Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Godscreated]

The angel told Joseph to name Him Jesus, it had nothing to do with Mary's desire.

In a dream! We're not even talking about an account of an actual Angel appearing to Joseph here, but it is true according to the story, that Mary's preference had nothing to do with it.

Yes a dream why does that matter, it is common throughout scripture.

Emmanuel means God with us, it's a prophetic name for Jesus, you guys need to start using the brains you claim to have. I use the word claim with full intent, until you all show us different.

That is the meaning of Emmanuel but it isn't prophetic for Jesus any-more than any other Jewish name. All Jewish names have some meaning or other and most are related to God. As it happens my father's middle name is Emmanuel - its common enough and has been since well before Jesus.

Yes it is a prophetic name it's used in prophecy in the OT and it's used no other way. I usually do not go to Wiki to find answers but, I did this time and Wiki says it is an original Hebrew name that came in the OT, I can find no other references to it being any older than it's first use in the OT. True it's not used as a prophetic name now but, now is not then and in scripture it was always used in prophecy.


All you have said below is easily dismissed by our choice in free will.

On the broader issue of why Jews didn't accept Jesus:

He is an intermediary where none was allowed:

Christianity attempts to bypass this issue with the three in one thing but I've never met a Christian who can explain that one properly and the general ultimate response is "I don't understand it fully either."

Its a fudge.

So I can take it when you say you do not understand something fully you are dodging too.
The Trinity is revealed in Genesis, so it's not a Christian thing it's right out of Hebrew history.
What do you call the Hebrew idea of the Messiah if not intermediary.

His role isn't required:

Essentially Christianity has adopted the scape-goat idea to justify Jesus. The scape goat itself is generally considered by Jewish scholars to be aberrant behaviour that shouldn't be required either.

The scapegoat is the foretelling of Christ, just one of many. Christianity did not adopt it, it was a plan, God's plan.
The Jewish scholars you speak of are ignoring God's requirements, just as the Jews of long ago did, and we see what happened with them. You know God built the nation, so why should their beliefs override what God commanded of them.

In order to pull off this trick Christianity had to disavow itself of the idea that there were sins on one side and good deeds on the other. There is no word in English for the antonym of sin, nor, as far as I am aware in any of the European Languages.

Christianity in no way disavows good deeds, as a matter of fact Christ taught doing good, you must have missed this when you read the NT. Now to be fair we do not believe good deeds will get you into heaven, the grace of God through our belief in what Christ did for us as told in both testaments is the requirement God set forth. Sin the refusal to do God's will, hows that for a definition, yeah it's more than one word, but then many words translates into other languages with many words.

There is a word, however, in Hebrew - Mitzvah (literally commandment - as in Barmitzvah - son of the commandments) which came to mean good deed.

The basic idea of Judaism is that you are judged after death - with good deeds on one side and sins on the other. If the balance of good deeds outweighs bad then you are in. Depending on the imbalance determines how long you spend outside of Heaven (which is conceptually vague in Judaism, as is hell). There is no concept of eternal damnation in Judaism- again that is a uniquely Christian addition.

Seems you're confused, God created hell Christians didn't make it up. Just because the Jewish priest want it their way does not mean they will have it. It seems to me you are forgetting that the Hebrew people abandoned God time and again and He punished them for it, with such a poor track record you would think people would be skeptical of what they see in scripture.

All of this had to be abandoned in Christianity to make room for Jesus who takes responsibility for your sins off you whilst you get away with it scot free as long as you believe in Jesus in the end.

You talk as if Christianity was a plan by man. Sin is paid for here and now, and for non-believers it will continue into eternity.

Aside from the horrific basis for the idea and the licence it provides for behave appallingly throughout your life it has caused innumerable issues and problems.

Man can screw up anything, so it's not been a surprise that some bad things have happened. Christians do not have the license to sin at will and anyone who believes this will find themselves in a bad position come judgement. You like to believe all this stuff you purpose, it makes it easier for you deny the God that loves you.

