Thomas:
If you believe that Jesus is a liar because you misunderstand his statements, then this is a conditional judgment that, although erroneous, is not an attack on the real person, since Jesus did not really say what you think he said. On the other hand, if you say that Jesus is evil because of something he actually did, then this is an attack on the real person, from my point of view, and it cannot be excused on the basis that it is conditional.


I do not believe much of what the NT attributes to Jesus was ever spoken by him. I believe he existed as James' brother but that he was wholly Jewish - roused up some zealots - and was crucified by Rome as a trouble-maker.

Uri threatened to ban me for accusing someone on this forum of criminal speech, which is in the first category, similar to you accusing Jesus of being a liar. Uri didn't like what I said, and feels that it is baseless because the person was not guilty. Fine. Now how would it be if I said that another person would be worse than a prostitute if the person actually had participated in a certain kind of ceremony, for example (please notice: I am not actually saying this)? Do you see that it wouldn't matter if I didn't believe that the person had actually participated? If you knew that she did participate and approved of that participation, then my accusation would be immediately out of the conditional category, in your point of view, and my charge would be much more serious because it would have been against the actual person. I believe that you are running a double standard on this forum if a person can be banned for making a sincere charge that you believe is baseless, while you not only can make similar charges against someone I love like "Jesus is a liar", but you can make a much more serious charge based on what I believe is true, then excuse it for being conditional.

I repeat that Jesus knew what people would do wrongly using his name, and I agree with Folah that if someone is dead set on doing the wrong thing, they will not let facts get in their way. I mean, look how many people still think that it is wrong to rebuke someone, when it is an explicit command in both Tanach and the NT, a part of loving your neighbor as yourself.

If you believe the actions of ANY Jew (imagined or real) were questionable, from antiquity to present day, you're more than welcome to voice your opinion. Let me make this very easy for you, okay?

If you were Paul or Luke - and you knew what would happen in Jesus' name, what would you write or say differently in your epistles in order to steer christians (real or fake) away from murdering at least 1 billion people historically? Real or fake christians killing in the name of Jesus is abominable and detestable, is it not? You know the future. What do you do or say to prevent shaming and blaspheming Jesus' name since he is the one you love?

The Jews are still God's people. That is in Romans 11:1, 28-29, covered very explicitly. The rest is ridiculous exaggeration, and this would surely get Nehemiah in trouble because he ripped out a whole bunch of Jewish hair in the name of HaShem (Nehemiah 13:25). And how about all of those stonings that occurred in the name of HaShem. Or how about all of those Moabites that David killed? Boy, don't you wish these verses were actually in the NT? They would be a bunch more to poke fun at and you would have a better case with these.

We both believe that the actions of Jews you gave above really were sanctioned by God. Do you believe all the murders in Jesus' name were sanctioned by God? Neither one of us does. Faulty reasoning.

In the end, we will find that it couldn't have been said better than the NT already does. I teach pro-Jewishness from the NT as my ex-radically Jew-hating Muslim, now Christian, friend Khaled does and it is as easy as falling off a log.

If it couldn't be said better than what's in the NT, consider Jews the past 2000 years vs. Christians. We have the Talmud. Check out our nation's actions and INCLUDE all bad Jews along with the good. It seems the NT could have definitely said it better. The Talmud easily bears better fruit than the NT.

Now if you want to prove that you Jews are not anything like those "phony caricatures" of Jews referred to in the NT, then I suggest that you refrain from saying anything like they did, such as in John 8:48. The term Samaritan that they applied to Jesus there directly implies bastard since they knew his mother was a Jew and was not married to any non-Jew.

They are phony caricatures. What makes you think the Jews of Jesus' day were so much worse than what history records of Jews the last 2000 years since that time? Christian history based on its adherents is proof that the NT is a monumental failure, being an idolatrous and blood-stained affront to God.

If you were alive 2000 years ago and knew the fruits of both the Talmud and NT, you'd have still picked the NT - wouldn't you?

-----------------

"He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe"

TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5

-----------------