You are a child of [g]OD!

njc's reply:
You always were a child of G-d. But if you were to do this, you'd be a sinful child of G-d.

Tony's reply:
Where in the OT does it say the nations always were a child of G-d?

Just to note...I quickly skimmed through this.

There, so you know how i will answer or question based on my knowledge that this is not new to me.

Question then:  (Just want a more concise answer)  What is TRUE SALVATION

Note:  The Jews answer the question of SALVATION different than the christians.  Perhaps it is best to start with what SALVATION means and what the person or nation is SAVED FROM.  Note the word FROM...there is significance in that.

And then the follow up question would be WHY     The reason I ask why is  based on my dicourse with Jews who say that their scriptures do not deal with post-mortem life.  Lets take it from there.

FTR: This thread was intended as a response to the claim I made that "Romans" is one of the most offensive of the books in the nt, NOT as an attack on christianity.
I had no idea the original post would be that long.
"Monologue" indeed!

geegee axed:

Just want a more concise answer) What is TRUE SALVATION?

Depends. Do you mean christian salvation, or salvation as used in the Tanakh?
In Judaism, salvation is rescue from a disastrous situation, not forgiveness from sin, as in christianity.

And then the follow up question would be WHY Question The reason I ask why is based on my dicourse with Jews who say that their scriptures do not deal with post-mortem life. Lets take it from there.

That's a good point. Judaism sort of downplays any afterlife, preferring to focus on the here-and-now.
The afterlife, if any, is not observable here. The here-and-now is.
So the afterlife might not exist, but the here-and-now does.
What is important, then, is to make the here-and-now better.
They say that the reason we're here in the here-and-now is so that we can earn an afterlife. But they also say that you should be willing to give up any afterlife in order to do the right thing.
What's important, then, is to do the right thing, consequences be (you should pardon the expression) d--ned.
Torah tells us that Abraham stopped talking to God in order to serve guests. God agreed that this was the right course of action and showed it by waiting for Abraham to finish with that task before He returned to His conversation with Abraham.
There is a hymn that starts, "Praise God from Whom al blessings flow..." This one line is a proper understanding of God. God is beneficent. We are called to be like God. Abraham, by serving his guests, was being like God, and that's a greater good than talking to God is.
Without this understanding, you might think Abraham was saying, "Pardon me, God. I'm going to have to put you on 'hold.' Bigger name on the other line." Doing that would seem to endanger your reward in the afterlife. What do you mean, "there's something more important than God is"?! But here, we see that God is saying Abraham got it right, and He rewards Abraham with a prophecy.

So anyway, the here-and-now is what's important, not the afterlife.
We will GET an afterlife, but that's then; THIS is NOW!
Don't worry about an afterlife; do what's right, regardless of any reward or punishment. Pretend there isn't any reward. Just do the right thing.

Therefore, the afterlife is downplayed.

Tony N said:

"Who else would we be the children of?"

Tony's reply:
njc, don't play footsie with me. Where in any of the Old Testament writings does it state that the nations always were a child of G-d?

Why is it important to you that it should be? Is it your contention that if it isn't written, it isn't true?
Why is it important to you that it NOT be true?

Tony N said:

I just find it so amazing that you *try* to disprove Christians by quoting the OT but when you say something such as you did and I ask you to prove it from the OT you can't.

Did I say I "can't" or did I ask you why you think I need to?

So you probably should detract what you said about the nations if you can't back it up.

You mean, "retract", don't you?
What makes you think it meeds to be retracted? According to you, if it isn't specifically written out in chapter and verse, it's not true?
I asked you, "Whose children would we be if not God's?"
I probably could back it up with chapter and verse, but why should I have to? It's supposed to be common knowledge.
I said I "probably could."
Well, look at it this way.
Do you believe in the veracity of the new testament?
If not, we're even. I don't either.
If you do, then Luke agrees with Jews when they say that Adam was the son of God. They both also say that Noah was descended from Adam, and the Book of Genesis says that all of us are descended from one of Noah's three sons. So, by extrapolation, we're all the sons of God.
God -> Adam -> Noah -> us.
All men are the sons of God.
It may or may not be in exactly those words in a certain chapter's verse(s), but it's true, anyway. It doesn't NEED to be "written" in order to be true. [However, if it were SAID/CLAIMED to be so written, then there would be a need to cite chapter and verse.]
If you don't like it, I don't care.
A missionary tract (not mine, not yours, just this unnamed straw man's offering) that I cite says that the sun rises in the west. I disagree. I say it rises in the east, and sets in the west.
You come along and demand I cite chapter and verse that prove the sun rises in the east, and I say I don't have to. The understanding has always been that the sun sets in the west; not that it rises there. The claim that it rises there is the change, and THAT is what needs to be substantiated.
Same situation here.
The evidence suggests that all men are the children of God. The missionary tract says men are the children of God only after performing some sort of magical act(s) along with a special incantation that he has to believe is true for it to be true. Thus (according to them), only some men are the children of God.
I deny that, and you demand I prove my case.
I don't see why I have to do so. The missionary tract is the one changing the situation. Long before the rise of christianity, both Jews and Gentiles knew that all men were the children of God. The fact that christianity is YOUR perspective does not mean I need to refute you.
I say again, "Whose children would we be if not God's?"

