans the quotes:

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

            You're wrong Deborah, Y'shua or Yeshua (how it's supposed to be written) is indeed God.  Remember how the people had to sacrifice year-old (and therefore adult) male lambs without blemish and then pour the blood on the seat of atonement of the ark of the covenant to cover their sins?  That whole procedure, done repeatedly for ages, was a foreshadowing of the final sacrifice that was needed and that was to be brought for the reconciliation of man with God.

            A man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, therefore a man would have to be the one to bring the ultimate sacrifice... but just as the sacrificial lambs were without blemish, so would the man have to be as well (i.e. sinless).  Since no person from the lineage of Adam could be sinless, the only one who could step into that role was God himself.  God's Spirit overshadowed Mary, a virgin at the time, and caused her seed to be impregnated.  The little boy that was born was not of Adam's lineage - his Father was God himself.  Indeed, he was God himself, as was prophesied by Isaiah many years earlier:

            For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 - one of the prophecies concerning Jesus)

            Also:

            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.  In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5 - about Jesus)

            That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.  He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.  He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:  who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (Joh 1:9-14 - about Jesus)

            Also:

            "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."  Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"  Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:56-58)

            Etc, etc...

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *****************************

              As I said before..That is wrong It is Yahshua. I speak write and read Hebrew.
              I am mindful of the sacred name movement. Meaning the absolute name is needed, and it is not Yeshua. Thanks.

              He said he came in his father's name which is Yah..hence Yahshua.

              The Hebrew word hallelu-jah means praise to Yah

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ******************

              As I explained before.

              Before Abraham was I Am,
              He was speaking of the I Am, the name God gave to Moses.

              God existed before Abraham.

              Yahshua said he never spoke of himself. He said God told him what to say.
              God was speaking through him.

              John 12:49
              For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

              John 8:28
              Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

              John 14:10
              Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

              It could NOT be clearer

              Also, God sacrificing himself to himself is a ridiculous belief

              1. philmeyer profile image60
                philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I can accept the bit about the name... although there's no need to say a name in Hebrew when you're speaking English. My name has many different variations in many different languages, and in each language it's spoken according to that language.

                You're very wrong about Jesus not being God... You'll stand before Him one day (he is the one who will judge the earth), and then you will be asked why you denied his deity.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  *********

                  Names don't translate..or are not suppose to, just words.

                  If I went somewhere and they called me any other name, I would not know they were speaking to me.
                  I would feel they had no respect.

                  Anywhere I go, I am still Deborah.

                  The name is important because we are told to pray in that name.

                  Most people just say in his name, instead of using the name.

                  1. philmeyer profile image60
                    philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Just to clear something up... when I said I could accept the bit about the name, I was talking about your "Yahshua"... not about Abraham.

                    "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:56-58). Here Jesus was most definitely not talking about a name that God gave to Abraham, but about God's own name, and he (Jesus) was using that name for himself. That was Jesus' most direct and open claim to his own deity.

                    1. vector7 profile image61
                      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Oh.. and Amen.

                      Couldn't have said it better.

                      smile

                    2. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      ***************

                      I know what you meant, I am educated.

                      I don't care about you believing the word, it's your business

                    3. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      *********

                      I gave you scripture where Yahshua said he never spoke of himself. He always spoke of God

                      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        In the days of Jesus, we can safely note that if Jesus had said, I am God come in the flesh, he would have destroyed his ministry. There is no way that he could admit that.
                        Now the prophets told of one that would come, again safe to assume, that would be a human body, which we got in Jesus. Jesus is the name of the human body for all human bodies obtain names, its just the way it is. And the nephesh is the life of the body, the mind and the flesh all wrapped up into one un-separated unit. The animated body.
                        It is what is inside the body that makes all the difference, which is apparent on so many different levels of thinking.
                        Philmeyer brings up Jesus sinlessness and, i think this is a good point. No man ever lived a sinless life, unless God was with this individual in a special way from birth. So we have something different and unparalleled going on here since the foundation of the world began.
                        When Jesus calmed the waves he did not pray a prayer, he just said stop. This is unprecedented also. We see that the entity inside Jesus had complete control over his creation. And we would expect to see God handle nature thusly.
                        The entire book of John is spotted with the deity of christ.
                        Son of man is directly related to daniel 7:13,14.
                        The Greek in John completely says "I am" and means I AM. Its such bad Greek it cannot be an accidental slip of the stylus.
                        Yes Jesus is the son because of the flesh but what's inside is certainly not anything else but our creator come to experience our pain and usher in this new covenant himself.
                        its romantically brilliant!!

                  2. philmeyer profile image60
                    philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    By the way - I see you're also a "Reiki master." Reiki has its roots in Buddhism and oriental spiritualism... how does that tie in with your faith?

                    1. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      ********************
                      Cause I want to, I am eclectic I don't have to answer to you, only to God.

                      Everyone is sinning except the Christian. Don't start with me. Stick to the topic. The rules say you have to

                      1. vector7 profile image61
                        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        roll

                    2. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      *********************

                      On my profile I also said "I believe in all things, and my practice is eclectic, because all things emanated from one source."

                      If you do not believe in hands on healing, that's your choice

                2. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Easy Phil. Thanks for standing for Christ, but this one is set in her ways.

                  Best to pray and leave it to Jesus, or Yeshua. wink

                  God bless.

                  smile

                  1. philmeyer profile image60
                    philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I see that! wink

                    Religion is a pesky thing...

                    There are quite a few on this thread to pray for, it seems!

                    God bless you too.  smile

                    1. vector7 profile image61
                      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Yeah, you have to pick at them a little, and just let them see you still love'em.

                      I try not to be too harsh about judgement day cuz they get mean sometimes.. lol

                      I usually just try to keep the scripture posted like you did and leave it at that here lately. A few key points maybe.  They can get ugly, which starts rubbing off if i read it too much. big_smile

                      Maybe we should make a hubpages prayer list? wink

                      smile

                    2. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      **************

                      Don't pray for me

                      1. vector7 profile image61
                        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Matthew 5:43-48

                        What happened to following Jesus Christ?

                        smile

                  2. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ******************

                    Don't speak about me in that fashion.

                    I'm not set in my ways, I happily came out from the Christian church and their false doctrine. That was when God showed me Paul and what he was doing.

