Tuesday: No, members of the Jewish priestly hierarchy had Pontius Pilate kill Jesus. The story is they rigged the crowd to make Pilate crucify Christ. As to the crucifixion...... If there was no 'death', there is no 'rising'. I thought Christ knew what was going to happen and let it happen.

Tuesday:

> The Jews rejected his teachings and Peter had a vision telling him to teach the Gentiles as well after Jesus' own ppl rejected him.

We have to remember that Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. Jesus never set out to reform or modify Judaism. Neither did the Jews accept or reject his teachings. In reality Jesus belonged to a minority of Jews who was dissatisfied with the way the powerful Pharisees in Jerusalem were running things. People from Galilee saw their greed for wealth and power as opposed to what God had intended for human beings to do on this earth. John the Baptist was also from that same stream of thought.

At the time there were many religious "dissidents", most of them living near the shores of the Dead Sea, away from Roman rule. The Pharisees and Herod had completely surrendered to the Romans. Some people chose armed struggle, others chose a spiritual form of rebellion. Those who sought a spiritual path to liberation started questioning the old ways. This is how baptism arose as a way to clean a person from their sins.

When Jesus had his ministry, he was not the great originator of a new religion as we see him today. He was merely a carpenter's son trying his best to teach people a different way in a world full of greed and violence. Jesus lived and died without immediate impact. His teachings remained only among his apostles and relatively few followers. In that sense Jews neither accepted or rejected him, because for the majority of the population he would have been one more spiritual rebel trying to change the world.

It was St. Paul who worked hard to change things. St. Paul himself had been converted from a Jew and Roman into a follower of Jesus. Prior to his conversion Paul the Apostle persecuted the early Christians, probably along with other dissidents of Pharisee spiritual rule. St. Paul saw the strength of Jesus' message, and set out to spread it along with his apostles. Jesus teachings did not find much resonance among Jews, but they found resonance among Greeks. It is at that point that Christianity accepted Gentiles into the fold, because Paul himself was a gentile Roman. It is also why the New Testament was written predominantly in Greek and not Aramaic.

In reality the distinction between Judaism and Christianity arose slowly over two hundred years after the death of Christ. Christians took many of the old rituals of Judaism and transformed them into symbolic rituals. Circumcision was replaced with baptism. The ritual sacrifice of lambs was replaced with the Eucharist. Many of these conversions had an origin in alternate rituals in old Judaism, but they did not gain their deep spiritual significance until the apostles spread the word of Jesus.

I wouldn't say Jews rejected Jesus. Rather, Jews had no chance to hear his message considering the brutality of Roman rule and the ultimate expelling of Jews from their homeland. Jews survived as a distinct culture and religion by handing onto their old ways as best as they could. The more they were prosecuted, the harder they fought to retain their religion culture and values. It comes as no surprise that they refused conversion to Christianity and Islam in spite of 2000 years of discrimination and prosecution.

Tuesday: I don't think that is a fair assessment. Jesus did not fulfil all of the prophecies that were said to be completed as the Jewish Messiah. I believe that someone else did that (or as near as ) if I remember my history on that matter correctly.

Also, if it wasn't for the Romans the establishment of Christianity would be different. It became a state church, just like when Henry VIII formed the Church of England.. but that was so he could divorce his wife.

Artful Dodger: Per person??

Arthur Brooks made quite a splash a few years ago in his book Who Really Cares. He argued that religious conservatives were far more likely to give than liberals. In fact, if you campare religious conservatives with secular liberals, he is right. Indeed, one third of secularists give nothing to charity. Of the most religious in the country 94% give to charity. And of those who give, the religious give on average at least three times more than those who are not religious. Moreover, the figures bear out that religious conservatives are far more likely to give to non-religious causes than are the non-religious.

Brooks turns out to be far off base, however, in contending that religious conservatives give more often and give more than religious liberals. Basically, he failed to adjust for church attendance. If you adjust for church attendance there is no difference that favors conservatives over liberals. Indeed, religious liberals volunteer more often to help the sick, the needy, and neighborhood and civic groups. For an excellent discussion of this, see chapter 13 of American Grace by Putnam and Campbell.

Tuesday: I heard it was about making God available for the Gentiles without the need to live by 613 commandments as well as things like eye for an eye.

lizrising: Aye.. The words that to me make that 'connection', I don't use except in prayer.

(V): When I learned to read Hebrew I had to remember that a couple words that mean God were pronounced nothing like they looked. Orthodox Jews also do not normally say any of the names of God (Adonai, Eloheynu, etc) unless in prayer. Instead they say Hashem, which translates to "the name." If throwing away something with the name of God printed on it, it has to be specially buried. Even my Reconstructionist Jewish fiancee, who is rather agnostic, is very careful about printing things with God's name, not letting certain books touch the floor, etc.

