Judaism, Christianity and God

VIEW:413 DATA:2020-03-20

Judaism often tries to negate the question of Christianity, both Judaism and Christianity are phases and periods relevant to man's relationship with God.

Abraham who defines how the generator of the Hebrew people arises in 1800-2000 BC. So Hebraism is a 2000-year period full of imprisonment, and slavery, and full of derogatory concepts. As the verse:

Exo_32: 9 And the Lord said to Moses, I have observed this people, and, behold, they are a people with a stiff neck.
Exo_33: 3 for a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up among you, because you are a stiff-necked people; lest I consume you on the way.
Exo_33: 5 For the Lord had said to Moses, Say to the children of Israel, You are a people with a stiff neck; if for a single moment I go up among you, I will consume you; so now undress your trappings, so that I know what I will do to you.

Thus generated by Abraham forming 12 tribes after Israel, and in decay until Judah and a small group of Beijamin remain. Until the year 70 AD the destruction occurs and the tribe dissolves. The ark of the council being lost, and several prophetic factors.

Thus Christ appears around the year 1 AD Showing that there are 2000 years before the appearance of Abram defined by Adam onwards, and 2000 years of Christianity with the decline of Judaism as a people.

Based on this, many Jews try to denigrate Christianity. The attempt at degradation itself is linked to the non-acceptance of the historical fact of the Hebrew people, and its decay the formation of a single tribe and the fall of that tribe.

To illustrate how the depreciation of Jews in relation to Christianity occurs, I will demonstrate questions that can be linked to Jews, which in themselves are mere accusations.

The first question would be this:

1 ° Where did he the Creator go wrong, who needed to correct his mistake later by sending his son? (I mean in the Christian conception, I as a Jew know that the Eternal did not make a mistake, and that Messiah is not god, intercessor, etc., etc.).

The question defines that the Creator was wrong. See that it does not define what the error is. Then he determines which god sent his son to correct the error. So the question is flawed, because it defines an error. What a mistake? For example, the Bible states that long before Abraham, Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and was expelled from the garden of Eden, there the first prophecy arises.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; it will hurt your head, and you will hurt its heel.

The question is, did God err by letting Adam eat the forbidden fruit? Wasn't it Adam's decision? So the question is flawed and cannot be answered, because God did not make a mistake. And so the Son of God did not come to correct any error since God did not make mistakes. See the Christian conception does not define that God was wrong. So did you say that God was wrong? Who asked the question, and more seriously he says that the Eternal does not make a mistake, if he says that the Eternal does not make a mistake, and Christians say that God does not make a mistake, who said that God made a mistake? Now only the creator of the question tries to say one thing and say it against the same thing. So Christians don't say that God was wrong. Nor does it say that Jesus came to repair God's error. The problem lies in the nature of what asked the question, implying that Christians say that God made mistakes, and that does not exist, Christians do not say that. This depreciation that Jews make of Christians is because they see that the Hebrew religion devoid of Jesus loses its meaning and becomes a tangle of systems without connection. Starting with the verse of Gen 3:15, which is related to a time much earlier than the existence of a single Hebrew. So we have an addiction in the question, Christians define that God did not make mistakes, and define that Jesus came to save man. Thus, Christians define that man was wrong, and that Jesus came to save them. Any other assumption is just the evil action of an individual who is unaware of Christian culture. So we have an addiction in the question, Christians define that God did not make mistakes, and define that Jesus came to save man. Thus, Christians define that man was wrong, and that Jesus came to save them. Any other assumption is just the evil action of an individual who is unaware of Christian culture. So we have an addiction in the question, Christians define that God did not make mistakes, and define that Jesus came to save man. Thus, Christians define that man was wrong, and that Jesus came to save them. Any other assumption is just the evil action of an individual who is unaware of Christian culture.

Continuing on the questions we have

2 ° If he knows everything (in the Christian conception), why did he not know that Adam and Eve would go wrong? And if he knew (in the Christian conception), the Christian and sadistic god? In other words, are you happy to save some and condemn others? Mark 16:16. Or does the Christian god have no control over his creation?

The question linked to the question is really in the Christian conception does God know all things, and in the Jewish conception does God know all things?