                    If you don't like what I say go to another thread, or start your own.
                    Some people want to know this

                    1. philmeyer profile image60
                      philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Hey Deborah,

                      I don't mean to attack you and I certainly don't have anything against you personally. As I remember it you were the one who commented on my first post, and implied that I was blaspheming by saying that Jesus was God.

                      Just so I understand things a bit clearer, do you follow Judaism or are you a Messianic Jew?

                      1. 0
                        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        *************************

                        I am not a Messianic Jew, they believe just like the Christian...The Trinity. Yahshua being God, the law done away with and replaced with Grace.

                        I am Judaic and More. We have our own small group.

                        We are all very blessed

      9. KellyPittman profile image79
        KellyPittmanposted 4 years ago

        Jesus came to abolish religion.  He prepared a pathway to Heaven for Jews and Gentiles alike.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          amen Kelly

        2. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Christianity IS the religion.

          Religion is the true way to God.

          Jesus said He came to "fulfill" the Law..

          Matthew 5:17

          He outright blatently said He didn't come to abolish the Law.

          The "Law" is the scriptures. Which is the True Religion...

          Which He said He 'didn't'... come to abolish.

          smile

      10. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
        Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago

        Peter said of Paul that He says things hard to be understood, not that Peter did not understand them, but for the common people they would not understand His mannerism. But Peter said this concerning Paul, or should I say that which Paul has received directly from God and no man, Peter said, "Gird up the loins of your Mind for the Grace that is to be brought to you at The Revelation of Jesus Christ"! In a type it was Paul the one likened unto the Son of Man in the midst of the Candlesticks, because those Candlesticks represented the very Churches He established therefore He was in the Midst of Them! Paul said also that the people esteemed Him as Christ Himself and would have literally plucked out their own eyes for Him had he asked. Paul baptized in Jesus Name, he prayed for and healed the sick, cast out demons etc. So it is for sure He was a God Man and even Jesus said if Satan cast out Satan that His Kingdom would be divided and would not stand, so it goes the same for Paul.

      11. lionswhelp profile image82
        lionswhelpposted 4 years ago

        The first Jew was Judah he was the 4th born son of Jacob thru Leah, Genesis 29:35. The word Jew is a nick name for Judah and his children. Not all Israelites are Jews but only those from the Tribe of Judah, 1 Kings 12:16-23,31. Also after The House of Israel departed from Judah with nine other tribes,then  Benjamin and Levi went with Judah and are considered part of the House of Judah. When Jesus Christ returns the second time the House of Israel and the House of Judah will be united together again as the nation of Israel., Ezekiel 37:16-22.

        In 2 Kings 16:5-6 The House of Judah is first called Jews here in the Bible. This is where both the King of Syria and Pekah of the House of Israel are at war with the Jews or Judah

        What is also interesting is that Christians are called spiritual Jews in Romans 2:28-29. To be a spiritual Jew you need to be circumcised in the heart. So I guess eventually once we all become Christians and circumcised in the heart everyone will become Jews too.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          *************************

          Abraham (Avraham) was the first Jew, the founder of Judaism, the physical and spiritual ancestor of the Jewish people.

          Abraham founded the Jewish religion. The starting of Judaism is described in Genesis 17, where Abram makes a covenant with God, and his name is changed to Abraham.

          It was at this point that he left his father's house, and started Judaism. Judaism is the first monotheistic religion.

          Who was the first to be called "Jew"?
          In the days of Abraham, the term "Jew" was not used. Instead, it
          was "Hebrew" ("Israelite" only  after Jacob changed his name to Israel).

          The term "Jew" didn't exist until after the tribe of Judah became the dominant tribe. The first "Jewish" reference [as a national identity] is in 2nd Kings, 16:6.
          "Jew" is accepted throughout when referring to any Abrahamic desendant in the Pentateuch.

          Jew isn't a Nickname even if you read it somewhere.

          1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
            Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You see Deborah, 

            Easton's Bible Dictionary reds:

            http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T1119

            Eber - The third post-duluvian patriach after Shem (Genesis 10:24; 11:14). 

            He is regarded as the founder of the Hebrew race (10:21; Numbers 24:24). 

            In Luke 3:35 he is called Heber.

            The name Hebrew applies to descendants of Heber; he was ancestor of Abraham and many nations: 

            Arameans

            Ishmaelites

            Edomites

            Israelites

            Midianites

            Shuites

            Amonites

            Moabites and many many more.


            As you see just one of the nation happened to be Israelites.

            You know Deborah that Jacob/Israel had a son whose name was Judah. 

            Judah married Canaanite women and had three sons by her. 
            Because their mother was Canaanite, were Judah's sons Jews or Canaanites?

            Genesis 38
            New International Version (NIV)

            " 1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.

             2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her; 

            3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. 
            4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 
            5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. 

            It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him."


            Do you know who were the Semites?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *******

              If the mother is not Jew, the children aren't.

              It doesn't matter how many times you say they are.

              I'm Jewish. My husband is Jewish And Hebrew. I think we know what we live.

              The Semites are both Jews and Arabs.

              All of the other stuff does not concern me.

              Thanks

              1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am Semite and Hebrew,
                However, nither Israelite, Jew nor Cannanite wink

              2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Deborah, who then was the Ancestral Mother of the Jews or Israelites; I know Jacob has a daughter named Dinah, however, she died childless and I don't see any other women in Jacob's or Juda's genealogy. 
                Where then Jews or Israelites come from? 

          2. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How many books of the Bible DO you deny anyhow??

            You nitpick everything, like you lived the story yourself...

            I think you condemning Paul and others like him with your words is against what Jesus said himself, judge not lest ye be judged... referring to condemning people right?

            My name means God is my judge..

            Paul spoke much more kindly of his enemies than you do of him.

            Even said he was the cheif of sinners.

            That is what bothers me about you saying horrible things about him.

            And he praised Jesus constantly.

            smile

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *********

              I am not judging.
              It says if you know of a false prophet to warn the people or their blood is on your hands.

              Judgment is like saying I don't have God, or I am a witch.

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You said Paul doesn't have God.

                Check your posts. lol

                smile

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  *********************

                  Give me the link to me saying this

                  1. vector7 profile image61
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                    I'm not going to bicker with you about it. Everyone else sees it just like I do.

                    It's all over the place, right in front of your face.