8d82thebone,

• [/b]
  
  That's a good question.  It probably better fits in "Hundreds of Prophecies Fulfilled?", but I'll quote someone who knows more than I do about that here, anyway.
  
  PSALMS 22: by David     Hugh  Fogelman
   
  Did you know King David was a prophet? Did you know that the Five Books of Psalms are collections of Psalms composed by ten different people - Adam, Moses, Asaf, King David, King Solomon, the Sons of Korach, and others? The Psalms were composed with the highest level of Divine Inspiration (which is a level just below the two levels of prophecy). That is, Adam did not WRITE any psalms down, but he composed Psalm 92. Most, perhaps all, of the Psalms composed by other people were kept orally for a long while, until King David wrote them down and published them.
  
  Those who are not familiar with the Talmud can not possibly know this. Nor can they know the meanings behind the writings in the Tanakh which was written in ancient Hebrew.
  _________
  
  • [/b] "Eighty-Eight-to-the-bone"? (Or do you just feel that old?)
    "Adie ate to the bone"? (Man, was she ever hungry!)
    Something else?

Ow!! What's up with the age joke?
Actually I'm a Dale Jarrett fan, so that's where the #88 comes from...
Anyway... the answers to the above questions are , yes we do know these things, because Christians do intensive study of the OT, and in fact we have many renowned scholars who are able to study in the original Hebrew text. (Apart from having many Jewish Christians to beautifully add their perspective as well...)
 I notice, however, that verse 16 differs somehat  which, I think , would be important to discuss here. The phrase " they have pierced my hands and my feet", appears in some manuscripts. Although Mr. Fogelman may interpret as possibly, King Nebuchadnezzar being chased around the barn by the raging bull and accidentally running into some nasty farm implement, many other people see the obvious and far less tedious implications of what that would be describing.

More suggested reading: Isaiah Ch. 53
                                    Testimonies of Jews who believe in Jesus
                                    (H. Rosen)
                                    The Case For Christ (Lee Strobel)

geegee said:

By "Missionaries", I gather that you include all christians? IF so, then that would be a LIE. Stop your lying. I rebuke your lying tongue at this point to let you know that I for one, and many more mind you, do not follow this missionizing form.

Ouch.

Quote:
"Salvation is rescue from a disastrous situation, not forgiveness from sin."

And so..."sin" is not a form of "tradegy" to you, nojc?

No. Choosing sin is a tragedy, but sin is not. To rectify the problem, simply repent, make restitution, and resolve not to repeat the error.
 
Wait a minute. Lets discuss what "sin" IS. And idea?

Sin is doing that which God forbids, or failing to do that which God commands.
Sinning does not make a person a "sinner." That word carries the connotation of "one who is unrepentant, and unconcernedly, repeatly, habitually, and continually sins."

What is this "death"? We all die.

As do animals, and they don't sin.

Is that due to "sin"?

Sin is not the cause of death.

By the way, what is this "death" that comes as a result of "sin"?

I dunno. It's only the new testament that claims "the wages of sin is death." The Torah says that "the wages of sin is sin." (Remember, "Torah" has several meanings, and I'm using the most favorable one: that of "the written and oral instructions for living given by God to Israel.")

"Sins and righteousnesses are judged according to severity, measure for measure."

Again, you are denying this from a FASLE understanding (imo). I wonder what you understand by Pauls meaning here? Paul also agreed "measure for measure". I'm sure that if you read all his writings that you will come across this very thought?!

That was hardly Paul's message. He said, "the wages of sin is death." So the punishment for mixing beef and milk is death, while, on the other hand, the punishment for murder is merely death. Boy, the murderer gets off easy, doesn't he? Better not eat that cheeseburger, of it's going to mean your death as a sinner.

Quote:
" 'We all face physical death, which is a result of sin.'

"We all face a physical death, which is the human condition. Nothing the missionary offers can result in physical immortality nor spiritual immortality, so why do they even they even try to forge an unbrealable link between death and sin? Or try to link physical death with spiritual death?"

Can you address it with an answer?

What do you mean? I just did.

Thus my questions above. I think that its easy enough to prove that the "physical" aspect is not in question here?

That's what the document said, "We all face physical death, which is a result of sin."
Am I to understand that not you think it's really speaking about some other kind of "death"? "Spiritual" death, for example?

BUT...nojc, the house of Israel did DIE.

Incorrect. "Am Yisroel Chai." "The Jewish People live."
That's one of the proofs of the existence of God and of the veracity of the Torah as prophecy.

They did not physically live forever...even those who were not attributed with sin in your Hebrew (and the Christian text)...they ALL died.

As individuals, yes. But not as a People.
But what's your point?
 