Tuesday: The old ways.. Define old ways?

Tuesday: Christ would have known Judaism... And that would have reflected in his words.

Tuesday: The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Hei), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Hei-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").

The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Rambam, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God).

God is also known as El Shaddai. This Name is usually translated as "God Almighty," however, the derivation of the word "Shaddai" is not known. According to some views, it is derived from the root meaning "to heap benefits." According a Midrash, it means, "The One who said 'dai'" ("dai" meaning enough or sufficient) and comes from the fact that when God created the universe, it expanded until He said "DAI!" (perhaps the first recorded theory of an expanding universe?). The name Shaddai is the one written on the mezuzah scroll. Some note that Shaddai is an acronym of Shomer Daltot Yisrael, Guardian of the Doors of Israel.

Another significant Name of God is YHVH Tzva'ot. This Name is normally translated as "Lord of Hosts." The word "tzva'ot" means "hosts" in the sense of a military grouping or an organized array. The Name refers to God's leadership and sovereignty. Interestingly, this Name is rarely used in scripture. It never appears in the Torah (i.e., the first five books). It appears primarily in the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as well as many times in the Psalms.
Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood"). .................

With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any certainty. We do not know what vowels were used, or even whether the Vav in the Name was a vowel or a consonant. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about the difficulties in pronouncing Hebrew. Some religious scholars suggest that the Name was pronounced "Yahweh," but others do not find this pronunciation particularly persuasive.

Some people render the four-letter Name as "Jehovah," but this pronunciation is particularly unlikely. The word "Jehovah" comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name "Adonai" (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written. A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck.

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

It's just a best guess name.

Iamon lyme: gidday :)

Artful Dodger:

> It was a political conflict and the US got involved because of world politics and NOT becasue of any religious belief.

That is exaclty what I am getting at. I see these right wing evangelicals come out and say that the US is a Christian nation.Yet as Christian they gladly put aside some of Christianity's central teachings in order to condone a war. The question then is? How can these people call themselves Christians and condone a war? Others (I can't remember if you yourself did) have posted in the past that the US is a nation founded on Christian principles. You yourself come out and defend Christianity on one hand, and war on the other. Then you say "the other side made us do it" or "Islam is evil". You make political excuses for compromising your faith.

Sarah Palin defends gun posession. Is that the Christian way? Or is she merely compromising her faith for political gain? I have seen too much of that among Christians. Let's say that we believe one thing, and do another. Did you or did you not support the war in Iraq? And if you did, how does that reconcile with your Christian teachings? Or did you compromise your teachings for the sake of politics? Did you protest against the war based on deeply held beliefs in peace and love for other human beings? Or did you say, "geez, they are so evil that war is OK"? How does that compare to Jesus dying on the cross and saying "forgive them father for they know not what they do"?

Radical Moslems are violent because the Koran "says that they should be". At least in their interpretation of it. But the NT says that people should be good to one another, they should avoid violence, they should treat others as they want to be treated themselves. So what excuse do Christians have for condoning war?

Artful Dodger: Christians went out and did the killing. Why didn't they say "No Jesus/God says it's wrong"?

Artful Dodger: As I'm sure you know, logic and reason are always welcomed by people who already agree with you, but not always by people who don't. If uber is laying claim to logic, then maybe it's time for me to confess that I'm actually a beautiful young woman posing as a grumpy old man.. oh, you shush now AD, don't you be spreading any stories now, you hear!!

Tuesday: Well, he actually said he didn't come to abolish (change) the law, but to fulfill it. As children growing up the rules appear to change, but it only appears that way because we begin to change. If it appears there are contradictions between old and new testament it's because we are slowing being brought along, just like a good parent is patient as their child slowly learns how to navigate life. Things changed within the book of Genesis alone, so we can't really say there was only one transistion, the one between OT and NT. Most of us can't see the bigger picture because frankly none of us are here long enough to see it. I don't either, but that's where faith necessarily enters in. I don't know if something that happens every day will happen today, but faith based on experience tells me it probably will.

Tuesday: Considering that the Lord appeared many a time in the OT.... what was his/her name back then?

Seeing as the OT translation of "Lord" is more a case of the "I am" derived From "I am what I am" (he who is).

does anyone really need to ask why?

Artful Dodger: Wrong. Any honest Christian knows that other Christians do use the OT as a means to justify their beliefs. Eg .... Genesis. The Ten Commandments, commentaries on sexuality ... and as such the writings proclaiming the coming of a Messiah. It is also the same God that as written told the Jews to kill, maim and slaughter who is our God.

