How can Christianity convince Jews to see the light?

[Confused]

Historically, Jews were oppressed/persecuted/exterminated before the coming of Jesus and they continued to be oppressed/persecuted/exterminated after the death of Jesus. They continue this same pattern even today.
Now, Christianity has flourished, has become the dominant religion. Jesus, as the Christ, has brought unity to the masses. And still Jews continue to reject Him as the Messiah.

What can Christians offer Jews that would make them see the light? Make them understand, in the context that Jews would understand within their own ideology, that Jesus is the way, the only way?

[MagusYanam]

Of course it can take a tremendous effort of will to act on one's faith; but I am here speaking of faith as belief, as in believing that God is real.

Then, perhaps, we can simply refer to this as 'belief', rather than 'faith'? It seems to me that so much more than simple belief is implied in the word 'faith'. Faith I have always understood as being something lived rather than merely believed.

On nonviolence, I have a bit more to say.

I would not take a particle of glory from Dr. King's achievement or his sacrifice; he was truly one of the greatest religious leaders of our time or any other, and we are fortunate to see his like once in ten generations.

I'm sorry to say it, but it appears you've taken quite a bit more than a particle away, by not giving Dr. King credit for being a pragmatist rather than an idealist who would not have met with success in Nazi Germany. Actually, there are some surprising tales in Europe of non-violent resisters to the Nazis, who met with astounding levels of success, particularly when it came to saving Jews, from pacifist Baptist communities in France to the Danes who managed to rescue nearly the entire Jewish population of Denmark (nonviolently).

The back of American racism and open, casual bigotry was broken by the courage of those nonviolent Freedom Riders who allowed themselves to be beaten and bitten do that the world could see bigotry and hate for what it truly was.

The distinction to be made here is that it wasn't simply allowing themselves to be beaten and bitten - it was being beaten and bitten in the course of taking a stand and refusing to back down. I didn't live through that time, as you and your father did, but from the reading I've done and from the anecdotes I've heard from my elders, what motivated people to say that 'this is not right' was not pity or even sympathy. It was admiration for the people who were taking that moral stand.

Dr. King could have given it his best shot in Germany or Poland in 1941, and he would have ended up as smoke and ashes, just like the rest. In fact, we had our own Dr. Kings, who counseled peace and patience and faith--and they died, too. We aren't all that proud of them, either, though we respect their courage and their faith, however misplaced.

I think this betrays the critical misunderstanding many people have about Dr. King. Nonviolence is not merely counseling, it is not peace, it is not patience, it is not having faith. If that were all that it were, then Neville Chamberlain could be considered on par with Dr. King, which of course he wasn't. It is taking a stand and refusing to back down, it applies moral force (satyagraha) - it takes a great deal of effort and a great deal of courage. And, with respect, I think the places where nonviolence was truly tried in 1930's Europe were few and far between (though I think where it was tried it did meet with success).

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, who with no more than a dozen small arms, mostly handguns, made fools of the Nazi war machine for months; the inmate revolts at Treblinka and Sobibor, where doomed Jews rose against their executioners, killed many, and ran to freedom--though for most of them it only lasted a little while; Polish peasants, mostly Christians, helped hunt them down and murder them. Still, we are proud of what they did, and we celebrate it. Killing; yes. We are proud that they killed their killers. Sometimes killing is the right thing to do. The book of Ecclesiastes does not say, "There is never a time for war, but there is always a time for peace."

Indeed, as you say, their success was heavily qualified. By doing so, these prisoners may have attained their freedom, but they did not awaken the admiration or even the guilt of the Polish peasants who handed them straight back to the Nazis.

I also think that the position is indefensible that WWII was fought to save Europe's Jews. The Allies knew perfectly well about Sobibor and Treblinka and Auschwitz, but they didn't attack the railways they knew were being used to bring countless Jews and others there to be slaughtered, because they considered them of no military significance and 'they had a war to win'.

Appealing to nonviolence and trusting in God's love did not help the six million

And I don't think that's a claim you get to make, because nonviolence was not tried on as massive a scale as it was later in India or in the United States. Where it was tried, Jews were saved. I think what it proves is that violent means, which were ubiquitous among resisters in Poland, France and the Netherlands (not to mention the Allied forces) did not help the six million.