Unless you can prove otherwise. Thus the need to answer the questions above about "sin" and how it relates to this "death".

Nope. It only proves that they're created beings - mammals to be more precise.
Sin has nothing to do with it.

These "missionaries" do agree that you should "repent of your sins" and "do that which is right".

They are sinners, then, because their "advice" involves calling God names and attributing some of His Power and Glory to others, specifically the Devil; and they advise chrsitians not to trust the teachings of God's spokesmen, the Rabbis.
"Woe to them that call evil 'good' and good 'evil.'" Isaiah 5:20.
God's "woe" is upon missionaries.

What IS disagreed upon is WHO's "righteousness" saves "you from sin".

If that's correct, then, since there is disagreement, and the Jews are God's spokesmen, then the missionaries are wrong.

The "missionaries" agree then, that we MUST "obey G-d".

No, they don't. They want you to obey THEM!

... and the "devil" was never a "false god of J.C." You misunderstand.

Nope. I do not misunderstand; it's as plain as the printed word.

How is it LOVE when G-d commands that the Isralites to slaughter many goats/heifers for ....WHAT??? BUT...I have my own take on this "sacrifice" system....

As a punishment for sin, the sinner was to BUY an animal, and give it to someone else to kill and burn up, so that the sinner "pays" for his sin. God allows him to pay HERE, rather than after death.

... even what it means that "God gave his SON".

Since when was God's son, Israel, sacrificed for sin?

It closely parellels the sacrificial system of the Hebrews.

I disagree.
Sacrifices were killed in the Temple in Jerusalem and burnt on the Altar. But jesus was killed outside Jerusalem and was not burnt. The sacrifice was not to be blemished, but jesus had been scourged and circumcised, both of which would render him "torn" and thus unft for sacrifice, if he already weren't dq'd because he was not an animal.
They're nothing alike.

Jesus... gave himself FREELY. NO ONE took his LIFE.

Not according to the nt. The new testament makes it clear that he was put to death, and by Rome. It's hardly fair to say he did it voluntarily after also saying he was arrested, tried and convicted! It would have been more impressive if, without involvement or encouragement from any governing body, he had bought the cross, hammer and nails, and nailed his own feet and left hand to the cross, and gotten Peter - or even better, his MOTHER - to nail the other hand down. Now THAT would have been a life "freely given."

This served more of an example for his followers to follow.

Wonderful lesson.
"Throw away the only life you'll ever get in a violent and bloody manner for no good reason."
That's real "wise", isn't it!?
Actually, no. It isn't!

Interesting how the LOVE for a brother will cause one to sacrifice his life for that brother.

"Suicide" is not "Sacrifice." There's a big difference.
The death of jesus was of no real value to God, nor to man.

Love and Mercy rejoices over judgement...remember that Hebrew scripture?

And what does the new testament offer? Ritual suicide and hatred for the Law.
No contest.

Ouch.

Ooops.  Sorry, nojc.  Didn't mean to come over so harshly.  Feeling personally attacked and being actually attacked are two different things.  Guess you could say that I was "feeling" personally attacked by certian  accusations against us "christians" by those who continually equate our Faith with those "christians" of the past who murdered and pillaged in the name of God.  I apologize.

Yes, there are certian things that I want to persue more from my post and your response to it.  But that will have to wait another day.  It's late now.  Thanks for your answers.

Yes.  One thing that I wanted to specifically continue with, was the idea of what "death" really means.  I've had this converstation with an/other individual/s in other threads (which were lost in the hacking) about this "death" issue.  Mainly, the discussion was centered around the phrase "in dying, thou shalt die".  This was the warning(?) that G-d gave Adam concerning the Tree (singular) of the knowledge of good AND evil.

My understanding is that Humanity was created dying...physically.  So..the physical aspect is not the issue.  So you ask if this was meant to understood in the spiritual sense.  What do you think?

From my converstions with others (Jewish) that claim to be, or claim to understand (goys-who were taught by Jews), the Jewish scriptures, they say that there seems to be not much concern or understanding for the here-after.  I agree.  Even the NT is not so clear about post-mortem life.  There is more concern for the here and now in both the OT and NT.  One even agreed with me (a Jewish person, mind you) that if this is what the NT taught, especially Paul, then this would make that teaching his thoughts more valid...and would make Pauls words more meaningful?  I agreed and so thus say it is then might make the NT more valid based on that argument.  This was my argument, based on my opinion and understanding (due to my readings, and not a personal revelation of sorts) is that Paul and his contemporaries were MORE concerned with the here and now..as oppossed to post-mortem life.  But since post-mortem-life enters the mind of most...it is logical that the NT may attempt to address it in some ways.

So, since we all die anyways, even Judaism agrees with this, what is the hope of living a repentant life?

Again, the NT attempts to answer that very question...but yet was more concerned with the here and now.  I think that is important.

So....What then is important to the Jew?  What is his reward for living a repentant or obedient life?  He will die anyway.