the PROOF is in the ........pudding???......

[jobob]

You need to read your OT a little more carefully.

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

So, I think that your reactionary position that they are wrong and deluded and you are right is pretty much worthless.

key words there ''I think'........ youre thoughts are incorrect.

If you simply admit that you hold the position on faith and recognize that they hold theirs on faith as well - I would have no problem with you.

Why would I admit such a thing?

They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (Deu 32:16-21)

..their own texts speak against their actions and foretells of the time of the Gentiles...

 

[Physics_guy]

key words there ''I think'........ youre thoughts are incorrect.

No yours are! Making worthless assertions with all the intellectual maturity of a 5 year old is fun, isn't it?

BTW - did you read the article? You would be quickly trashed by a rabbinical scholar on this argument if you had the guts to take it up with one. I am not saying that they are right; I am just pointing out that others with deep educations in the foundations of your religion have come to different conclusions than you. YOu can believe yours on faith just as they believe theirs on faith. To say that your position is more rational, however, is simply comical.

Why would I admit such a thing?

Because it would show some semblance of humility. Typical though of a religious zealot, you do not have that capacity.

 

[jobob]

No yours are! Making worthless assertions with all the intellectual maturity of a 5 year old is fun, isn't it?

BTW - did you read the article? You would be quickly trashed by a rabbinical scholar on this argument if you had the guts to take it up with one. I am not saying that they are right; I am just pointing out that others with deep educations in the foundations of your religion have come to different conclusions than you. YOu can believe yours on faith just as they believe theirs on faith. To say that your position is more rational, however, is simply comical.

Rational .......im sorry.....DID I SAY RATIONAL?

a man-god coming and dying for my sins is anything but rational... at least in a secular sense.

The Jews have different conclusion becuase they are wrong......
REAd their own texts......
Ill give you a VERY easy start...........
READ the book of Malachi.....its very small and anyone can understand it.

Its the last book of the OT so itll be very easy to find....

It that doesnt help clear some of this up for you, then youre beyond anything I can help you with...

Because it would show some semblance of humility.

NO.....it would be denying the truth of the gospel
Something you will not see me do.....even to death........sorry

Typical though of a religious zealot

You say such sweet things

 

[Split Rock]

Sir I apologize for not quoting the source. The author's name is Cornelius Hunter. He was earning his PhD in biophysics in Illinois at the time he wrote the book in 2001; this book from which I was quoting from is called Darwin's God.

His observances about biological modification within limits is not this author's new finding or theory. Before Darwin, the great German writer-philosopher Johann Goethe (1749-1832) contended, along with French naturalist Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844), that there is in nature a law of compensation that limits biological variation. This held for Darwin, however, that species are anchored to their design--"they can drift about a bit, but they cannot continue to evolve to form a new species" (same source mentioned). Darwin didn't want to reject the notion of limited change because it was known to be true from breeding experiments. He did, however, argue that it did not apply to organisms in their natural environments. "With species in a state of nature," Darwin argued, "it can hardly be maintained that the law [of compensation] is of universal application," even though "many good observers" believed it to be true. Darwin then cites two organisms to support his position: two genera named Ibla and Proteolepas, which are barnacles. Found in Darwin's Origin (p. 150-151) Since the source is quoted I won't type out the thing. I want you to look at it if you can. Then see what you think about his support for his argument. As Darwin argued that the unique features of these two organisms show the law of compensation doesn't hold in the wild, can you see that his unspoken premise was that the unique features evolved?? Darwin presupposes the truth of evolution in order to find evidence for evolution. He doesn't illustrate how evolution might have formed these species. He was unquestionably an expert on barnacles and could describe in detail examples of highly modified species. But he "simply begs the question when he says that the distinctive structures of Ibla and Proteolepas evolved and therefore variation isn't limited in the wild." (same source)

Don't take this author's or my word for anything. Please!

go check it out for yourself.

take care.

Thanks for the reply. I was not able to find the example you were refering to in Origins, but I understand different versions have different page numbers. In any case, Darwin is not the end-all for evolutionary theory (despite what many creationists seem to think).. in fact he was completely wrong about some things (e.g. the mechanics of inheritence).

Take dog breeding as an example.. if you were to find a German Shepard and a Chihuahua and didn't know anything about breeding, you would consider them separate species and probably different genera (though certainly the same family). So, the amount of variation inherent in a population can be very large. While large, however, it is quite finite. Although "sports" can come up in a breeding line, the amount of new variation that can result in phenotypic changes is going to be rather small over one person's lifetime. For this reason, you can say there are limitations on breeding. However, over longer periods of time, those limitations are not significant because the increase in variation due to mutation becomes large. This is how it is possible for a dinosaur population to evolve into a bird population over time.