Dan 2:28 but there is a God in heaven, who reveals the mysteries; so he told King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the last days. Your dream and the visions you had in your bed are these:

Prince Daniel defines that God knows the mysteries and the future, and reveals all the things that would happen. So God knows everything whether in the Christian concept, in the Hebrew concept, or even before the existence of the Hebrews. Like the flood prophecy and the first salvation prophecy: 

Gen_3: 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; it will hurt your head, and you will hurt its heel.

So the question maker starts the addiction by defining that God knows everything, (in the Christian conception), now God knows everything in any conception. So the questioner is trying to idealize something that doesn't exist, that Christianity has a different view of the biblical concept. Christians have the biblical idea that God knows all things. And before the Hebrews existed, there was also the idea that God knew all things. Did God know that Adam and Eve would go wrong? Now if all conceptions were before the Hebrews, in the Hebrew period and after the Hebrews God knows all things, then God knew that Adam and Eve would go wrong. So the question tries to vitiate a determination that Christians think differently. The Christian God who is the same Hebrew God, and is the same before the Hebrews knew all things. This starts a term (god) in lower case, now this is just a derogatory concept. Since the term Theos, or Elohim, or YHWH, is neither minuscule nor capital, so (god and god) is just a practice, which the questioner tries to use in a derogatory way, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. this is just a derogatory concept. Since the term Theos, or Elohim, or YHWH, is neither minuscule nor capital, so (god and god) is just a practice, which the questioner tries to use in a derogatory way, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. this is just a derogatory concept. Since the term Theos, or Elohim, or YHWH, is neither minuscule nor capital, so (god and god) is just a practice, which the questioner tries to use in a derogatory way, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. or Elohim, or YHWH, has neither lower case nor upper case, so (god and god) it is just a practice, which the questioner tries to use in a derogatory way, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. or Elohim, or YHWH, has neither lower case nor upper case, so (god and god) it is just a practice, which the questioner tries to use in a derogatory way, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. which the questioner tries to use a derogatory form, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. which the questioner tries to use a derogatory form, which does not exist. It defines that if God knows all things and lets free will occur he is sadistic, interesting that he puts the term (Christian god), well as it was shown all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the question formulator it falls on not only the Christian god, since Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that knowing all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. as it has been shown, all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the questioner falls on not only the Christian god, since the Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that he knows all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same. as it has been shown, all the scriptures define that God knows all things, so the analysis of the questioner falls on not only the Christian god, since the Christian God is the same Hebrew God and the same before the Hebrews, and that he knows all things and giving free will is not being sadistic. The point is that the questioner wants to force something without logic. For as God was seen, he is the same.

Then why does God condemn some and not condemn others. Now we can see that in the Old Testament.

Pro 16: 4 The Lord did everything for an end; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Isa_29: 16 You pervert everything! Does the potter have to be regarded as clay, so that the work says of its craftsman: He did not make me; and the vessel formed say who formed it: Has he no understanding?

So the question of salvation or the decision of who is saved and who is lost is not linked only to Christianity but to the entire scripture. So that God knows correctly who wants the way of good and who does not. So God has control of his creation, but he decided to create it with free will. Either before the existence of the Hebrews, or after the existence of the Hebrews. The pertinence of the formulator of the question lies in trying madly to separate God, between Christians, Hebrews and before the Hebrews, that does not exist. Since the question is flawed. Now God has control of the creation, and for that reason he is not sadistic for giving free will. Seen thus the God of the bible, this either New or Old Testament defines that God knows all things and that man must decide the way forward, and that God observes the decisions for the man that he already knows what they will be. But man expects to show his true face, and that choosing God will be saved and whoever does not choose God will choose a universe without God, that universe does not exist, therefore the man who chooses to live without God, ceases to exist.

So there is no Christian God, no Hebrew God, no God before the Hebrews, there is God for all men. The problem is just that the questions are addicted to their concepts.

The questioner defines himself as a Jewish follower but does not understand the foundation of his religion in relation to Christianity to which he defines another question.

3 ° If the Christian god (jc) is a god, as he has no control in his creation, and if the world was made for him, how does he create something to recognize him and his creation does not know him? Would it be proof that "jc" is not god?

