Why do Jews omit the word "GOD" on most of their webpages? I just performed a search on av.com for the following phrase, and it returned 47,762 cases:

"jews and g-d"

Are there any other concerned Christians? :angry:

Don't be rediculous -- He was their god ere he was yours.

Jews just have a different name for him, that's all.

In the past Jews have considered it wrong to use God's name (YAHWEH in the original language) as it was considered to be too sacred to utter, so they used "God" or "Lord" instead. Maybe now they don't use that either for the same reason.
Interestingly when God's Son Jesus came to earth he said of God's name "I have come to make your name known". Not only did he make God's name known but he explained His personality as well.
Of course "God" and "Lord" are merely titles and do not identify Almighty God - He is Yahweh (or Jehovah as expressed in common English). In bible times a name had special significance and gave insight into the individual - "Yahweh" has been interpreted as meaning "He who causes to become" or "I shall prove to be". Only by using His name can we differentiate Him from other "gods" - just like you and I have a personal name, so does He. (Psalm 83:18)
Sadly the Jews rejected God's Son, as the bible record shows, however the God who features in the record of their ancestors Abraham, Isaac & Jacob still accepts any, including Jews, who will exercise faith in Him and His Son Jesus. :)

Originally posted by brn2h8
Are there any other concerned Christians? :angry:
:confused: :eek:

I am Jewish by blood, but not by belief and I can answer your question. Jews do not spell out the full word of God, but instead use G-d so that if the piece of paper, or what ever it is written on should get thrown out, the word God would not be damaged.

Daniel S - I didn't know that, that's most interesting. :)

brn2h8 - what have Christians got to do with it, and why should they be concerned? :confused:

Come on, y'all - don't you remember "Life of Brian"?!

http://www.graphicszone.net/monty_python/scripts/Life_of_Brian/5.htm

Yes that's very interesting - the Jews have always been very keen on the minute details of the Law, though there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that anything like this is necessary. The scribes and Pharisees were similarly disposed toward detail in Jesus' day.

grandad, it should be noted that alot of religions follow the laws in a different way than from the past, cause as many more translations come about, the wording of the laws are very vague and tend to be for lack of a better term "lacking" some solid points to go by. Alot of religions have had different branches that follow the laws in different ways, for example the many different sects of christanity, the reformed, oshginazy(I can't spell it) and conservitive jewish groups follow the torah and various other jewish documents differently than the others.

Hi Lippy - yes I agree to a point and do not wish to offend, but the thought of being concerned about god being written on a piece of paper just reminded me of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day.
They bribed Judas with 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus and then put him to death on false charges - when Judas returned the 30 pieces of silver in a fit of guilt they decided it was blood money and not suitable to be returned to the temple, they ignored the flagrant disregard for the Law in the way they treated Jesus.
Jesus called them "hypocrites" and "blind guides" because they concerned themselves with the unimportant things but the weightier matters of mercy, justice and the like they ignored.

Be warned - I could go on! :D

Grandad,
I am in no way offended when having an interesting "religious" disscusion as long as no one pushes thier beliefs on me. Though I am not so much educated in the story of Jesus as my religion doesn't see him as the son of god or as an important figure. I'll have to take your word on most of it.

Well actually

I am not religious at all and really just believe in what most philosphers would say is the "philosophers god" the idea on there being something more powerful then us, but have a jewish backround.

Keep in mind that in the jewish faith the jews do not believe jesus is whom the chiristians say he is. They simple believe jesus as another human being, and thats about as far as it goes.

JOe

Nice attitude Lippy, well done. I have always wondered why the Jews did not accept Jesus when several of their prophets, Jeremiah, (who identified when Jesus would appear), Daniel, (who originally prophesied the date of his appearance and what would happen to him) and most importantly Micah who identified where he would appear (there are many more prophecies and all from the pre-christian era and by Jews!).
Interestingly when Jesus arrived on the scene the Jews were actually looking for the Messiah as they were aware of the prophecies about his arrival. It makes interesting reading and I can thoroughly recommend it. :)

It's very easy for people to turn a blind eye. The jews did not want to see Jesus as the Son of God, because they wanted a king that would fight for their freedom from Rome. They didn't want to see the Son of God as being born in a manger, they didn't want to see the Son of God performing miracles (they wanted miracles on the battlefield!) and they didn't want to see Him nailed to a tree. That just doesn't happen to a king...so they didn't see it, they turned a blind eye to the prophets.
My 2 cents

Can't really argue with that, except that they had rejected him before they killed him.