                    I never expected you to admit to anything anyhow.

                    smile

                    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Deb may I say the truth without judging? If you feel that way i do apology ahead.
                      God translated from Elohim is plural noun. It is in Tanakh 1600 and was never changed. God is "echad" means either numero 1 or unity.
                      We have family of God. ABA ELOHIM, BEN ELOHIM AND RUAH ELOHIM. We have one God-head. YesHuVaH (YHVH) Lord clarified it. My Father is greater than I.
                      Please be careful what you say. 
                      Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. For understanding God is translated as Elohim and Lord is YHVH (Yeshuvah). Please avoid blasphemy. Verse 14 clarify the statemeant is not about the nature of God but God of Israel versus gods of Amorites. Still nature of God is clear. Father is one, Jesus is one, HS is one  (echad in unity).

                      1. 0
                        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        ***********************

                        What are you talking about? You replied to someone else.
                        What did I say?

      12. 0
        Onyi2012posted 4 years ago

        Well in answering this question, Jesus is God Himself. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 KJV). If you read further to verse 12, you will notice that, Jesus came to make us sons of God. He came to bring us to Himself. He is alpha and omega- i.e the beginning and the end. He came to lead us to Himself because He is God. and when we come to Him, we are in Christ, and being in Christ makes you a Christian. Check out 1 Corinthian 5:17

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          amen

        2. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen as well.

          smile

          1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
            Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is this Amen to:

            "A man's life is at stake, please sign this petition to stop his execution."

            You don't care anymore to provide link and detailed info?

      13. 0
        Onyi2012posted 4 years ago

        Well in answering this question, Jesus is God Himself. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 KJV). If you read further to verse 12, you will notice that, Jesus came to make us sons of God. He came to bring us to Himself. He is alpha and omega- i.e the beginning and the end. He came to lead us to Himself because He is God. and when we come to Him, we are in Christ, and being in Christ makes you a Christian. Check out 1 Corinthian 5:17

      14. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
        Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago

        Vladimir, can you help me to understand these verses from Job:



        New International Version (NIV)
        Job 40

        " 1 The LORD said to Job:

        2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
           Let him who accuses God answer him!”

        3 Then Job answered the LORD: "

        Does The LORD and God in these verses have the same meaning, or is the LORD talking to Job about God?

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          & Sagittarius. Hello, I think I did cover the subject. The YHVH is translated as Lord. Elohim is translated as God. The word God came from German Got. Not sure it is correct word. YeHshuVaH - YHVH visited earth before He was incarnated. Sometimes He was alone other time with Father ABA ELOHIM. It was the case of problem with Babel Tower. Then probably Jesus is talking with Job about Father God.  In the time of Job Jesus was not revealed yet to man and was known only as One person YHVH ELOHIM. Hebrew word "echad" has two meanings 1. numero one or 2. unity.
          What I understand God is enough to live according to His will. I live not in Law, but in Grace. Then now I am very blessed and full of joy.
          Do you have personal relationship with God?

      15. RKHenry profile image81
        RKHenryposted 4 years ago

        IE (intimatevolution) has a great hub on this topic.  They had a name as a group following called the Ebionites.  I Googled her information and she her hub is factual.  I just read it the other day so I know it is still published. You all should check it out or at least Google Ebionites like I did, if you don't believe it.  Its not Paul or any of the others listed in this thread.  Look it up for yourself.

      16. GLTManagement profile image60
        GLTManagementposted 4 years ago

        I do not believe he led his followers to Christianity.  The word Christian was not what he called his followers but the name they were given by others to identify them. The word Christian is only used 3 times. I believe he led them to a way of life, repent, be baptized and be born again.  He told Nicodemus you must be born again, not...you must be a Christian.  Also, the word Disciple and Saint are what the believers are called by the bible, and not "Saint" in the sense of how Catholics describe a Saint.   "...the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi..." Philippians 1:1

      17. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
        Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago

        Thank you Vladimir for your explenation; in fact it is what I was thinking too.
        Yes, I am beliver and have personal relationship with God. I must been growing up in the same believe, no more then 400km from your place.

        Vladimir, you have said:
        " In the time of Job Jesus was not revealed yet to man and was known only as One person YHVH ELOHIM. Hebrew word "echad" has two meanings 1. numero one or 2. unity."

        You see, the  ancient  Kabbalist,  not the new age ones, were saying that "Esau and Jesus are one".           

        This statement comes from the book:

        Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Old Testament…
        By Sabine Baring-Gould

        Esau and Jacob
        Page 248

        “The Cabalists say that the soul of Esau, whom the Arabs call Ais, passed into the body of Jesus Christ by metempsychosis, and that Jesus and Esau are one.”



        In Aramaic language, even the names are the same: Jesus = Isa and Esau = Isa

        I have found this statement very interesting and worth to be explored.

        After all, Esau was the first born and beloved son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham.


        Vladimir, do you think that it could be possible that "In the time of Job Jesus was revealed to man" and He was in fact Job's geat grandfather ESAU?

        Princess Basemath, whom Esau married, was Hagarite, the granddaughter of Abraham and his Egyptian wife Hagar.
        According to Islamic tradition, Hagar was the daughter of Egyptian king, who gifted her to Abraham as a wife, thinking Sarah was his sister.
        The Bible says that Sarah gave her to Abraham as a wife.
        She is the Ancestral Mother of Hagarites.

        Ishmael, the first born of Abraham and his Egyptian wife Hagar, become the father of twelve sons. In Genesis 25:16 (KJV) we read:

        "This are the sons of Ishmael, and this are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve PRINCES according to their nations."
        Ishmael also had a daughter, princess Basemath who was married to Esau, the first born and beloved son of Isaac.

        In the archaeological record of Sumer, Ishmael is listed as  Ishme-Dagan and he is the fourth king of the First Dynasty of Isin.


        With this marriage, Esau / Lipit-Eshtar, inherited from his uncle and father in Law the throne of Isin, and become the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Isin.

        Esau, a Shepard and farmer from Nippur, ruled Isin from 1934 to 1924 B.C.

        "Some documents and royal inscriptions from his time has survived, but he is mostly known because Sumerian language hymns written in his honor, as well as legal code written in his name (preceding the famed Hammurabi Code  by about 200 years), were used for school instruction for hundreds of years after his death."


        Princess Basemath the Ancestoral Mother of Ishmaelites,bore to Esau a son whose name was Reul.
        Reul (name meaning - Friend of God), had a son whose name was Zare.
        Zare was the father of Job

        Shall we go back to Genesis and explore who in fact was ESAU?