I'm not saying nonviolence is easy, and I'm not saying it is without cost. I agree with Gandhi on this one - nonviolence movements will be ugly. The British had no more qualms than the Nazis did about slaughtering thousands upon thousands of people who joined the nonviolent resistance movements in India under Gandhi and Abdul Ghaffar Khan, but in the end, they won. Nonviolent means, as Gandhi and King both tried to prove, are practical solutions, even against brutal regimes like the British Empire.

it is of no help against those who wish to murder us today

I also think that's not a claim you get to make - or you at the very least have to back it up. If you are referring to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations, I think it is fairly clear that the violent means that we have been using against them have only added fuel to the fire.

Nonviolent protest is effective against discrimination and hate, but against those intent on mass murder, it is the wrong tactic (and for the record, that applies to mass murderers at shopping malls, missionary centers and churches, too).

I think the work of Gandhi is evidence against that claim. I think even against those intent on mass murder (case in point, the British in the Peshawar), nonviolence is a viable, practical solution. Again, I don't claim that it is without cost; certainly it was not without cost in the American South or in India.

We have a saying: "Never Again." We mean it.

I don't doubt that you do mean it; I approve and commend, indeed I share the sentiment. But if you truly want these things 'never again' to happen, violence simply will not work. It has not worked, not against Osama bin Laden nor against Palestinian terrorists. I don't think you give King credit enough to believe that when he said 'darkness will not drive out darkness' and 'hate will not drive out hate', that he actually meant it.

I think people need to take issues of social and economic justice more seriously, for one thing, if we want these things 'never again' to happen. People aren't such that they will do evil deeds for no reason. Often, it will be because they feel (rightly or not) that they have been wronged. The reason Hitler was even allowed to come to power in the first place was that the German people felt poverty, desperation and humiliation and turned to someone who lied through his teeth and promised them easy solutions. Osama bin Laden is of a similar vein - he exploits poor, desperate people and hoodwinks them into doing heinous, evil things.

How do we stop him? If we can convince those he has hoodwinked that Israel and the United States are not their enemies, if we practise a courageous, aggressive generosity toward them and show concern in justice for them and in welfare for them, they will cease to resent us and cease to see us as enemies. We have to show them that they are being led by the nose, by the same drum-major instinct that Reverend King saw acting in the wardens in Birmingham jail:

The other day I was saying, I always try to do a little converting when I'm in jail. And when we were in jail in Birmingham the other day, the white wardens and all enjoyed coming around the cell to talk about the race problem. And they were showing us where we were so wrong demonstrating. And they were showing us where segregation was so right. And they were showing us where intermarriage was so wrong. So I would get to preaching, and we would get to talking—calmly, because they wanted to talk about it. And then we got down one day to the point—that was the second or third day—to talk about where they lived, and how much they were earning. And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, "Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. [laughter] You're just as poor as Negroes." And I said, "You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. (Yes) And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white. And you're so poor you can't send your children to school. You ought to be out here marching with every one of us every time we have a march."

Now that's a fact. That the poor white has been put into this position, where through blindness and prejudice, (Make it plain) he is forced to support his oppressors. And the only thing he has going for him is the false feeling that he’s superior because his skin is white—and can't hardly eat and make his ends meet week in and week out. (Amen)

And not only does this thing go into the racial struggle, it goes into the struggle between nations. And I would submit to you this morning that what is wrong in the world today is that the nations of the world are engaged in a bitter, colossal contest for supremacy. And if something doesn't happen to stop this trend, I'm sorely afraid that we won't be here to talk about Jesus Christ and about God and about brotherhood too many more years.

Sorry to be so cynical, but that is my adopted heritage. As I said somewhere back there: don't talk to us of the love of Christ. We have seen the love of Christians.

I can understand this. I can sympathise. But it still saddens me - though there may not be a strong nonviolent tradition in modern Judaism (for reasons which I think are understandable), there is, or at least used to be, a strong emphasis on social justice. I would hope that many Jews can see some value in, for example, the Sermon on the Mount.

[Easyrider]

Now show us quotes where the sages teach that Messiah will be God Himself Incarnate and the literal son of God.

