One of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity is because the Jews did not believe in Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1947 the bible was rewritten the word Homosexual did not appear in the bible before that.

Religions are cults nothing more nothing less.

+1 million Not to mention the word "homosexual" was mistranslated, AND the person that brought the mistranslation to the attention of the people in charge was agreed with. They just never got around to changing it/fixing it. It changed a lot for a lot of people that cannot only not think for themselves about what is right and wrong, but also a lot of people that have become convinced that just THEIR version of a booze age myth is correct. It has also harmed a lot of people, my family being one of them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some Jews believe in Jesus as the messiah - messianic Jews. Some Jews believe Jesus was a prophet. Jesus himself was Jewish, and believed in himself.

Those Jewish people are not Jews. They are Christians who observe certain Jewish rituals.

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

[Anonymous]

The Copernican model of the universe was not widely believed until long after Copernicus was dead. Early adopters like Galileo were arrested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus prohibited anal intercourse man to man. I dont know about Egyptian rules. What is your point related to the absurd assumption in the christian church that God came down to earth as a child turning into a man but failing at convincing the jews he was their messiah? Seems like you are on a different topic.

Where does it say "anal" in Leviticus?

I gotta get a new edition, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

I know right. Only unsophisticated redneck rubes believe in any type of metaphysical beliefs. I’m eagerly awaiting the day when our country purges any last remnants of its Christian moral foundations. It has been working out so well for Western Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus prohibited anal intercourse man to man. I dont know about Egyptian rules. What is your point related to the absurd assumption in the christian church that God came down to earth as a child turning into a man but failing at convincing the jews he was their messiah? Seems like you are on a different topic.

Where does it say "anal" in Leviticus?

I gotta get a new edition, apparently.

Hahahahaha

Do tell your interpretation of a man lay next to another man.

Can’t wait

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

I know right. Only unsophisticated redneck rubes believe in any type of metaphysical beliefs. I’m eagerly awaiting the day when our country purges any last remnants of its Christian moral foundations. It has been working out so well for Western Europe.

So atheists want to "purge" religious people, taking right after the Inquisition, Mary Tudor, etc.?

[Anonymous]

If you do some historical research, you will find that Judaism was at a crossroads about a century or so after Jesus was crucified. The leaders were leaning towards combining with the Christians and becoming one group. However, the Jews would not accept the inclusion of non-Jewish people as part of the religion, so they continued to stay separate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

I know right. Only unsophisticated redneck rubes believe in any type of metaphysical beliefs. I’m eagerly awaiting the day when our country purges any last remnants of its Christian moral foundations. It has been working out so well for Western Europe.

Many countries are doing just fine with a cultural religion but not an actual belief in a supernatural God. Have you been to an Arab country that believes in a supernatural God and makes their entire life revolve around it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you do some historical research, you will find that Judaism was at a crossroads about a century or so after Jesus was crucified. The leaders were leaning towards combining with the Christians and becoming one group. However, the Jews would not accept the inclusion of non-Jewish people as part of the religion, so they continued to stay separate.

No it wasnt as a whole. Also why would it? God chose a certain people only to go back on that promise. God gave commandments and then said hes making changes to them. God describes a ton of laws to follow to be part of the chosen culture and then says they dont matter. God chooses a special land for his people and then lets it be conquered. I dont believe in the OT God anymore than the NT God but its clear to me these aren't the same gods or religions. Christianity borrowed from Judiasm the same way Islam borrowed from Judaism and Christianity and they all borrowed from other religions of the time but there is no straight continuity from one to the other where God makes sense as one being

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

Father Mike is not a great thinker and doesnt stray from anything outside the doctrine. He has nothing to offer to a Jewish person or an athiest.