      18. AEvans profile image71
        AEvansposted 4 years ago

        Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Belief fallacies. Of course, I understand many Americans believe in their God, just like many Muslims believe in Allah and many Jews believe in YHWH and many Pastafarians believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



        God, Allah and YHWH are the same God they are just written differently. As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster that one belongs to Mark Knowles. smile

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hello agape love. Actually Allah and YHVH are not the same. YHVH is Jesus (Lord) Son of God and Allah came from male Phoenician god Baal-allah (female was baal-alath). Both Jesus and Allah are teaching opposite. 
          The prophet decided that there is only one god, since Jews and Christian had one God and they had the gap.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol Even believers contradict each other when it comes to talking about their gods.

            1. AEvans profile image71
              AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Mmmmm.... We can make error I am sure you can do better then that. We are also human. smile

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Making errors and telling lies are two things, are they not?

                Humans might make errors, but believers lie all the time.

                1. AEvans profile image71
                  AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So do non-believers. smile

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, they do make errors and you are free to point out any lies they make. It would be prudent, in fact, for you to do so.

                    However, if you point out that a non-believer is lying and you're basis for that lie is magical thinking, then you're just being dishonest.

                    1. AEvans profile image71
                      AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Why would you believe ours is magical and yours is real? We are being honest about our beliefs and nobody is calling you a liar. It isn't our place to judge you for what you believe we are merely pointing out the facts and our belief. The discussion is pretty interesting isn't it? Maybe you are curious because you keep coming back and have been trying to discredit our thoughts, to prove your point. You have been trying to figure out why we believe but none of us have judged you for yours.

                      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Because it is magical thinking, because it doesn't conform to reality in anyway, because it defies our physical laws, because it has never been shown.

                        Reality can be shown, easily.



                        You might believe that you're honest about your beliefs, but you are lying to yourselves. On top of that, believers will lie about reality, which can be shown with reality.



                        For the bazillionth time, I do not hold beliefs. You are not pointing out facts of any kind with religious beliefs.



                        No, believers discredit themselves, pointing that out is easy.



                        I already understand why you believe. I hold no beliefs.

            2. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A contradiction is one sentence directly opposing another sentence.
              the tree fell
              the tree did not fall

              in christianity, every body is at different levels of understanding for a number of reasons - all good reasons.
              Because some beliefs are different is the product of a persons understanding, this is not contradiction.
              That's like saying that someone who can only do grade 8 math is contradicting someone who can do algebra.
              Someone who does not believe in giraffes may never have seen one and someone who believes in giraffes probably has seen one but the two when stating their beliefs about giraffes do not contradict - they simply understand at different levels.
              dishonesty spouts contradiction when there is no contradiction.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What a load of nonsense. The Bible is a book with words in it that are straight forward and legible. It is not about math or trees or giraffes. lol

                1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                  brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  John 4:12   Are you greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

                    John 4:13   Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again:

                    John 4:14   But whosoever drinks of the water that Jesus shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that Jesus shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Is that supposed to be a response?

          2. AEvans profile image71
            AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for clarifying the information since you have studied this thoroughly. smile

        3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Some comments seems are missing.

          1. AEvans profile image71
            AEvansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Lololo! Oh Geez....big_smile

        4. philmeyer profile image60
          philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm... I beg to differ.

          Although the word "God" is written "Allah" in Arabic (transliterated of course), the Allah worshiped by the Muslims is most certainly NOT the God worshiped by Christians.

          Islam's Allah started "life" as an idol, discovered by Muhammad. It was one of several, but has since become Allah, the "only" God.

          1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
            Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm... I beg you have never read Quran, just give a try, then we can talk about it.

            BTW Philmeier, Judeo-Christians  are followers of Paul not Christ, and they believe that their God hates people even before they are born , nor having done any good or evil.

            Surly this is not the God of Islam.


            Romans 9
            New King James Version (NKJV)
            Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose

            6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

             7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 

            8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 

            9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

            10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

            11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

            12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”

             13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

            Philmeier,

            Does your God hates people even before they have been born and did anything wrong? 

            And your  works don't matter?

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sag. the word "hated" in Greek is "μισέω" miseō, which has also meaning "love less". Actually God did not hated Esau, He hated his flesh. Flesh is never good it has genetics markers of fallen Adam. God seen that ahead and Esau acted according his nature. *** No, work is not how we are saved, but when we are saved - born again we have a fruit of the spirit and it is good work. Religion put work on first place instead of faith.

              1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Val, your statement doesn't make any sense. 
                What do you mean by saying that God hated the flesh of Esau and loved the flesh of Jacob.  Are you going to make a cannibal out of your God?

                OT,where this lie about God hating Esau originated, was written in Hebrew not Greek, and in Hebrew language, when people hated others, they killed them.

                BTW Val, do you know that the wisest kings of Bronze Era and bringers of our civilization: Egyptian Osiris, Hebrew Esau and Sumerian Lipit-Eshtar, are one and the same person?

                What do you find in Genesis that makes you to hate Esau?

                1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sag, I did not say God love Jacob's flesh. Opposite, Jacob was home "body" and loved listen and had potential to pass on  the spiritual values. Esau was wild man, hunter. In their time there was not available written word. All values were property of memory to pass on - hearing Words. It was not property, inheritance but to preservation of the faith. The inheritance was only byproduct if being first born, caring the line. God in Bible changed this not once. Cain - Set, Ishmael-Isaac, Esau Jacob, Manasseh-Ephraim, Adam-Jesus.  It was matter of switching blessings. If I do not make any sense then do not read please.

                  1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Vlad, can you do me a favour,
                    Can you please read Genesis at least once, focusinfg on the story of Esau and Jacob? then we can have a discussion about Esau and Jacob, without making stories and false accusations.

                  2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Vlad, you have said:

                    1. " I did not say God love Jacob's flesh. Opposite," -

                      Do you mean, God hated Jacob's flesh? This is what you have said about Esau - "Actually God did not hated Esau, He hated his flesh. "

                    2.  " Opposite, Jacob was home "body" and loved listen and had potential to pass on  the spiritual values. " - 

                    Vlad, let's have a quick look what Jacob had learn by listening, and what spiritual values he passed on to his sons.

                    To answer this question we have to have a look in to one of the most important chapters of the OT,  Genesis Chapter 9:

                    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV

                    God’s Covenant With Noah

                    Genesis 9

                    God’s Covenant With Noah

                     1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth....
                     
