Jesus, Son of G-d or Satan's greatest trick?

Published on October 26, 2007 By Moderateman In Religion

So Satan sitting in his home listening to the screams of the tormented with a smile on his face, decided the Jews were to close to G-d, and this really angered him, he had to find a way to divide the damned Jews, after all G-d decided they were his chosen people and what better target for his evil deeds than watering down the religion, Now Satan had great power, let us not forget that after all he was arch Angel, most high, one of the three named Angels that sat at G-ds side at one time.

So along comes this good man Jesus was his name, he had many good things to say and the people listened, so first Satan hardened the hearts of the Rabbis, made them jealous of Jesus and his huge following, then Satan allowed some minor so called miracles to happen, an easy task for one as powerful as Lucifer. Satan also knew of the prophecy of the Messiah, and he thought what a great idea if he could trick the Jews into believing that Jesus was the Messiah, he could one, break up the tribes of Israel, really anger G-d whom Lucifer hated beyond all things and of course lead people away from the one true faith of Judaism. Needless to say his plan worked the people of Israel {some} believed the Messiah had come, the Rabbis who Lucifer had tricked into believing this good man was a threat to their power played their part perfectly and had the Romans crucify Jesus {all part of the prophecy} Some years after the death of Jesus, Christianity was born, Jesus NEVER claimed to be a Christian, he was circumcised in the Jewish religion and took Bar mitzvah at 13 again following the Jewish religion. Never once did he or his disciples call what Jesus was preaching Christianity, what he was preaching was Judaism in it purest form, with stress on the 10 commandments as a way to live your life. Did this really happen? I have no Idea, but it is no more believable or unbelievable than Jesus being the Human Son of G-d. Meanwhile we Jews of the one true faith are still waiting for the Messiah to arrive and on that day there will be much celebrating, for we have waiting patiently a very long time for this to happen.

Comments (Page 18)

256

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Nov 26, 2007

What I see you stumbling on is this notion that Salvation came through Torah. It NEVER came through Torah

I'm not stumbling on that. I agree with you. YOu should know that by now. We were NEVER saved by the law. I keep saying we are saved by Grace thru faith and NOT of works. We never could save ourselves then or now. It's only Christ who saves. It's not our doing at all.

Salvation always has and always WILL come through the shedding of blood (in the NT case the blood of Messiah) and repentance.

I agree. Salvation comes from faith and it's faith in the Messiah who shed his blood for all who believe in him and accept his work on the cross on our behalf.

and.....glad to see you back.

257

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 26, 2007

Ok,so then please tell me why you went to such extent to show your own premise being false (that Jerusalem Council didn't uphold Torah)?

You and I agree the issue was salvation can be obtained through circumcision and adherence to Torah to being false.

You concluded that the Jerusalem Council didn't uphold Torah and then showed (yourself) that they encouraged the Gentile converts to start with two aspects of staying away from unclean meat (part of Kosher) and fornication by showing the references in Lev.

And then you contradict yourself saying the Torah is no longer applicable?

This leads me to believe that you aren't sure what the purpose of Torah is/was. Would you agree?

Have a good day!

258

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Nov 26, 2007

Would you agree?

No.

Did you read Romans 14? Did you thoughtfully read my Post #254?

The law was never meant to save nor was it given to us to keep. Paul, a Jew, himself said in Gals 3:24-28

"the law was our schoolmaster TO BRING US TO CHRIST, that we might be justified BY FAITH. But AFTER that faith is come, we are NO LONGER under a schoolmaster.........there is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for you are ALL ONE in Christ Jesus."

259

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 27, 2007

Did you read Romans 14? Did you thoughtfully read my Post #254?

The law was never meant to save nor was it given to us to keep. Paul, a Jew, himself said in Gals 3:24-28

"the law was our schoolmaster TO BRING US TO CHRIST, that we might be justified BY FAITH. But AFTER that faith is come, we are NO LONGER under a schoolmaster.........there is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for you are ALL ONE in Christ Jesus."

KFC, yes I have read Romans 14 and your post #254 as well.

According to your posting you suggest that Torah is done away with but only to first show that in Acts 15 that they supported it with referencing Lev.

You seem to skirt this issue and blow it off as of little importance. As I mentioned before your premise is false and you proved it yourself!

Maybe you didn't see it?

You said:

We must be clear what this council did not do. It did not require circumcision or the keeping of the sabbath or tithing or the kosher regulations.

Then you said in reference to :

The other issue in Lev is that of blood. There were two ways in which blood might be eaten. In many cultures blood was eaten directly as in blood sausage and pudding. In some cultures the manner of slaughter might lead to retention of blood in the meat maybe even deliberatly to keep it tenderer. But neither of these ways were acceptable to the Jews. It must be poured out.

The third issue in Lev 17-18 is that of inappropriate sexual relations. It would be highly disturbing to a Jew to have table fellowship at the Lord's table with a person who had an inappropriate relationship. Paul opposes just such a relation in 1 Cor 5.

Your references above to Lev support the JC's letter to the Gentile Converts that they should observe two aspects of Torah! One being and aspect of eating the other about fornication.

You see your premise (second quote) is shown to be false as not eating blood as you presented (third quote) upholds KOSHER regulations. If your premise is found to be false I have no reason to address your conclusion as it can only result in False.

260

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Nov 27, 2007

Maybe you didn't see it?

No I guess not. But I'm thinking you're not understanding what I'm saying...I guess it's hard on a forum such as this....