For example the Catholic belief that an unbaptized child that dies goes to purgatory to wait there till the end of time - as if it wasn't bad enough for the poor grieving parents that a child had died.

The Catholics believe many strange non-Biblical things, doesn't in any way make them right.

At the same time take the worst, most sadistic criminal you can imagine. On his deathbed he recants (genuinely), confesses his sins, is blessed by a priest and skips off into heaven to rub shoulders with the blessed and the meek.

Yes as long as one truly believes, I find it hard to see that many will have that type of heart change after living an evil life for so many years. Remember scriptures say believe not just to speak.

Of course there is also the flip side. A good man - someone who has done wonderful things for his fellow man though-out his life, someone who has held the highest moral standards but just happens not to believe in Jesus, what happens to him?

You don't need too many guesses to you? (Hnt - he will never be cold).

God says there are no good men not one, it's not your definition that counts.

He just wasn't all that convincing:

The only people that met Jesus were the Jews - and they didn't buy it. A few Romans were also exposed to him of course - but they didn't convert either.

Really then I guess the world full of people who are just pretending. In the first two days after Pentecost 8000 people became believers. How many of those do you suppose were Hebrews that had spent time listening to Jesus message. Let me give yo a little info you must have missed, the Holy Spirit was now at work in men's heart. You should reread the NT you will find out that there were many who believed before the death of Jesus.

In fact there is a case to be put that the closer you were to Jesus, the less likely you were to follow him. There are references in the gospel to Jesus visiting his home-town where he was roundly rejected and left gutted and disappointed, if not mystified.

No one was closer to Him than His mother and the other women and His twelve. He definitely was not gutted and disappointed, He foreknew their rejection, yet in His love He gave them a chance to change.

The only exceptions to this are his mother (but not, apparently his brothers and sisters, or father come to that) and the dumb-asses he chose amongst the fishermen and the like that would have been easy to hoodwink.

Really there's books in the NT that disprove what you say, try reading James. It is believed that Joseph died sometime before Jesus started His ministry. Those you would insult became the greatest preachers for Christ, even people that knew them were astounded at their abilities after Pentecost.

Failure by definition:

There is no provision in Judaism for the Messiah to come and fail to convince the people that he is the Messiah. This didn't happen with the prophets and it certainly wouldn't happen with God's chosen Messiah.

Sorry but that made me , The prophets were rejected often, they were even killed by the Israelites, yes their very own people. You seriously need to read the Bible before trying to argue against it.

Jesus clearly saw himself as the Jewish Messiah (and only that till the dubious resurrection). Time and again in both Mark and Matthew he makes it as clear as day that he is here for the "Children of Israel" and not anyone else. How Christians ignore this is beyond me.

You are as blind as mud you are just tossing out junk that's not in the Bible, even the OT tells of the Jewish rejection. Christ said He came to save a world, sounds like He meant more than the Jews, He found the Centurion to have more faith than anyone in Israel.

So Jesus thought he was the Jewish Messiah. He failed to convince the people. Therefore, definitionally, he wasn't. There's no getting out of that for an Omnipotent God who had never failed to get his way before.

Jesus knew He was the savior sent to the entire world, He came to the chosen nation first so they could spread the good news. Like I said earlier this argument fails in many ways and it all comes apart because of the choice through free will.

This is supposedly the same God that appointed Abram/Abraham/Israel, Jacob, Joseph, Saul, David, Solomon etc. etc. (to name just a few). None of them failed in their primary mission, yet Jesus did?

They all failed miserably only through God's work was their missions successful. Jesus on the other hand has saved billions from eternal torment. He willingly gave up His life, and He took it back again, He lived a perfectly sinless life, haven't seen anyone else accomplish those things have you.

Oh screw it - I'm boring myself with this shit. Suffice to say it goes on and on for pages if you want it to.

Please do there are answers from God againist all you say.

GC