                     5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. 

                    I will demand an accounting from every animal. 
                    And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

                     6 “Whoever sheds human blood, 
                       by humans shall their blood be shed; 
                       for in the image of God 
                       has God made mankind.
                    "
                     

                    Vlad, from this very important chapter we have learn that 
                    God forbade to kill human beings when He said:

                    6 “Whoever sheds human blood, 
                       by humans shall their blood be shed; 
                       for in the image of God 
                       has God made mankind.


                    Do you think Vlad, that Jacob have learned and passed this "value" , or I would say, the most important of God's commands, to his sons?

                    If you don't know, then let's have a look in to the Bible, Genesis 34.

                    Genesis 34
                    King James Version (KJV)

                    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV

                    Jacob wit his family in Shechem.

                     1And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

                     2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

                     3And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

                     4And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife....

                     25And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

                     26And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword
                    , and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

                     27The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

                    28They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

                     29And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.


                    Vlad, do you realize, that this was the first case in the Bible, since Noah's time, when innocent human blood was shed, and it was contrary to God's covenant law with Noah?

                    This was done by the sons of Jacob/Israel, the one about you have said " Jacob was home "body" and loved listen and had potential to pass on  the spiritual values. "

                    Was this first massacre, since Noah's time, done according to spiritual values Jacob had learn from his father Isaac or Abraham?

                    The second problem was mixing with Canaanite people.
                    There was a curse on Cannan, Ham's son, and God forbade children of Abraham to intermarried with Cannanites.  

                    However, after slaughtering all the men of Shechem, (those people were descendants of Canaan), Israelites mixed with their wives and children. Also Judah, in Genesis  38, married Canaanite woman and had children by her. 

                    Genesis 38

                     1And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.

                     2And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.

                     3And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

                     4And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.

                     5And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him."


                    Genesis 9.

                    The Sons of Noah

                     18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)

                    19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.....

                     24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 

                    25 he said,

                       “Cursed be Canaan! 
                       The lowest of slaves 
                       will he be to his brothers.”

                     26 He also said,

                       “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem! 
                       May Canaan be the slave of Shem. 

                    27 May God extend Japheth’s territory; 
                       may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, 
                       and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”


                    BTW  Vlad, do you know that:

                    Ham is ancestor of Hamitic people, 
                    Shem is ancestor of Semites, 
                    and  Japheth, ancestor of Indio-Europeans?

                  3. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Vlad,
                    Jacob had  newer truly new God and his worship of God was conditional,  like the one of Pavlov's dog. 

                    IF he will get, THEN he will serve.

                    Genesis 28 reads:
                    King James Version (KJV)

                      "16And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.

                     17And he was afraid, and said, 
                    How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

                     18And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

                     19And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

                     20And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, 
                    If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

                     21So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:


                     22And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee."


                    Now Vladimir compare Jacob's relation to God with the trust in God of  Job, who was the second king of Edom and descendent of Esau.

                    The Bible reads about Job:

                     “that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil”.(Job Ch.1:1)            

                    The Book of  Job Chapter 29, discloses some more information regarding Job’s personality and says that he was the one who:

                     “12 …delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him”, he “ …caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.”.

                    As the chapter continues Job says:

                    ”15 I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame.        

                    16 I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out.   

                     17 And I brake the jaws of the wicked and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.”                                                                 

                     Job was a man of great wisdom and respect, he held the leading position in the National Council and  “dwelt as a king in the army” (Job Ch.29:25),                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                     The prose prologue Job Ch.1: 6-11, transfer the reader not only into different times but in to different dimension and reveals that:

                    “6 … there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.        

                    7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou?   Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,

                    From going  to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it                

                    8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?                                        

                     9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said,                              

                    Doth Job fear God for nought?                                                      

                    10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.                            

                     11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath and he will curse thee to thy face.”

                    Satan is the world’s first behaviorist; he claims Job is like Pavlov’s dog; he has been conditioned to love God; the more he serves the more he gets, so why not continue to serve God?

                     In Ch.1 verse 12
                    “… the LORD said unto Satan,  Behold, all that he hath is in thy power;  only upon himself put not forth thine hand.                                  

                     So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.”


                    Richly endowed in his own personal and domestic prosperity, Job suffers a sudden and complete reversal of fortune. He loses his property and all his children…but not his faith; loathsome disease afflicts his body and sorrow oppresses his soul; nevertheless, Job does not complain against God. 

                    In verse 21, Job utters a stirring declaration of faith, and says:                                                                         

                    “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb,                                    

                     and naked shall I return thither:                                                  

                     the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away;                      

                     blessed be the name of the LORD.”


                    Job loves God not for what he can get, but because He is worthy of love apart from the blessings He promises.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            philmeyer, you are right. There were two gods male an female. They were Phoenician gods.

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Val,
              Is this what you have figure out after reading Quran?
              Believe me Val, there is only one and only God in Islam; with almost hundred names, but non of this names indicates that He hates people, and do not care about their works.

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Every religion is based on work. We are not good, since the Law requires keeping all Law. We received grace based on Jesus work on the cross. He kept the Law for us and gave us His righteousness.

      19. jacharless profile image83
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago

        Why do folks always misread that line? Seriously.
        Creator cannot separate himself from himself, that is his breath, his word -anymore than you can separate yourself from your breath, your words.

        Everything manifest came by words -the vibrato.That vibrato is called light.
        That same vibrato was put into every human who has ever existed. Life was the light in man.

        Y`shua makes that very clear, he was the firstborn of many.
        So, being the first, everyone after identical. This is why Y`shua is called Immanu El [Creator-creation, Creator with Us], the Second Adam and we are called the sons of Creator. Each one of us is the manifest word. Because everything in existence IS that breath, vibrato of Creator.

        John was not implying Y`shua was Creator himself, but rather a complete reflection of the original human image/likeness of Creator. Same as you and me.

        John says the word became flesh, dwelt among us and we[he] saw that glory[witnessed] -the likeness of first born/begotten of the Father. John saw the anointing come upon him. John heard the Father speak and the glory manifest. Talk about a joyful moment. Here is the last of all prophets standing there witnessing it first hand.

        But, that was just the beginning, because what would transpire over the next 3 years would marvel even that. A complete body-brain-spirit unification -that every human being would have the option to become, as well.

        Note John emphasizes the Father and son distinction. He does not combine then as one individual, but rather a united relationship -inseparable, as Adam was prior to his inception.