Why just the sages, although some of them do speak of a descendant of David who will be Jehovah:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html

Many Jews tend to rely more on what their rabbis say than what the scriptures themselves actually teach.

Then there's the rabbis who taught about the concept of the Trinity (in so many words):

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm

Also, please tell me who this remarkable individual is in the following passage from Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”

Who is this individual in Judaism?

Next, Isaiah 9:6-7 and other passages:

http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/questio ... sisGod.htm

[cnorman18]

Now show us quotes where the sages teach that Messiah will be God Himself Incarnate and the literal son of God.

Why just the sages, although some of them do speak of a descendant of David who will be Jehovah:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html

Yeah, I've seen that. One of my own Hebrew names, Samuel, means "God hears." I'm not impressed. And there are lots of things that the tradition says God had in His mind before the Creation. That does not mean they were divine. This is all a matter or cherry-picking vague and convenient references and imposing a new meaning on them for polemic purposes, not genuine research.

Fact; for every quotation these "experts" can find that "proves" that Jesus was the Messiah by implication, inferral or convoluted interpretation, there are literally hundreds that say explicitly, clearly and specifically and often by name that he was not.

Do you deny that? Be very, very careful.

Now why do you suppose this "researcher" ignored and omitted those many, many, many quotations? It sure wasn't because he was really interested in what the sages and rabbis really had to say about Jesus, or because he wanted to find out what Jewish traditions about the Messiah really were.

I could hand you a very long list of quotations from recognized and respected Christian scholars who claim that the entire Nativity story was no more than reverent fiction added after the fact; that it's clear that there were no miracles and no Resurrection; that there may not even have been a true historical Jesus at all, and that it doesn't matter; and that Paul distorted and falsified the actual teachings of Jesus and corrupted them throughout with Greek ideas.

I can offer not only isolated quotes, but entire books. How persuasive would you find all of that?

Many Jews tend to rely more on what their rabbis say than what the scriptures themselves actually teach.

Well, of course we do. And you do the same with your ministers.

In every religion that relies on the Bible, it is not the plain Biblical text that is authoritative; it is the tradition of interpretation and teaching that surrounds and explains it. That's perfectly obvious, even though few Protestants and even fewer Pentecostals admit it (the Catholics are upfront about it; they openly declare their authority to be both the Bible and Holy Mother Church).

The Bible requires interpretation. It cannot stand on its own and be intelligible.

The atheists are right about at least one thing; a surface reading of the Bible reveals contradictions, quite a lot of them. Do you have explanations for them? Can you show why they are not really contradictions? Then you have an interpretation that supersedes the Biblical text. If you didn't, you'd let them stand unexplained and just accept them as paradoxes or mysteries.

In Isaiah 53, you maintain that the "stripes" are to be understood literally, but the reference to the Servant's "children" is to be taken as symbolic. That is a human interpretation that is imposed on the text; the Bible doesn't explain these points. If you read the whole Bible literally, you would be forced to accept the children as literal too.

Where in the Bible are the "kosher laws" specifically abolished? Perhaps you can point to a passage in Paul or in Acts that declares the "old law" to be no longer applicable. If that is the case, then why is homosexuality still considered a sin? Where is that exception given?

Do you know what the parable of the Good Samaritan means? Do you? The NT doesn't say. If you claim to know what it means, you are applying a human interpretation, which is ipso facto more authoritative than the
NT text.

Now you can explain all these things however you like, and you are entitled to your beliefs; I do not argue with those. My point is that your very explanations prove me right. You are attributing more authority to your own interpretations than to the Biblical text itself.

And in my opinion, you have a perfect right to do that. In fact, you have to; the Bible doesn't often explain itself. Stories are almost invariably narrated without comment, and laws are given without explanation. Jesus himself only bothered to explain one of his parables, and obviously expected his hearers to use their own brains to figure out what he meant for themselves.

My problem here is that you are denying that Jews have the right to interpret the Bible according to our own tradition, even as you exercise that right yourself to "prove" that our interpretation is wrong.