It defines Christian god again in lowercase, which determines ignorance of the non-existent uppercase and lowercase form of Hebrew itself, and that in the Christian concept God is written in uppercase, so he does this only to disparage the Christian faith. See what defines Christian God and writes (jc), I suppose to be Jesus Christ. What demonstrates that the formulator is completely unaware that the Christian God is not Jesus Christ, in the Christian concept there is the idealism of the trinity, which defines that God is one in the union of three. So the Christian God in the Trinitarian concept is not Jesus Christ. Attempting to disparage Jesus' action defines that they did not accept Jesus, and supposes that this is a proof that Jesus Christ is not God. Now is that a fact or just an irrational way of disparaging Jesus? Let's see. YHWH, remove the people of Israel from Egypt,

Exo 32: 3 Then all the people, taking off the gold earrings that were in their ears, brought them to Aaron;
Exo 32: 4 he took them from his hands, and with a chisel he formed the gold, and made a molten calf out of it. Then they exclaimed: Behold, O Israel, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
Exo 32: 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before the calf and, making a proclamation, said, Tomorrow there will be a feast to the Lord.

See that after several miracles, even so the Hebrew people built a foundry calf and they said that calf took them out of Egypt. Now if the questioner's assertive question defines the possibility that Jesus is not God because he is not accepted, since Jesus did not perform such miracles that occurred in Egypt. When else would the ideology of the questioner be that YHWH would not be God why would a people build a foundry calf. So the questioner's questioning defines for himself that YHWH in exemplifying the question is not God.

Now the clear answer is that both YHWH and Jesus Christ define that man decides what he wants, that does not stop them from being God, because they accept free will, unlike both YHWH and YEHOSHUA respect man's decision, but define future consequences. Both the actions of YEHOSHUA and YHWH are extremely similar. So the questioner forgets that the attempt to condemn YEHOSHUA will fall on YHWH by the example of similarity in the actions of both.

What is being shown, that the formulator's addicted questions, are totally out of character for the formulator's own faith. This is because one does not think about the consequences of the relationship between Christianity, and Hebrewism, and the one prior to Hebrewism. Such are connected and are based on the function of divine existence.

In question 4 the questioner comes to ignore the basis of the term God.

4 ° If JC is God, why then was he not everywhere at the same time? Like, America, Brazil?

Again put JC, in that case I will assume Yehoshua. And I'll define it by that name. The first idea what is God? We have the basic foundation of the term God for the Hebrew אלהים - 'ĕlôhıym {el-o-heem'} What we find in the first verse.

Gen 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If we go to the New Testament we have the following statement.

John 10:34 Jesus said to them, Is it not written in your law: I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If the law called gods to those to whom the word of God was addressed (and Scripture cannot be annulled),

Yehoshua defines that the law determines that such people were God? We have the verse:

Exo 7: 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you Pharaoh as God, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.

The term God here is אלהים -'ĕlôhıym. The same term that exists in Genesis.

But John's text refers to the following verse.

Exodus 22:28 You shall not curse or judge the governor of your people.

Where judges are read, the term is אלהים -'ĕlôhıym, that's right the term refers to calling the priests of God. Knowing that there is no upper or lower case God. If we read in the literal version in English we have:

Exo 22:28 `God thou dost not revile, and a prince among thy people thou dost not curse.

Showing the term God. Furthermore, we can get out of the law and go to Psalms and find it.

Ps 138: 1 I thank you with all my heart; I sing praises before the gods.

Where this gods the term is again אלהים -'ĕlôhıym,. So the author of the question does not know how to define what God is. This is due to addiction to tradition. On average a system of tradition occurs what happened to Yehoshua, they condemn Yehoshua to be God, and Yehoshua defines the misunderstanding of the scriptures. What made the Jews shut up. And the effect of the questioner is the same. He does not know how to define what God is, since the basis of the concept of Genesis uses the term אלהים -'ĕlôhıym,

So Yehoshua was everywhere at all times? One cannot say what happens, seen for example when looking at Job's system.

Job 1: 6 Now the day came when the children of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them.

Here we have the children of אלהים -'ĕlôhıym, presented themselves before YHWH, why was YHWH everywhere at all times? Now the children of אלהים -'ĕlôhıym, presented themselves to YHWH in a specific place, just for that reason YHWH stopped being God? See that the questioner is trying to demote Yehoshua, and together he sinks with YHWH because the factors will always be similar. Trying to sink one necessarily sinks the other.

- to be continued -