The jews did not kill jesus christ

The romans did. Keep in mind that jesus was a jew, and was born a jew.

Keep in mind that much of religion is very opinionated. There are very little facts as what really happened. Both bibles are still someones interpretation of what happened.

Originally posted by JBIZ718
The jews did not kill jesus christ

The romans did. Keep in mind that jesus was a jew, and was born a jew.

I believe Pilate washed his hands over that issue. Don't tell me you hanve't heard of Earl Dougherty?

In the first Gospel story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, the author of Mark engages in a carefully crafted and delicate balancing act over the question of responsibility for Jesus' death: between Jew and Roman, between the Jewish religious establishment and the secular arm of the Empire. Mark knew full well that only the Roman governor could condemn a man to the cross, but he also wanted to allot to the Jewish leaders and to the Jewish people as a whole an equal if not greater role in Jesus' execution.

And so throughout his story Mark set the scene by having the chief priests, scribes and elders plot to do away with Jesus, and it is their forces who first arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He invented a follower of Jesus, Judas by name to symbolize all Jewry, who betrays Jesus to his enemies and leads the arresting force to him. And it is the High Priest and Sanhedrin who first question Jesus and abuse him, finding him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death—on grounds which have never made much sense. Indeed, the entire circumstances of Mark's trial before the Jewish Council can be seen to contravene so many known conventions and prohibitions that some scholars have been led to reject its very historicity. But that's a story for another time.

When Jesus is finally turned over to the Roman governor, Mark makes Pilate behave in a manner which is entirely uncharacteristic of what we know of him from historical sources, and of Roman policy in general. By whitewashing Pilate, by having the demands of the Jewish leaders and Jewish people override his attempts to free Jesus, by having the crowd choose Barabbas over Jesus (an option no governor of Judea would ever have offered, and there is no record of such a Roman policy anywhere), Mark places the primary responsibility for Jesus' death at the feet of the Jews.

When Pilate finally washes his hands of the affair, official Roman brutality takes over, and Jesus is further abused, scourged and finally crucified. But the Jews immediately reenter the picture in the jeers of the spectators at the foot of the cross, and their obstinate unbelief is contrasted with the Roman centurion who declares in an act of faith that "truly this man was the Son of God." Finally, Mark brings God himself into the picture to hide the sun's face behind a blackened sky, and to repudiate his treacherous people by rending the very veil of his own holy sanctuary. Mark thus set the course for the Jews' wretched fate at the hands of Christians and the Christian church for the next two millennia, and Matthew would seal its ferocity with the most heinous line...ever penned: "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"

Pilate did not want to kill Jesus, he washed his hands of the affair until the Jews threatened to accuse him before Ceasar if he didn't have him killed. Whilst the Jews did not actually physically carry out the killing it was they who made it happen - they rejected Jesus and shouted "We have no king but Ceasar", electing to have the murderer Barabas released rather than Jesus.

A bit like me giving you a gun and coercing you into killing someone - I wouldn't have done it but I would have caused it and would have been bloodguilty.
As Jesus said "Your house is abandoned to you" - they were rejected by God for their rejection of His Son.


Acronym Boy

Interesting quote (from a "critic") - however it (he), like so many others, fails to take into consideration the abundance of prophecy that pointed to exactly what would happen and how.

Uh... guys, you're arguing over a myth. There is no factual evidence to support any of the stories of Jesus' death -- in fact, there is no undisputed evidence to support his having ever existed.

Go ahead and believe whatever you like, but there's really no point arguing about it; and there is certainly no reason to hold events which might or might not have happened two thousand years ago against people alive today.

Originally posted by cperciva
Uh... guys, you're arguing over a myth. There is no factual evidence to support any of the stories of Jesus' death -- in fact, there is no undisputed evidence to support his having ever existed.