        You cannot encompass the universe in a single human form. It is ridiculous to even consider that. That was what the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Nubian, Persian, Babylonian, etc etc folk did. It is also the precise reason people worship Y`shua as Creator, because Rome encompassed and mandated that this man was a god, like their gods were.

        This is why Elohim-elohim defines Father-son(s). Everyone born of the spirit IS a son/daughter. United, inseparable from the Father -that likeness, image and glory.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          *****************

          And when you were Twenty-One you argued this all with me-But opposite

          I can give you through links where you are using the word of God to prove Yahshua is God.

          Need some links?

          1. jacharless profile image83
            jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The Inception will not end, until you submit completely in spirit.
            Any fool can read, write, explain, dissect or bend words.

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *********

              Yeess, any fool can

            2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              jacharles, truth plus baptize in the Word. Complete immersion. I like your comment.

      20. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

        The Word of God means the voice of God. Yahshua was the voiuce of God. He spoke the words God's gave him to say and never spoke of himself.

        God was the voice. The Voice was with God and the Voice was God. Nothing was created with out his voice. He said, let there be light, and there was.

        John 1
        1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
        2. The same was in the beginning with God.
        3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

        should have been translated

        John 1
        1. In the beginning was the Voice, and the Voice was with God, and the Voice was God.
        2. The same was in the beginning with God.
        3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

        Adam heard the Voice of God in the garden walking in the cool of the day Genesis 3:8

        God wanted Moses to be his mouth (his voice) but he was ashamed of his speech.

        Him being the Word.. the Voice does not mean he is God himself

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Since God is truth, not just part but 100% it is impossible to separate his word from his truth and therefore from His essential being. What God speaks always comes to pass because it is truth. Words are manifested through voice(s).

          Now how does one think that Jesus never used his own words or voice? Words are something God can give to a person to repeat but the voice is totally up to the arrangement of vocal cords, tongue, teeth, etc. -its a biological thing.

          Also in keeping with verses one, two and three. we see that God is the subject here, not Jesus. All things were made by God. It doesn't imply that all things were made by Jesus.

          It seems the human body has a lot of people getting things mixed up. The body was only a body, a construct of flesh and blood and bone. A vessel. A temple, A husk and nothing more. Being conceived of the Holy Ghost and the power of the almighty overshadowing Mary, I would even impart unto you, dear readers, that this pregnancy was derived from a zygote of God and not just his sperm donation. I doubt Mary orgasmed in order to 'release' her egg.
          Again it is whats inside the body that makes all the difference.
          God dwelt in the body of Jesus. It is in every synoptic gospel, Johns gospel is crammed full of deity examples.

          Its not hard to imagine that God, dwelling and living inside the body of Jesus - as he intends to do inside his people today - told the body of jesus what to say - the same way that God impresses through His spirit in us today, even the same way the prophets of old spoke Gods words - although temporarily - Jesus had this 'anointing' full time. This is not to say that the body of Jesus can be likened to a robot because the body of Jesus had life (nephesh), it felt and experienced pain and suffering, all the things a body does by nature, but God, inside the body, controlled the body and brought the body into submission to it's passions, to fulfill His goal of a sinless sacrifice. In essence God did not even steal Mary's baby, God fashioned one of his own.
          Now since the body is the workings of the flesh and mind and WE become the sum of our thoughts and experiences through the course of time we develop what we call, "our self", we develop self awareness, our thoughts amount to being no different than our self. We develop a personality. I doubt that the body of Jesus ever had enough time apart from the influence of God, inside, to develop a human personality independent of God who resided inside. I think God chose to walk the earth in a human body and take care of business Himself. I think God wanted to experience everything we experience and of course, God needed to overcome everything we experience and be sinless, like we can't and then to resurrect - of course there can be no resurrection without a body in the first place. A body was needed so rather than rob a mom of her son, God informed Mary she would have a child of the holy ghost by the power of God.
          smile therefore, i conclude that the 'religion' that Jesus was pointing us to was not a religion - that is OT stuff - but toward the teaching of His Spirit inside us, leading and guiding in all areas of life. A spiritual walk indeed, not of written letter or parchment of paper but by personal instruction on a daily basis.  ---- Get yours soon!! ----    smile
          Pretty heavy stuff. Those that have ears and all that jazz.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ********************

            I never said he didn't use his own words when he was just talking.

            He never spoke OF HIMSELF, he was speaking of God and spoke the words God gave him.

            I didn't say this, Yahshua did.

            I know Paul didn't say it, but could you believe Yahshua just once?

            John 12:49
            For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

            John 14:10
            Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Deb I agree.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Deborah, neat. But God and His Word are echad - one. They are in perfect unity and harmony. The faith comes by hearing of Word (Logos/Rhema) of the Lord (YHVH). It means Aleph-Tav.
          You said it right. See in the time of writing Thorah not all was known, revealed and not all was seen and Adam before fell from revelation to reasoning. Reasoning could be our enemy.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            *************************

            Yassou file mou

            Milás Elliniká?

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ναι, λιγάκι

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ***********************

                A Little in phonetics is ligáki.

                Can you do phonetics?

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            **********

            I am not trying to be neat. I tell you the truth.

            If God and Yahshua was the same and they were God, Yahshua would not have said this.

            John 7:17
            If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

            If he was God he would be speaking of himself, but he wasn't

          3. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            *******************************


            In Greek the word λόγος pronounced Logos was translated as "word" but means Logic, reasoning, the voice of reason. The word Λέγω said legō means I say, I speak, and spoken.

            The Greek word for “word” is λέξη said léxi̱
            Lexi is where the English words Lexical and Lexicon come from. The English word "logic" means reasoning".

            λέξη is not the word used in the Greek Bible, λόγος is.
            Logos, It is where the English words Logic come from.

            So this is talking about the Voice of God, God's voice of reasoning, and is not saying Yahshua and God are the same person. Yahshua was the voice of God. God’s voice of reasoning.

            God and Yahshua were in one accord, in harmony, because the Holy Ghost dwelt in him, not one person,

            The Holy Ghost in him, was God in the flesh.

          4. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ********************************

            You are thinking that echad means a "compound unity.

            So to you Deuteronomy 6:4 says
            Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God,
            The LORD is a compound unity.

            In other words you think it proves the trinity and that Yahshua is God.

