How To Get To Heaven When You Die

I'm honestly not afraid to go up against anyone. I have the truth on my side. If he has honest discussion, I will address it from now on. As much as possible.
--- merged: Jun 11, 2015 at 10:42 PM ---

This is easily disproven. God the Father, God the Son and God The Holy Spirit are one God

Jesus Christ IS God

There are some religions out there that believe and teach that Jesus Christ is not God. Some teach that He is a god, but not thee God. I am going to demonstrate through the word of God that He is God and created all things.

Jesus’s name “Immanuel” LITERALLY means “God with us”

Mt 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

He always existed (from everlasting):

Mic 5:2 (NKJV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting."

This prophecy is of Christ's first comming. His Goings forth have been from everlasting because Christ Jesus is God.

Jesus Christ is one with the Father. He is God.

Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Jesus declares Himself to be the great I AM of the Old Testiment. I AM is God's Name

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

I am IS God. There is only one God. That God has three parts.

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

His Disciple/Apostle Peter Admits that Jesus knows “All things” (Only God knows all things)

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

In Him Dwells all of the fullness of the Godhead Bodily:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {rudiments: or, elements} {make a prey: or, seduce you, or, lead you astray} For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Col 1:12 ¶ Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: {his...: Gr. the Son of his love}

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. {in...: or, among all} 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

God's plurality is found in Genesis

Ge 1:26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

His Disciple/Apostle Thomas Confessed Him to be God and Jesus did NOT rebuke Him for it:

Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This verse demonstrates how God has multiple aspects. He said Let “US” make man in “OUR” image. He didn’t say, let me make man in My image, He said let US make man is OUR image.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares Christ Jesus to be God:

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares that the world was made by Him (Jesus Christ)

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

All things were made by Him and He was in the beginning with God (Father)

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

There are MANY places where He is worshipped and Jesus NEVER tells them not to worship Him, NOT once. Only God is to be worshipped, because Jesus IS God, Jesus IS worshipped:

Mt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. {presented: or, offered}

Mt 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Mt 9:18 ¶ While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Mt 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Mt 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Mt 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {worshipped him: or, besought him}

Mt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mt 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Mr 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

Mr 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.

Lu 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Joh 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Ac 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

Re 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Scripture refers to Him as the Lord, Jesus Christ. The phrase "The Lord" is unique only to God:

Here are a few mentioning "The Lord Your God"

De 5:6 ¶ I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. {bondage: Heb. servants}

De 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

De 5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

De 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

Here are many calling Him Jesus Christ, The Lord.

Ac 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Ac 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ac 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Ro 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Ro 15:30 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;

1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

2Co 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. <<The second [epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>>

Eph 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: {conversation...: or, we live or conduct ourselves as citizens of heaven, or, for obtaining heaven}

Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Th 1:1 ¶ Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God. Not a God but the God of the bible. God has three parts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are equal, yet the Son is submissive to the Father and the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son. Jesus Christ was an EXAMPLE for us. He died on the cross for our sins so that we could go to heaven and be forgiven of our sins. He shed His blood for us.

 

Oh, Jesus...

 

Spell check. Grammar check.
Then get back to me.

 

And again, "The book is true because the book says it is true." Keep saying it over and over again and eventually there is no other possible truth.

This is well and good for your personal beliefs, @Christian, but offers no compelling information to the debate.

 

Not that I plan to indulge in a useless game of Bible verse ping-pong, but just FWIW, that verse in Isaiah 7 that makes it up to the top of every Christian hit parade is notoriously mistranslated. It does not mean "the virgin shall be with child," it means "a young woman shall be with child." The word in Hebrew for "virgin" is בתולה (betulah); the word used in the verse is עלמה ('almah), "young woman."

To be fair, it's an error of very long standing. In the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (sometimes erroneously referred to as the Septuagint, though properly, only the Greek Five Books of Moses, which were an earlier translation by Jewish scholars, should be so called) the word is mistranslated as παρθενος (parthenos), which literally means "virgin," but, apparently was sometimes used (as was the Hebrew betulah, "virgin") colloquially in the sense of "a young woman"-- think of older English usage of the word "maiden," which technically means a virgin, but was often used to indicate a young woman, regardless of her sexual history. Hence the mistake, spreading from the Greek translation of the scriptures into the Latin (virgo), and thence into the various vulgar translations, including the KJV and other English translations.