Sorry but you are incorrect - historians such as Josephus document the existence of Jesus and many of the things he did - such historical evidence is not disputed by knowledgeable people.


Go ahead and believe whatever you like, but there's really no point arguing about it; and there is certainly no reason to hold events which might or might not have happened two thousand years ago against people alive today.

I don't think any true Christian would hold what happened against any Jew today - certainly God doesn't, he tells us that anyone who wishes can be acceptable to Him. I would use any opportunity to help any Jew alive today come to exercise faith in God and Christ Jesus. :)

See grandad

The issue is simply this. First you have to define gods role. I personally do not consider god to be what you may consider him to be. My role on god is of no religion simple the idea of something stronger and more powerful then us. There is no bias, god does not have feelings or have a partisian view on things.

Second one would have to believe in the judea/christian religion which once again to those who dont none of this applies. Those who dont may interpret this as nonsense, no more then fairytails, and holds no difference then the writings of Arisotle, Plato and other great philosphers.

Third, religion and the idea of religion has caused in many ways more problems and more death then almost any other single thing. For example world war II, the wars in Ireland, and many other issues.

Finally people should believe in what they choose and learn as much about everything else out there. Knowledge is power.

Joe

Though it is true that the jews did play some role in Jesus being exicuted it is not just to simply say "the Jewish people" as a whole had him exicuted. Though as Grandad said there are few to none who would hold any of the acts commint in the distanced past againt those who live today, its like saying "Your great great great great great grandpa killed my father, now you will die for it" it makes no sense as the jews of today had nothing to do with that time period or the jews of the past other than some beliefs(which have changed so much).

Originally posted by JBIZ718
See grandad

The issue is simply this. First you have to define gods role. I personally do not consider god to be what you may consider him to be. My role on god is of no religion simple the idea of something stronger and more powerful then us. There is no bias, god does not have feelings or have a partisian view on things.

Second one would have to believe in the judea/christian religion which once again to those who dont none of this applies. Those who dont may interpret this as nonsense, no more then fairytails, and holds no difference then the writings of Arisotle, Plato and other great philosphers.

Third, religion and the idea of religion has caused in many ways more problems and more death then almost any other single thing. For example world war II, the wars in Ireland, and many other issues.

Finally people should believe in what they choose and learn as much about everything else out there. Knowledge is power.

Joe

Joe - just because people refuse to believe doesn't make them right! You can think that God has no feelings or views but I am afraid that you would be very wrong.
You are right that religion causes more problems than possibly anything else (just consider Sept 11th, Bali, Kenya etc where people think they can please God by sacrificing their lives to kill others).
However Joe, if people today practised trueChristianity the world would be transformed overnight - just consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and imagine everyone following that! Just as you and I can see the hypocrisy in religion, so can God and prophetically He assures us that such religion will be brought to an end.

See grandad

Here is the problem with your statment.

"Joe - just because people refuse to believe doesn't make them right! You can think that God has no feelings or views but I am afraid that you would be very wrong."

This statement first is bad statment. Based on your beliefs you feel they are wrong. They are not wrong though, it is simply your opinion on the matter, however strong it may be its your opinion. Second there are no ways for you to proove if god has feelings. You may interpret him to have feelings , but thats about as far as it goes. This isnt a wrong or right issue, its a personal issue.

Third each religion can say if you practiced true xyz religion you would be better off but once again there is no proof of this.

And finally I applaud that you are strong in your religion that is good, but I do not find religion as something I am interested in, to me all religion has its positive and negative views. As I do not force and or push my non religious views on to others, I do not want the religious views pushed on to me as regardless of what you may say, I do not agree.

joe

Originally posted by JBIZ718
See grandad

Here is the problem with your statment.

"Joe - just because people refuse to believe doesn't make them right! You can think that God has no feelings or views but I am afraid that you would be very wrong."

This statement first is bad statment. Based on your beliefs you feel they are wrong. They are not wrong though, it is simply your opinion on the matter, however strong it may be its your opinion. Second there are no ways for you to proove if god has feelings. You may interpret him to have feelings , but thats about as far as it goes. This isnt a wrong or right issue, its a personal issue.