Then there's the rabbis who taught about the concept of the Trinity (in so many words):

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm

Yeah, I've seen that too. Look around in the Talmud and you'll find references to the threefold nature of God. You'll also find references to his fourfold nature, his sevenfold nature, and in the Zohar, the ten sefirot.

Jewish sacred literature consists of literally hundreds of volumes. It would be more significant if there were no references to God's "three faces," because that would indicate that that idea was being avoided for some reason.

Also, please tell me who this remarkable individual is in the following passage from Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”

Who is this individual in Judaism?

According to Ibn Ezra and Rashi, Israel.

Anywhere in that passage where it says, "This is Jesus, born to Mary of Nazareth, wife of Joseph, in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great"? No? Then you are imposing your interpretation on the text, not telling me what Scripture "actually teaches" as you claim above.

Next, Isaiah 9:6-7 and other passages:

http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/questio ... sisGod.htm

The same confusion about the names of various gods being used in human names in ancient times. Isaiah, "the Lord saves"; Hezekiah, "the Lord strengthens." This was common not only among Jews, but many other ancient peoples; "in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa. 39.1) means "the god Marduk has provided an heir." These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse." (Jewish Study Bible, p. 802)

You have not managed to show me a single case where Messiah is described to be the literal son of God, as Hercules was said to be the son of Zeus; and that literal claim is rather clearly found in the NT. There is no blather about "emanations" and the like there; Jesus had no earthly father, and his actual, literal father is claimed to be God. Where is that idea to be found in Jewish tradition or literature?

And all the material which you claim "proves" that the Messiah would be divine is a matter of nuance, connection, implication, or a misreading of names. Nowhere is there any quote that says, "God Himself will take human form and live and die as a man." Nowhere.

There are a couple of other problems, too. In Jewish tradition, Messiah will be recognized by the institution of the Messianic Age, an age of universal peace and justice and reverence for God. If the Bible "actually teaches" anything about the Messiah, it is that. He is also to be a literal King, sitting on the throne of David and literally reigning over Israel. That is also extremely clear and consistent in both the Biblical text and in Jewish tradition.

And all your explanations and excuses for why neither of these conditions were fulfilled by Jesus are human interpretations, to which you give more authority than the plain words of the Bible.

So do not tell me that Christians are guided by what the Bible "actually teaches" while Jews ignore the Bible and merely impose their own ideas. Both of those propositions are outright falsehoods.

Both of our traditions approach the text with the utmost seriousness and reverence, and try to understand it through the thought and prayerful reflection of the very best and wisest of our respective peoples. No one reads the Bible literally and uses it as a guide for belief and practice with no intervening analysis or cognitive judgment being applied. The Bible itself precludes such an approach, and absolutely so.

Jews do not argue with the Christian tradition of interpretation. It's none of our business. Believe what you like; for all we know, God may intend you to believe just as you do. We don't believe that anyone is condemned to Hell for his beliefs or elevated to Heaven for them either, so the fact that your beliefs differ from ours does not motivate us to argue. We don't care what you think. That's up to you.

We also don't think that you have the right to tell us that your human interpretation of the Bible has any more credibility or authority than our own.

Jews are not about to abandon our own tradition and accept yours; it is strange to us, and often bizarre and nonsensical (I do not speak only of beliefs about the Messiah), just as many Jewish beliefs and practices are to you. We are not going to become Christians, and we do not think Christians ought to become Jews, either.

We believe we ought to focus on the beliefs we share, which are many, and focus our joint efforts on making this world a better place. That time would be better spent than this mine-is-bigger-than-yours nonsense. That's a game we just don't want to play; stop trying to drag us onto the field.

Have you seen a thread around here entitled, "How can Judaism get Christians to see the light?"

We do not believe that such a question ought to be asked, and we feel similarly about this thread.

[Cathar1950]

Have you seen a thread around here entitled, "How can Judaism get Christians to see the light?"

We do not believe that such a question ought to be asked, and we feel similarly about this thread.

I must say your last post pretty much hit the nail one the head and should have driven it all the way through.


I do find it odd that they somehow feel you are missing the light and the "light" always seems to be their particular dogmas and doctrines.
Given the non-historical nature of the gospels it seem likely that such writings as Isaiah 53(written later by followers of Isaiah) and the 22 Psalm were used to create the stories in the Gospels then any prophetic fulfillment. They were also used to make sense of the failure of the kingdom to materialize.