It is an extremely unfortunate coincidence that this mistranslation, as opposed to most of the others in the Greek "Old Testament," presents a relatively significant loss of prooftext for a certain aspect of Christian theology. Not at all a challenging loss to overcome for flexible, progressive theologians. But a very inconvenient one for rigid, fundamentalist theology.

 

@Christian, dude at the risk of repeating myself, my bible doesn't have this dude Jesus in it.
You haven't done anything to prove you aren't an art project.
Talk to us like a person who actually understands that there are real people here.

 

Depends on how you want to define "pretty chill dude."

Here's the thing. All the gospels were written after Jesus' lifetime, and the versions we have were then heavily redacted over the course of the succeeding decades, by people further and further away from Jesus' original context. So to get a sense of what the historical Jesus probably was like how he taught, you have to do a lot of reading between then lines, and paring away what appears to be later material, and focusing largely on the parables and sermons of the synoptic gospels, those being generally judged the earliest material in the Christian Scriptures.

There are only two other major sources we have concerning Jesus that predate the rise to power of Pauline Christianity as a major player, then State Religion of Rome. One is Flavius Josephus, whose historical accounts tend to be, shall we say, somewhat embellished for dramatic purposes, and into whose brief mention of Jesus later (Christian) authors appear to have interpolated some material. The other is the Talmud, which has two strands of narrative concerning Jesus. One is late-- centuries after Jesus-- dating from after the rise of Roman Christianity and its subsequent oppression of the Jews: this strand is highly polemical, and almostly certainly without a single bit of historical merit. But the other is early, dating from the first and second centuries CE, and may be more reliable. It depicts Jesus as a student in the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua, who turned to heretical thinking and got kicked out of the school.

The sense I get of the historical Jesus, taking all these things into account, is that he was a former Pharisee rabbinical student who began incorporating into his teaching both original ideas not entirely in accord with the exegetical/legal/theological process the Pharisees were establishing and also ideas probably learned from one of the ascetic sects (such as the Essenes) common to the Judean wilderness in those days.

On the plus side, Jesus seems to have had an incredibly high priority of caring for the poor and the vulnerable, for valuing the spiritual and eschewing materialism, and for not tolerating corruption in the priesthood (which, unfortunately, was a major problem in those days). On the minus side, Jesus seems to have decided that poverty and personal ethics were of such vast importance that they should be focused on to the exclusion of formal Torah study, of set prayer, of ritual commandments, and various other institutions of observance developed or reshaped by the Rabbis (that is, the Pharisees)-- when in fact, as regards the latter, it is not an either/or dynamic. The ethical commandments and the ritual commandments are two sides of the same coin, acting as linked parts in a spiritual discipline that brings a wider understanding of God in all things. And as to the former, poverty is not necessarily a good to which one ought to aspire. His rejection of materialism led to an asceticism I deem undesirable-- and which, in fact, is a comparative rarity in Judaism (we tend to be more oriented on balance rather than either asceticism or hedonism). Furthermore, though his observance appears to have been lax in a number of ritual areas, his sexual mores are even more rigid and abstemious than the Pharisaic interpretations would demand, and this also seems not good to me. And there are various other issues of theology and practice I believe would have been of concern also, in addition of course to the problem of his claiming to be the messiah.

To be fair, you couldn't turn around in the street in Ancient Israel without tripping over a couple of guys claiming to be the messiah. It's not like it was just Jesus. And plenty of them were wandering, charismatic preachers. He, at least, was probably more educated, and therefore a better preacher, than most of them. But he knew enough to know he wasn't the messiah-- not in the sense the term was understood at that time, and certainly not as it has come to be understood in Judaism since that time. I personally doubt he ever claimed to be the literal son of God (much less to be God himself): such a claim would not have played well at all with his audience at that time and in that place. Jesus seems to have been mostly speaking to Jews in Pharisaic communities: his parables are constructed like Rabbinic midrashim, and the way he uses text in his sermons is Pharisaic in methodology. He definitely wasn't speaking to Sadducees, definitely not to Hellenized Jews, the ascetic communities (like Essenes) stayed in their remote enclaves, and Zealots were largely disinterested in spirituality. But Pharisaic communities would have instantly rejected someone claiming to be the literal son of God. I doubt he even claimed the mantle of prophecy. But claiming to be the messiah is still a problem.