Third each religion can say if you practiced true xyz religion you would be better off but once again there is no proof of this.

And finally I applaud that you are strong in your religion that is good, but I do not find religion as something I am interested in, to me all religion has its positive and negative views. As I do not force and or push my non religious views on to others, I do not want the religious views pushed on to me as regardless of what you may say, I do not agree.

joe

Joe, it isn't just my opinion, but I won't argue with you - you are entitled to your views and I respect your right to hold them.
I am sad that you say ... "regardless of what you may say, I do not agree." I believe it is good to have an open mind, that is the only way that we can learn. There are too many people today with closed minds and that blinds them to the truth.
It is my personal experience that those practising true Christianity become better people and affect their community for the better, the sad thing is that so many people who claim to be Christian are actually at best just religious. I accept that there are many people with no religious views who are honourable people who do no harm to their fellow man. I also believe that in the future we will all be called into account by the "something more powerful than us" that I call Almighty God.
In that day the argument will be resolved once and for all.

Best wishes,
Grandad

Originally posted by JBIZ718
See grandad

The issue is simply this. First you have to define gods role. I personally do not consider god to be what you may consider him to be. My role on god is of no religion simple the idea of something stronger and more powerful then us. There is no bias, god does not have feelings or have a partisian view on things.

Second one would have to believe in the judea/christian religion which once again to those who dont none of this applies. Those who dont may interpret this as nonsense, no more then fairytails, and holds no difference then the writings of Arisotle, Plato and other great philosphers.

Third, religion and the idea of religion has caused in many ways more problems and more death then almost any other single thing. For example world war II, the wars in Ireland, and many other issues.

Finally people should believe in what they choose and learn as much about everything else out there. Knowledge is power.

Joe

Are you saying that the works of Aristotle and Plato are no more than fairy-tales? I am confused about your perception of history so far.

I'm going to step in here and be the voice of reason here, a non-relgious, non-biased voice. What you believe is what you believe we don't need to be saying that this person or that person is wrong unless it is historically a fact or scientificlly a fact. Religien falls under opinion and belief(which is a branch of opinion) so it can not be said that "my god is better than your god" or that "my god is right, yours is wrong" as there is no scientific proof of god, and I don't want these lines about god being an abstract thing, or how we can't see air but we know its there type of statements. We were going strong with this discussion till it started getting to the point of your wrong.

I'd also like to point out that religion though it has caused many problems when in effect with Humankind, you also need to state that relgion helped form society, whether its a good society or a bad one is your opinion but it did form it none the less.

Originally posted by Lippy
I'm going to step in here and be the voice of reason here, a non-relgious, non-biased voice. What you believe is what you believe we don't need to be saying that this person or that person is wrong unless it is historically a fact or scientificlly a fact. Religien falls under opinion and belief(which is a branch of opinion) so it can not be said that "my god is better than your god" or that "my god is right, yours is wrong" as there is no scientific proof of god, and I don't want these lines about god being an abstract thing, or how we can't see air but we know its there type of statements. We were going strong with this discussion till it started getting to the point of your wrong.

I'd also like to point out that religion though it has caused many problems when in effect with Humankind, you also need to state that relgion helped form society, whether its a good society or a bad one is your opinion but it did form it none the less.

Your comments assume that there is no evidence available to provide an answer - are you sure that the evidence does not exist? Have you checked?

There is no publisied evidence of God in any respectable and factual, non religious scientific work. The only thing that points to a god, or a higher being exsisting is the things that have yet to or can not be explained.

Originally posted by grandad
Your comments assume that there is no evidence available to provide an answer - are you sure that the evidence does not exist? Have you checked?

Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on those alleging facts, not those who were denying them. :rolleyes:

"God is dead - Marx"

"Marx is dead - God"

Originally posted by Lippy
There is no publisied evidence of God in any respectable and factual, non religious scientific work. The only thing that points to a god, or a higher being exsisting is the things that have yet to or can not be explained.