            This is incorrect:

            It exists in the first chapters of Deuteronomy and it exists in the last chapters of the Torah. It’s placement should have an effect on how it’s interpreted.

            It is important to use the original context and not put meanings that are alien to the original message of God.
            Before the arrival of the end of the New Testament , and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the Jewish Bible never had the interpretation of it echoed the way the Christians had.
            The Roman Catholics first used Echad to mean trinity in the Middle ages.
            In the Jewish Bible, it has no such meaning.

            In Deuteronomy, echoed can mean only “unique”, not a trinity one.

            In John 17: 21-22 Yahshua prayed to his Father for his disciples, asking that they "may all be one, just as we are one"
            It means they are standing firm in one spirit with one accord in faith.

            When people are biased because of their religion, or just ignorance, interpretation of the Bible is distorted, and may be nullified in the mind of the reader.

            The Hebrew word echoed means, one as in Genesis 1:9.

            It also means first as in Genesis 1:5

            Echad also means Single as in Numbers 13:23


            A lot of people say that the eched flesh of Adam and Eve shows the meaning of it is a compound unity, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth. First Eve was a part of Adam’s body. It wasn’t until they were separated and Eve was no longer in Adam, that they became one (eched)
            and she was with him. They are not a compound eched.

            Echad also means unique, or one of a kind.

            See Song 6:9


            People state the wrong interpretation of echoed because they haven’t learned the root words. The correct word for unity is Yachad.
            Yachad in Deuteronomy 33:5 is “together”

            Isaac Leeser says “ Hear, O Israel! The Lord, our God, is the One Eternal Being.”

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Deb., The way I see it. The Trinity was attempt to explain nature of God. It is in Gospel, Apostle creed and so on.
              You quoted Deut 4:6. It is clear there are two person present: Elohim and YHVH. To me Elohim is last name for God. So Aba Elohim is Father (GODHEAD), Ben Elohim is YeHoshuVaH (short YHVH) - Lord. Then Ruah Kadesh is Ruah Elohim. This is what I teach unless Lord will show me more.
              Echad is numero one. The same time Echad is one in unity in text, man will leave his parents and man and wife will be Echad (one) flesh (paraphrased).

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ***********

                The last name of God..ridiculous.
                Like you said..to you..not anyone else.

                1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Deb.
                  The conclusion I drew was because we are family and we are created to His image. Did Jesus say My Father is greater then I am? Then Deuteronomy  6:14 indicating God did not defined His nature but differences between Elohim and pagan god's of the land.  If I am wrong I will be first to repent.

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously my computer finished typing for me and typed echoed instead of echad

      21. 0
        MP50posted 4 years ago

        Jesus is only Jewish in the Bible written by Man.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          brotheryochanan, you are talking about noise. But Word is something different and more. It is Rhema. Also you forgot that all was made by YHVH and it is YeHoshuVaH. Remember that God Father ELOHIM gave to YHVH all things, not because God retired, but because of love. You can read about it in John.

      22. annescripts profile image74
        annescriptsposted 4 years ago

        What I just love about Jesus is that He led His followers AWAY from religion- not toward it! He got in trouble constantly with the religious leaders who wanted everyone to live up to a standard of morality that was impossible. Jesus made a way out of the grip of religion and into a way of relationship with God.

        www.biblegateway.com is a great site that has all kinds of versions of the Bible to read instantly. I recommend reading the book of John (English Standard Version is a good translation; so is New American Standard Version). If you want a paraphrase that reads more like we speak today, try The Message, which is also listed amongst the "translations." (This is not an actual translation, so for increased accuracy, go with one of the first two translations I listed. This just reads more like we speak today and is easier for some.)

        Thanks for a delightful question, and I hope you find what you're looking for!

        1. Teylina profile image61
          Teylinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AE, glad I got in on this even late. Been 'gone.' Actually, I like what annesc ripts says above, and don't forget there is a difference in translations and versions. Have not read all the foregoing comments yet as I got stopped w/BrendaD's comments about God (assuming--dangerous word that it is!), Christ his son, and that Christ is God, pointing us to the book of John. I haven't looked up the scripture but am pretty sure she is referring to the scripture in which Jesus says (paraphrase?) "My father and I are one." I'd like to ask a question. Anyone who is married out there, including you, BrendaD, do you believe that when you married you and your spouse became "one"--the Bible says "one flesh." Could it be that the idea they are the same persona is, in fact, what makes up the doctrine of the Trinity, and that actually he was referring to the two of them being in sync--being one in spirit and truth and justice, etc., but two separate entities. After all, he also told his followers NO one--including himself--knew the day and hour of which he was speaking in another verse. Personally, I like to keep in mind that the Almighty God has his own name--Jah, Yahweh, Jehova--whatever--and Jesus is his son's name, becoming Christ at his baptism I believe. Check out Ex and Ps (83:18) for name. Can't buy the trinity and can't keep my mouth shut even if I should! I, too, have a lot of books on the evolution of religions down through the centuries, and, no, I'm not even going to go to your question re Catholicism. I'll read more, but I'm outta here. Made my personal statement, but will not debate. Been there, done that--older that you, AE, and made my personal decisions. Thanks for a good question.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          annescriptsposted
          What I just love about Jesus is that He led His followers AWAY from religion- not toward it!
          Amen to it.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Religion is defined as a belief in supernatural beings; gods. You believe Jesus is God, hence you have religion.

            How can that simple logic escape you?

      23. 0
        kiasumamaposted 4 years ago

        Jesus was being crucified by the Jewish, too. He came and gave us a new testament, a new promise, so definitely he won't want us to follow what the old Jewish was practicing. Human beings are sinful and none of us living up to His standard. Even the churches are not perfect and some are even sub-standard. If the churches follow Jesus and regard Him as Lord, we are perfect in His eyes.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          kiasomama, amen.

        2. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          *********************

          The Romans and the High Priests appointed by the Romans killed Yahshua.

          Caiaphas was appointed High Priest by the Roman Governor, and was also chairman of the high court (Sanhedrin).

          Caiaphas held a hearing and accused Yahshua of blasphemy

          (a capitol crime)

          Priests have always helped set the laws of state.

          Because Yahshua would not deny that he claimed to be the son of God, he was handed over to the Roman legal system. They found him quietly of treason because he was supposed to have claimed to be King of the Jews.

          The Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes were not just religious branches but they were also political movements as well. They adhered to the LETTER of the law and didn't like most people and treated others as strangers.