The Hebrew writing were also reworked and edited over centuries. There is hardly a competent scholar alive that cannot see the various sources in the Torah(The first 5 books) In fact the writers extended their work past the Pentateuch.

[Flail]

It wouldn't take much for a writer to make 'Chapter one' consistent with 'Chapter two' if he had 'Chapter one' in front of him.. most Jr. High students could accomplish such a task.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Emerson

[Easyrider]

Now show us quotes where the sages teach that Messiah will be God Himself Incarnate and the literal son of God.

Why just the sages, although some of them do speak of a descendant of David who will be Jehovah:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html

Yeah, I've seen that. One of my own Hebrew names, Samuel, means "God hears." I'm not impressed. And there are lots of things that the tradition says God had in His mind before the Creation. That does not mean they were divine. This is all a matter or cherry-picking vague and convenient references and imposing a new meaning on them for polemic purposes, not genuine research.

Fact; for every quotation these "experts" can find that "proves" that Jesus was the Messiah by implication, inferral or convoluted interpretation, there are literally hundreds that say explicitly, clearly and specifically and often by name that he was not.

Do you deny that? Be very, very careful.

No doubt there are still those with contrary views. Yet the fact remains there are numerous Messianic synagogues springing up of those who have made a decision for Christ.

Now why do you suppose this "researcher" ignored and omitted those many, many, many quotations?

I'm still wondering why I have to go to largely Messianic and pro-Christian sites to find the references that the Judiasm crowd doesn't like to mention.

I could hand you a very long list of quotations from recognized and respected Christian scholars who claim that the entire Nativity story was no more than reverent fiction added after the fact; that it's clear that there were no miracles and no Resurrection; that there may not even have been a true historical Jesus at all, and that it doesn't matter; and that Paul distorted and falsified the actual teachings of Jesus and corrupted them throughout with Greek ideas.

Ignorance abounds on both sides of the issues. I can also point you to Jewish writings and quotations from those who deny there was a literal exodus from Egypt; who say the Torah is predominately allegorical; and even those Jews who don't believe the God of the Tanakh is real. Doesn't change anything.

Many Jews tend to rely more on what their rabbis say than what the scriptures themselves actually teach.

Well, of course we do. And you do the same with your ministers.

If our ministers deny the basic truths of Christ I'd just as soon they trade in their white collars for a choker. They're an embarrassment to the faith. The scriptures themselves are the source to be reckoned with.

The atheists are right about at least one thing; a surface reading of the Bible reveals contradictions, quite a lot of them. Do you have explanations for them? Can you show why they are not really contradictions?

Pick your best one (just 1 - your best 1) from the NT and we can see how far it flys.

In Isaiah 53, you maintain that the "stripes" are to be understood literally, but the reference to the Servant's "children" is to be taken as symbolic.

I've previously presented scriptural references that speak of spiritual seed, so I don't feel like I need to jump through any hoops to make the case further.

Where in the Bible are the "kosher laws" specifically abolished?

In the Gospels, when Jesus declared all foods to be clean. And in the book of Acts, with the exception of blood and meat sacrificed to idols.

Perhaps you can point to a passage in Paul or in Acts that declares the "old law" to be no longer applicable. If that is the case, then why is homosexuality still considered a sin? Where is that exception given?

Like I've said many times, the moral laws (adultery, murder, etc.), have never been abolished. You say they have? Where?

My point is that your very explanations prove me right. You are attributing more authority to your own interpretations than to the Biblical text itself.

If you've noticed, I normally back up my arguments with the scriptures themselves as the foundation.

Also, please tell me who this remarkable individual is in the following passage from Daniel 7:13-14....
Who is this individual in Judaism?

According to Ibn Ezra and Rashi, Israel.

Now everyone of every tongue is supposed to worship Israel, and Israel comes on the clouds of heaven and has sovereign power? The scriptures say to worship God only.

The info I have has Rashi, in his commentary on Daniel 7:13-14, as writing three simple words: "hu melekh ha-mashiach" ("he is the King Messiah").