I am sorry but you are incorrect - historians in the past have provided evidence concerning Jesus that in itself is evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy given by God.
Do you believe historians when they tell you about Lord Nelson, Neopleon, Alexander the Great? There is more evidence for Jesus than any of those historical figures.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on those alleging facts, not those who were denying them. :rolleyes:

Depends on whether you just want an argument, or whether you are really interested in the truth.

But Jesus being God's son is again opinion depending on your religion or lack of religion.

Originally posted by Lippy
But Jesus being God's son is again opinion depending on your religion or lack of religion.

No it depends upon the evidence.

What evidence?

Originally posted by Lippy
What evidence?

How long have you got?
Personally its past Grandad's bedtime; I've just come out of hospital and am on medication that makes me tired. This discussion has gone a long way with no signs of abating before I fall asleep!
Honestly, if you are truly interested in the evidence PM me and I will engage in a regular interchange with you over the weeks ahead and discuss the evidence with you.
Once I didn't believe either, but the evidence convinced me and yes I do mean evidence, not a blinding flash of light!

Goodnight all
:)

Hey Grandad get well soon!

Originally posted by grandad
Depends on whether you just want an argument, or whether you are really interested in the truth.

That's how the courts work. That's how debates work. That's how the scientific community works.

If religion just blidnly believes in anything anyone says, thats fine, just don't be afraid to admit it.

Note also that you have not argued on behalf of your case, rather you have deicded it is not worth proving.

thank you Acronym boy, he has given me more abstract answers than actuall facts or proof, and the bible doesn't count as evidence nor does anything written in the bible as it has be translated far to many times and re-written(which leads to whether or not the re-writes are truthful) far to many times to be counted as evidence. Jesus was not biologically the son of god, he was the sone of Mary, whom depending on belief was a virgin. Since we can not prove now and I stress now if she was in fact a virgin or the exsistance of god we can not say that any one god is right more than another. Also as the Torah, upon which the bible is a added chapter to(it maybe to another orginally Jewish document as I am unsure) we shall not worship any gods other than the true god Hashem(spelled as I was taught to prononce it) saying Jesus is a God goes against the foundation of christanity which is Jewdusism(can't spell I know) then by calling or worshipping Jesus as a god is considered breaking one of the ten commandments. Not to mention where does it state in the actaul Jewish documents that the messiah will be god, and that we should worship the messiah as such?

Side note, hope you get better Gandad

***Edited for mistakes in spelling that I noticed***

Hey, I just got back from hospital too, and madication makes me ... smilly (kiddney stone was almost worth it). Here are the basics of my religious believes.
I am the God.
My wife is a Godess.
My son is Son of God.
My friends and family are angels and saints.
My home is a temple.
My posessions are relics.
If you care there is some fun reading here:
http://www.personalsatan.com/library/

Great. Now I know what to do with my domain PersonalJesus.com :D

Originally posted by timechange
Great. Now I know what to do with my domain PersonalJesus.com :D
Cool. Available for sale. I might have some ideas for it. How much??

Hmm I didn't mean that to be a sales pitch. I am just surprised to see personalsatan.com since I have the personaljesus.com one.

:bawling:

I was kinda hoping for a finders fee for creating this thread...

Originally posted by brn2h8
:bawling:

I was kinda hoping for a finders fee for creating this thread...

brn2h8, I thought you were seeking the TRUTH instead :D

Originally posted by timechange
Hmm I didn't mean that to be a sales pitch. I am just surprised to see personalsatan.com since I have the personaljesus.com one.

Heh, but now it is sales pitch. My interest in it is not all that great, but you might bet better offer from someone who would like me not to have it. :) Anyway, I do not think that is aginst WHT rules to post a price.

Sasha, thanks for the tip, check out the link now :) http://www.personaljesus.com

You idea thief :)

You could do something like:
If he was around, he would get his site buit here.

Now that becomes a bit of a blasphemy :D

On another note, check this out: http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/

Well all I have to say to Jewish people is "What would you do if one day you were at the highest level in society (A big rabbi) and then Jesus the son of god came to earth" you would be jealous and mad of losing all that so you would deny it!! The jewish leaders didn't want to admit it, doing so would make him much more important then them... only one day the Jews will know who Jesus really was. If you beleive in Moises who got the commandements then you have to beleive in Jesus also, he did the miracles but the Jews never wanted to admit it. If you still do not beleive in the miracles he did then Moises never got the commandements from God, HE SMOKED POT!