          It was not the regular Hebrew/Jew that wanted Yahshua dead, as a matter of fact, when the High Priest Council needed a witness to come forward against Yahshua there was no one that would be a witness against him. So the Priests made things up about him.

          1. 0
            kiasumamaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have written an article on this "Thing that Jesus hates". Give me comment if there is any

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ***********************

              You want the truth?
              It is poorly written because of the English used. It has no good information, you give a definition that you have no way of knowing if it is true or not. I say it is not the definition of Nicolaitane.

              If you are trying to say that I match your definition of Nicolaitane, you need to watch it and judge yourself.

              I am allowed to state that I disagree with your belief that the Jews killed Yahshua.

              1. 0
                kiasumamaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you. Yes, my English is no good.

                1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  kiasumama, go on. You are precious in the eyes of God.

                  1. 0
                    kiasumamaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you. We are all His children. Praise the Lord!

                  2. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    *******************

                    He asked me and wanted the truth. I will not lie, and you are wrong if you expect me too.

                2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  kiasumama, plese never accept discouragement. Love you sis.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ************

                    We do well to take constructive criticism, It helps us improve.

                    Hiding the truth is not love.

                    1. 0
                      kiasumamaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Thank you for all the criticism and encouragement. Let's put a stop on this. I appreciate all of your kindness. I will do my best in my writing. In fact, I prefer to write in Chinese but I can't find something like Hubpages in the Chinese websites. Hubpages is so easy to use. Thank you once again, all bros and sis.

        3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          kiasumama, except it was not Jews only but all of us, our sin which crucified Jesus. Perhaps correctly said it was religion which crucified Him.

      24. 79
        spiritgloveposted 4 years ago

        To answer this Hubber,s question succinctly, Gnosticism. Our contemporary religions came from earlier mystery school religions. The Romans, condemned these religions and created the Roman Catholic Church. Then (very briefly) brutally, razed and confiscated the ancient library's and pagan temples, that had stored the accumulation mankind's knowledge and progress in scientific, spiritual, and philosophic thought in an effort to bring peace(?) and control to their empire. This marked a turning point in mans spiritual understanding, the focus on inner development was pushed under ground while the focus on material wealth, became the new standard. Thus, Roman Emperor's such as Charlemagne, or Pepin, the first King of the Franks, were largely illiterate, but more importantly, they were emotionally illiterate as well. You see, Jesus focused on inner development, including emotional wealth, not material wealth.
        Getting tough became the new definition of a "man", much like the western world today, you see, For a ruler to be “knowledgeable” meant he was “less heroic”, to be “studied” meant he was more “priestly”, and less of a warrior. 
        Today, politics is largely a game of manipulation, that can only be effected by the emotionally illiterate, for the benefit of material wealth.
        Jesus being, of course, aware of this change, tried to relay this important understanding to the Jewish community he was a part of.
          Maybe I'll start to blog the book I plan to write on this topic.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          spiritglove, interesting.

      25. 79
        spiritgloveposted 4 years ago

        Thank you,I'm just trying to push the boat in the right direction.

      26. Civil War Bob profile image60
        Civil War Bobposted 4 years ago

        Actually, He made it simple: "Follow Me!"

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Let's all go scurge and crucify ourselve's... Lovely message to follow.

          1. philmeyer profile image60
            philmeyerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In actual fact, you couldn't be more accurate:

            Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. (Luke 9:23)

            It's not the physical kind though... it means to put to death the "old man" who yearns after the things of the world, so that the "new man" can wholeheartedly follow Christ.

            There should, of course, BE a "new man" in the first place. He is born from above (at "rebirth").

            Since we live in a broken world where temptation surrounds us everywhere, we have to do this every day. It's not easy - in fact it's where the English term "excruciating pain" comes from.

            He did the real thing for us - we could at least do this for him.

      27. 61
        passingthewordposted 4 years ago

        He was not leading to a religion just to the true Word of God

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Which oddly enough, led to religion...

          1. 61
            passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What Jesus wanted and wants is a relationship not religion. Religion means devision.

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It means you are divided into, not from. You are part of a group of other, likeminded individuals and you congregate with a fellowship. You go to church, you read scripture, chant mantras/prey and you ahere to the "Wednesday, Sunday" thing(schedules may vary).

              Yup! It's a religion

              1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Mischeviousme, 
                I think you have read the Book of Job;
                which is considered to be non religious one.

                Will you classify Job as religious person, or just a beliver?

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I would classify Job as beindg a protagonist in a story, I have no idea whether he existed or not. I'm familiar with the story though...

                  Until we can go back in time and verify, without a doubt, that certain things happened in reality, it's all speculation. I don't see it as being wrong or untruthful, just hard to verify.

                  1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Mischeviousme, 
                    Because I strongly believe that Christ was not a Jew - descendent of Jacob/Israel, but the Gentile - descendent of Esau, and so was Job and two of his visitors (Eliphaz and Zophar), I will try to prove it later in this tread.

                    However, my question is, 
                    base on the story of Job and the dialogs, will you  consider the protagonist of this book and his two visitors: Eliphaz and Zophar, to be religious people or just believers?

                    1. mischeviousme profile image60
                      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      They apear to be consciencious objectors, judging harshly at first impressions. But what do I know? I just have what I've read to go by.

      28. Don Crowson profile image79
        Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

        Amen.  Why would anyone think that Jesus wanted to start a religion?   Men start religions.

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He was leading them to Scientology. Just kidding

      29. christianajohan profile image62
        christianajohanposted 4 years ago

        Jesus was leading his followers to the new teaching about love. Moses' disciples during His time was not that worth it being a rabbi.

        They used the law of Moses to their own advantage and own desire to punish people and being so strict with their rules.

        I believe Judaism and Christianity are just one.  They are interrelated because Jesus did not go against the law of Moses. He criticized the teachers of the law and fulfill the the writings of the prophets.

      30. lionswhelp profile image82
        lionswhelpposted 4 years ago

        The Law of Moses was God's  Laws as given on Mt. Sinia by the God of Israel who later became Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:1-12. He never did away with any of them ,Matthew 5:17-18, Hebrews 13:8 Malachi 3:6. Our hope is in Jesus Christ that he will soon come againRevelation 22:7-12, 14-16.

        The prophet Solomon summed it up rather nicely for us all in Ecclesiasties 12:13-14 - Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of us all. For God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.

        Jesus said if you really love him then keep his Commandments John 14:15

       
      working