Anyway, you're welcome to your beliefs. I commend you for stating them and defending them, as opposed to some other timid souls who are unwilling or unable to do that. We shall agree to disagree.

God bless!

[Zzyzx]

Pick your best one (just 1 - your best 1) from the NT and we can see how far it flys.

This is a famous quote from one who refuses to debate Head to Head to defend a "literal bible".

If you've noticed, I normally back up my arguments with the scriptures themselves as the foundation.

In debate involving people who do not accept scriptures as proof of anything, one might be more convincing by citing reasoning and evidence -- if either applied to their position.

[Easyrider]

Pick your best one (just 1 - your best 1) from the NT and we can see how far it flys.

This is a famous quote from one who refuses to debate Head to Head to defend a "literal bible".

You've shown nothing compelling in and around these particular fora to discredit the NT that makes me want to waste even more time in a head-to-head.

Maybe you and Goat should hook up. You can try to convice him that his particular brand of theology is built on a house of cards. I think that's a debate we'd all like to see, LOL! But no, I don't think you will. You let him skate at virtually every turn because he's a fellow Christ-denier. When you start taking on these sorts you will have more credibility for being even-handed in your challenges.

[Zzyzx]

.

Pick your best one (just 1 - your best 1) from the NT and we can see how far it flys.

This is a famous quote from one who refuses to debate Head to Head to defend a "literal bible".

You've shown nothing compelling in and around these particular fora to discredit the NT that makes me want to waste even more time in a head-to-head.

That is as good a back-down as any.

I would think that a brave Christian warrior would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that the bible is literally true. Does the BCW realize that he is not up to the task?

BTW: Why restrict consideration to the NT -- isn't the OT part of the Christian bible?

Maybe you and Goat should hook up. You can try to convice him that his particular brand of theology is built on a house of cards. I think that's a debate we'd all like to see, LOL! But no, I don't think you will.

What is it about Goat’s “brand of theology” that you believe I should find objectionable?

Who is “we” in “a debate we’d all like to see”?

Perhaps there are many who would like to see you attempt to defend the literal bible in a Head to Head debate with me. Shall we do a poll?

You let him skate at virtually every turn because he's a fellow Christ-denier. When you start taking on these sorts you will have more credibility for being even-handed in your challenges.

What, exactly, do you believe I should not “let him skate” about? Provide quotes and I will consider the matter.

[Cathar1950]

.

Pick your best one (just 1 - your best 1) from the NT and we can see how far it flys.

This is a famous quote from one who refuses to debate Head to Head to defend a "literal bible".

You've shown nothing compelling in and around these particular fora to discredit the NT that makes me want to waste even more time in a head-to-head.

That is as good a back-down as any.

I would think that a brave Christian warrior would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that the bible is literally true. Does the BCW realize that he is not up to the task?

BTW: Why restrict consideration to the NT -- isn't the OT part of the Christian bible?

Maybe you and Goat should hook up. You can try to convice him that his particular brand of theology is built on a house of cards. I think that's a debate we'd all like to see, LOL! But no, I don't think you will.

What is it about Goat’s “brand of theology” that you believe I should find objectionable?

Who is “we” in “a debate we’d all like to see”?

Perhaps there are many who would like to see you attempt to defend the literal bible in a Head to Head debate with me. Shall we do a poll?

You let him skate at virtually every turn because he's a fellow Christ-denier. When you start taking on these sorts you will have more credibility for being even-handed in your challenges.

What, exactly, do you believe I should not “let him skate” about? Provide quotes and I will consider the matter.

I would be interested in where Goat is allowed to skate too.
I wonder what Easyrider could mean by hooking up?
Maybe Biker and Easyrider are hooked up?
I would love to see a vote.
Your usual ad hominem I see, “Christ-denier”, Easyrider?
With the many variation of “Christ” within Christianity itself and the orthodox suppression of so-called heretics I suggest you are not capable of a head to head as it would largely be someone arguing and you cutting and pasting nonsense from apologist that are questionable and full of their own questionable refutations. It is not that we want to “discredit the NT” as we question your biblical theology or biblical idolatry and irrational claims you make that are not only unsupportable but neglect most scholarly studies unless they hold the same views you seemly mindlessly promote.