"God is dead - Marx"

"Marx is dead - God"

No, no, no...

"God is dead - Nietsche."

"Nietsche is dead - God."

I say, does it really make a difference. As long as there servers are fast.


:D :D :D

The site is a bunch of crap. Jesus was paraded into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, something which despite 2000 years is still as embarrassing as it was then.

Nothing like liberal wacko atheists using the name of Jesus to evangalize their pagan views.

Originally posted by timechange
Now that becomes a bit of a blasphemy :D

On another note, check this out: http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/

Well of course. But the order of the day in America seems to be the lauding of those who are believers.

And lauding them with unverified conjecture and refuted data as facts... like SUVs being the cause of the end of the world...

Greetings:

One of the 10 commandments is not taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Many children of Israel take this commandment so seriously they do not spell out any of the names of God.

Their devotion to God is not offensive to most who are Christians; I myself (Peter on our team) am not offended.

Thank you.

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings:

One of the 10 commandments is not taking the Lord’s name in vain.


Sadly means little to many on here! :(

I'd like a taco, please...

LOL, Marx! Timechange, I expect better than that out of you ;)

P.S. - It's actually "Nietzsche", everyone forgets the "z".Originally posted by I, Brian


No, no, no...

"God is dead - Nietsche."

"Nietsche is dead - God."

Originally posted by grandad
the Jews have always been very keen on the minute details of the Law, though there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that anything like this is necessary.

Actually, you are not allowed to say his name in vain.
How much more so should you not write His name (which will most likely be for no reason at all) and erase it. Erase His name? However, in english, I dont think it really matters but I guess its just respect. In hebrew you can't throw out a peice of paper with His name on it, you have to bury it. G-d has many names, some say as many as 72 (including one name that has 72 letters)


Anyway, as to the Jews not accepting Jesus, and the prophets preaching about Jesus, it's all up to how you interpret it. For example, in the Torah where it says there will be a child born to a BETULAH - The word Betulah has 2 meanings - 1) virgin 2) young girl. Christians take the word to mean virgin, and jews take it as young girl because if you look up that word in the rest of the torah, it always means young girl.

There are only hints in the written law (torah) about the messiah, there are no explicit verses in the torah. However prophets do elude to a messiah clearly. but if you look at the requirements of a prophet in the torah - as well as judges - one of the laws is that you know it is a false prophet/judge if they tell you to go against the Torah, which is what happened after Jesus.

I don't want to get into a religious debate, I wont change your opinion, you wont change mine, and honestly, according to Judaism, non-jews only have to follow the 7 laws of the sons of Noah (no killing etc) and you are all good :)

I think the best way to say it is an expression from the Talmud "Rachmana leva baee" - G-d desires the heart. As long as you are a good person, no matter what religion, I don't think you'll have a problem :-D

And I must say I'm happy this was a mature discussion - remember -
Love your neighbor like you love yourself - the rest is all commentary

Sorry, double post :*(

Let's not bicker over who killed who. This is suppose to be a happy occasion! :D

oh goodness...

:flamethr: :dgrin:
:flamethr: :angel:
:flamethr: this thread.

Originally posted by grandad
Hi Lippy - yes I agree to a point and do not wish to offend, but the thought of being concerned about god being written on a piece of paper just reminded me of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day.
They bribed Judas with 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus and then put him to death on false charges - when Judas returned the 30 pieces of silver in a fit of guilt they decided it was blood money and not suitable to be returned to the temple, they ignored the flagrant disregard for the Law in the way they treated Jesus.
Jesus called them "hypocrites" and "blind guides" because they concerned themselves with the unimportant things but the weightier matters of mercy, justice and the like they ignored.

Be warned - I could go on! :D


Wrong there

Its a mistranslation

Jesus acutually asked Judas to turn him in so he could meet the High Priest

The 30 pieces of silver was customary for anyone turning someone in