Hope that makes some sense to you.

 

[Physics_guy]

Jobob,

You have just cemented my opinion that religious fundamentalist are completely lacking in introspection. I can tell you didn't even read the article I presented because you have already made a determination on its veracity and I doubt you would like to expose yourself to any opinions differing from your own.

I know you believe that you are in possession of absolute truth, but you need to understand: your beliefs are not necessarily correlated with reality. The Jews would very quickly simply say you are wrong - and would point to many problems with the idea that Jesus is the messiah prophesized in the OT. They do not come to these conclusions lightly and they believe deeply that they are true, just as you believe deeply that your beliefs are true.

In the end, however, you both hold your beliefs on faith - not evidence. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you have the humility to admit that your positions no matter how deeply you feel they are true are analogous to the deeply held religious beliefs of others that hold differing beliefs.

Aren't humility and faith two highly praised ideas in your religion?

 

[Physics_guy]

READ the book of Malachi.....its very small and anyone can understand it.

Its the last book of the OT so itll be very easy to find....

It that doesnt help clear some of this up for you, then youre beyond anything I can help you with...

Do you really think that the Book of Malachi will make me agree with you here? I do not see the OT or the NT as particularly truthful or accurate accounts of history or reality, so why would you think that this book would make me side with you over a Rabbinical scholar who undoubtably knows the book of Malachi far better than you do?

 

[Physics_guy]

NO.....it would be denying the truth of the gospel

Admitting you hold your position on faith would not in any way be "denying the truth of the gospel." Why would you think such a thing to be so given that the NT speaks very highly of faith?

 

[jobob]

Jobob,

You have just cemented my opinion that religious fundamentalist are completely lacking in introspection. I can tell you didn't even read the article I presented because you have already made a determination on its veracity and I doubt you would like to expose yourself to any opinions differing from your own.

very good.....i didnt read it.
and i can take you thru a few threads here where i can show that you folks arent even reading the POSTs......let alone any article..

I know you believe that you are in possession of absolute truth, but you need to understand: your beliefs are not necessarily correlated with reality.

I dont think I have anything of the sort.......I think I follow the one who does tho.........

The Jews would very quickly simply say you are wrong - and would point to many problems with the idea that Jesus is the messiah prophesized in the OT. They do not come to these conclusions lightly and they believe deeply that they are true, just as you believe deeply that your beliefs are true.

Thanks.....thats very nice sounding
It doesnt change the fact that that it was foretold in the OT that He would come to His OWN (the Jews) and that He would be rejected.
They KNEW of the prophecies, and still they rejected.
But this was all in the plan anyway.

In the end, however, you both hold your beliefs on faith - not evidence. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you have the humility to admit that your positions no matter how deeply you feel they are true are analogous to the deeply held religious beliefs of others that hold differing beliefs.

eh?........Jesus IS the Messiah.....first to the Jew, then to the gentile.
That remains true whether I believe it or not....
My faith in anything changes nothing....the truth remains.

Aren't humility and faith two highly praised ideas in your religion?

Ahhh........ old Jedi mind trick.
You think to show my humility I should admit mebe Im wrong about Jesus and the bible.......sorry....not going to happen.
If you want to see my humility, come by sometime........Ill wash your feet like a true brother .....but you wont get me to deny my Lord .

 

[jobob]

Do you really think that the Book of Malachi will make me agree with you here? I do not see the OT or the NT as particularly truthful or accurate accounts of history or reality, so why would you think that this book would make me side with you over a Rabbinical scholar who undoubtably knows the book of Malachi far better than you do?

Did you get the impression as you read the first part of Malachi that it was kind of a goodbye letter?
It pretty much was.

Some years after that goodbye letter, John the baptist came a-baptising for the remission of sin teaching the way of the New Coventant...
It took a few years thru his ministry and that of Jesus and his followers to make the transition, but the New Coventant ended the Old.

Christianity isnt a new religion with no foundation....it is the transition from Gods chosen race, the Hebrews, to the gentiles .....to anyone who will accept...


that rabbi who cannot accept is reading his texts with veiled eyes.
His own books would teach him everything about his messiah if he would only quite being so hard of heart...

The Jew is living in a dead, obsolete Covenant....

 

[jobob]

Admitting you hold your position on faith would not in any way be "denying the truth of the gospel." Why would you think such a thing to be so given that the NT speaks very highly of faith?

Very subtle, arent you ?
I have to admit, Ill have to watch you a little more than the rest.

And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given us an understanding so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and the everlasting life.
(1Jo 5:20)