"However, the Koran is full of such teachings of hate and killing. As are the other authoritative writings in Islam. And Muhammad's life, as an example, clearly shows a history of violence, war, and aggression."

It's the history of the formation and wars that came about from other tribes... Just like in the OT re the Israelites.

FYI the guys killing the early Muslims had no rules.

Al Qaeda is an Islamic organization. Al Qaeda attacked the United States killing nealry 3000 people. Therefore an Islamic organization killed nearly 3000 people.

The logic is simple and there is no way Al Qaeda can weasel its way out of that one.

Iran is an Islamic country. Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group. Therefore an Islamic country supports a terrorist group.

Again, the logic simple and there is no way Iran can weasel its way out of that one.

On the other hand ...

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States went to war in Vietnam killing 6 million people. Therefore a Christian nation went to war killing 6 million people.

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States went to war in Iraq based on false intellegence, and killed 400,000 people. Therefore a Christian nation went to war in Iraq based on false intellegence, and killed 400,000 people.

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States has supported, funded and armed brutal fascist dictators around the world. Therefore a Christian nation has supported, funded and armed brutal fascist dictators around the world.

Now, people will have no problem accepting the first two about Al Qaeda and Iran. But the ones about the US will be unacceptable. Right wing evangelical Christians in the US insist that the US is a Christian nation founded on the principles of Christianity. Now, considering the wars that the US has been involved in, we can say that a Christian nation has gone to war, as much as an Islamic nation has supported terrorism. Can the US weasel its way out of that one without making lame excuses?

Artful Dodger:

> The big flaw in your thesis is that in Islam, the evil is in the teachings. In Christianity, you won't find that same kind of teaching in any measure. Christianity does not promote, advocate, or encourage evil in any way shape or form. Islam does.

The flaw with your thesis is that you assume that people are defined by their ideology, but that is wrong. People are defined by their actions. I can go and say that I am a great Christian, then cheer when my country goes to war for oil. that is hardly a good Christian but a hypocrite. Then when people ask me why I supported the war, I will say that it was the other side that was to blame and in doing so I will have washed my hands of the simple fact that I condoned violence. Hypocrysy at its best. Christianity has been like that through its history. Christians suffer from a "victim" complex, always blaming others when in reality it is their own greed and selfishness that has driven them to war.

> You're an atheist. More people have been killed in the world by godless people than have by those professing faith in Jesus.

Is that so? Christians sent an estimated 60 million natives in the Americas to their deaths. Entire cultures were massacred, violated and enslaved. So great was the killing that Europeans had to start importin African slaves to work the plantations after they ran out of natives to abuse. Not even a madman like Joseph Stalin can compare to that.


> The New Testament clearly teaches killing is wrong. No amount of complaining by you will change that.

And ALL Christians REALLY follow that?

> Early in the 1600's, when different countries were vying for control of the New World, Protestants and Catholics were at war. The Catholic French were killing en mass the Protestant immigrants. The opposite was true as well. It was a Territorial war as much as it was about religion. Each side believed they were doing what God wanted. How they could possibly kill in the name of God is strange to those living in the 21st century. Clearly, there is no NT teaching to support such things.

Again you insisit in dovorcing people's actions from their ideology. The teachings are great, and people's actions don't count. It is the lame excuse of those who refuse to accept that Cristians are hypocrytes in spite of the good teachings they received from Jesus. A Moslem could very well argue that the violent tone fo the Koran is a reflection of the politics of the times. Mohammad had to fight against the powerful men in Mecca and Medina. Hence the the tone is violent, but it had nothing to with the "true" teachings of Islam. Blah blah, it would be the same empty excuse of divorcing actions from ideology.

Christians are defined by their actions. In the end is God not judging people's actions? Christianity has been brutal in its history, and Christians close their eyes and deny it because accepting the truth is too painful.

> But these facts say nothing about Christianity. You can't get these ideas from the Bible. They aren't there. Further, any intelligent student of the Bible understands that the Old Testament isn't a guidebook for the New Testament believer. So appeals to the OT are moot.

So Christians are worse then because at least Moslems have an excuse. The Koran says I should go to war, so i did. But Christians are a lot worse. The Bible says I should be peaceful, but instead I disregard my teachings and I go to war. Moslems have an excuse, what excuse do Christians have?

> However, the Koran is full of such teachings of hate and killing. As are the other authoritative writings in Islam. And Muhammad's life, as an example, clearly shows a history of violence, war, and aggression. He taught his followers to do the same.

Like I said, Islam has an excuse on accounts of their violent ideology. What is Christianity's then?