What I'm saying.... paying particular attention to Romans 14:17-21 (meat and drink=small stuff) is that for these Jews and Gentiles to worship together in peace certain concessions should be made by these Gentiles. Notice in Acts 15:29 where it says..."if" you do these things you'll do well. The verdict by James is given in v19-20 and he says..."my verdict." He's given a compromise here with love to be the basis of such a compromise.

What was happening in Jerusalem, as I said, was that the presence of new Gentile converts coming into the church was now coming to a head.

Peter had learned that no man is unclean...not even Gentiles (Chap 10) so the Jerusalem church had accepted these first Gentile converts without being cleaned up (circumcised). However some believing Pharisees (v5) went on the offensive. Another question was being raised; Should there be unrestricted social contact between Jewish and Gentile Christians? The Judaisic party separated themselves from those who did not follow the dietary laws and would not partack of the common meals. So this chapter in Acts is concerned with these two questions; circumcision and foods (socializing). Had the division over these questions prevailed the unity of the church would have been destroyed from the start.

The only reason James verdict was given was to promote peace between Jewish and Gentile believers. The Gentiles were asked to abstain from any practice abhorrent to Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians would then socialize with them (1 Cor 8:13)

261

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 28, 2007

Acts 15:29 says, "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. "

Does verse 29 reference Torah (Yes or No)?

262

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Nov 28, 2007

Does verse 29 reference Torah (Yes or No)?

Yes, Lev 17-18 as I've already referenced.

263

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 28, 2007

Yes, Lev 17-18 as I've already referenced.

good.

Is verse 29 suggesting to the Gentile converts of Antioch to abide by these two aspects of Torah (yes or no)?

264

Caeli Aria

on Nov 28, 2007

Meanwhile we Jews of the one true faith are still waiting

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. Is it true that to follow your "one true faith" you have to be of Jewish descent? If so, how can you expect others to agree that people of your race are the only ones who can be saved and everyone else is condemned?

265

Moderateman

on Nov 28, 2007

(Citizen)Caeli AriaNovember 28, 2007 16:53:19

Meanwhile we Jews of the one true faith are still waiting

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. Is it true that to follow your "one true faith" you have to be of Jewish descent? If so, how can you expect others to agree that people of your race are the only ones who can be saved and everyone else is condemned?

yes in keeping in the spirit of "My religion is better than yours is"
YOU must be a Jew born of a Jewish mother or a full convert or else you are doomed to an existence in the fiery bowels of hell. There just is no other way around it. I am not condemning anyone BTW, G-D All Mighty, blessed be his name is.

266

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Nov 28, 2007

Is verse 29 suggesting to the Gentile converts of Antioch to abide by these two aspects of Torah (yes or no)?

yes, of course. I've already covered this to be true.

267

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 28, 2007

yes, of course. I've already covered this to be true.

Ok then can I conclude that, from the passage in Acts 15 that it does not suggest Torah being done away with (Yes or No)?

268

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Nov 28, 2007

Ok then can I conclude that, from the passage in Acts 15 that it does not suggest Torah being done away with (Yes or No)?

Well you can conclude whatever you wish but I wouldn't make such a conclusion. The Torah is much more than just these two things. I believe its because, as I said, using the other scriptures this was for unity between the Jews and the new Gentile believers. The food issue was a huge problem taking up several passages in scripture.

I'm not so sure I'd come out and say exactly that the Torah is "done away" with so much as the New Covenant is now in place. I have, for some time wanted to sit down and look carefully at each covenant and how they operated with the next covenant coming into play..like the Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, etc. Have you done this?

269

Adventure-Dude

on Nov 29, 2007

I believe its because, as I said, using the other scriptures this was for unity between the Jews and the new Gentile believers. The food issue was a huge problem taking up several passages in scripture.

KFC, I know what you have said repeatedly utilizing the other scriptures (Paul's writings). The problem I see is that they aren't consistent with the text written in Acts 15.

I'm not so sure I'd come out and say exactly that the Torah is "done away" with so much as the New Covenant is now in place.

but WHAT is this New Covenant and what is so NEW about it?

I have, for some time wanted to sit down and look carefully at each covenant and how they operated with the next covenant coming into play..like the Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, etc. Have you done this?

KFC, in all honesty you won't understand these covenants in it's fullness until you stop thinking in the Greek. The majority of the Bible was written in Hebrew by a Hebrew mind. Hebrew mindsets and Greek mindsets are practically 180 degrees.

Gotta go to class.

Good Day!

270

lulapilgrim

on Nov 29, 2007

AD POSTS:

Is verse 29 suggesting to the Gentile converts of Antioch to abide by these two aspects of Torah (yes or no)?

Verse 29 contains two parts of the Council of Jerusalem decree from which the Christian converts from Gentile background are to abstain.

The dogmatic part of the decree prohibiting fornication is a perennial moral teaching, is permanent and can never change because it has to do with a necessary part of God's salvific will.

The disciplinary part of the decree about abstaining from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood and from meat of animals killed by strangulation, were applied only for the time being as an act out of charity towards Jewish Christians. (otherwise the early Chruch would have had greater difficulty unifying).
These regulatory disciplines, while they were laid down and respected the Mosaic Law, were understood as not coming from Moses, and no longer oblige coming from that Law, but from the Apostles.

Regarding these disciplinary regulations, although St.Paul makes it clear that Christians were to act as they pleased, he will also ask them not to scandalize the weak. 1Cor. 8-10.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!