What it really boils down to is, if my analyses and hypotheses are anywhere near correct, Jesus was clearly trying deeply to do what he felt was right, and many of those were laudable goals. He probably taught some good things-- founded as some of them very clearly are in Rabbinic teaching-- and sought for people to help the helpless above all, which is a basically good, compassionate, and admirable thing. He was undoubtedly charismatic, and charismatic Jewish leaders are seldom excessively grim and full of fire and brimstone: we have always tended to respond better to warmth, and our great teachers have, accordingly, tended to be passionate, heartfelt, and in possession of a sense of humor. So he could probably be a nice guy to those around him.

But he was, in a sense, a fanatic. He went to extremes, and extremes are seldom healthy. He was apparently consumed by his mission to the exclusion of all else, and was apparently either self-aggrandizing or narcissistic enough to shake off the correction of his teachers, strike out on his own, and not only promote a personality cult around himself but actually claim to be the messiah.

Was he a good man? Almost certainly, though flawed (as all great leaders and teachers are). Did he pass on some valuable teachings? Sure (though nothing that other Rabbis hadn't or wouldn't say elsewhere, or which couldn't be found in the Hebrew Scriptures already). But "chill?" I'm not sure he strikes me as chill.

 

Hey Levite, you've said something along these lines a few times now that "[Jesus] ...wasn't the messiah-- not in the sense the term was understood at that time, and certainly not as it has come to be understood in Judaism since that time"

How was the term understood at the time; and how is it understood now? It's become clear to me that what I was taught in Catholic religious education falls rather short of the mark....

 

I have decided that the first thing i ahve to do is die

 

There was a guy on TFP many moons ago in the politics forum that cut and pasted paragraphs and paragraphs of content from other sources. The guy spent a lot of time on research and was fervent in his views. I liked the guy because we shared similar political views. But i rarely read more than the first paragraph because people here want to see original content rather than a pages of plagiarised content.

In your case i dont share your view nor do i read your cut and paste job.

@levite on the other hand who does come up with his own views and work i do have time for. We may not agree on many things but i respect his views and i do read all his long posts.

In regards to your cut and paste job, in skimming over your quotes i noted that all your quotes referred to other people worshipping jesus. I failed to see one quote where jesus stated that he was god or where he asked someone to worship him. If he did then please provide this statement. But i know this does not exist. Seeing that the figure of jesus being the godhead of the Christian faith, then i would asume that this statement should be one of the most prominent statements in the faith and should be quite clear and unambiguous.

With regards to the concept of the trinity, this concept wasn't adopted into the faith until the Council of Nicea a few hundred years after the crucifiction.

 

If only there were some way to get @Baraka_Guru , @Lish , @Levite , @redravin , and @noodle 's FSM to procreate, I'd have a good chance of being religious.

/goes to google roofies

 

OK, so the term "messiah" is the Greco-Latin rendering of the Hebrew mashiach, which means "one who is anointed," and generally referred to someone appointed to kingship, priesthood, prophethood, or generalship by the ceremonial pouring of oil on the head. That was, BTW, not unique to ancient Israelite culture, but was common throughout the Ancient Near East.

Properly speaking, the term as it was used at the term of the Common Era, was really a colloquial shortening of the term mashiach Hashem, which is to say "anointed of YHVH." The term, as it was originally used in the late Biblical Era (between approximately the ninth and fifth centuries BCE) was not specific to a promised leader of the the House of David, but was used in reference to any great leader deemed to be in some way doing God's work. So, for example, it was even used in reference to the Persian Emperor Cyrus, who permitted the exiled Jews in Babylonia (remember, the Babylonians conquered Israel in 586 BCE, besieging and eventually burning Jerusalem, destroying the Temple, and carting off the remnants of the nobility and a considerable number of other citizens into exile) to return to the Land of Israel and begin rebuilding the Temple.

During the Second Temple Era, the term seems to have become ever more strongly intertwined with the prophecies (chiefly in Isaiah, but elsewhere as well) of a great leader to come, who would be a descendant of King David.

At the turn of the Common Era, the expectations of what the messiah would be were chiefly political, and secondarily socio-religious. He would militarily lead the people to victory in throwing off the yoke of non-Jewish overlords, and would return the Land of Israel to being ruled by the House of David, to its widest Biblical boundaries (said to have been during the reign of Solomon, when the kingdom included not only what is today Israel and the West Bank, but parts of what is today Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Sinai wilderness, and overlordship of what is today the Gaza Strip and sundry other parts of the modern Israeli coast then controlled by the Philistines). He would establish a strong and wide sphere of influence, institute reforms and purge corruption, rid the land of idolatry and heresy, rededicate the Temple and lead the people to rededicated and more zealous observance of the commandments, and establish a society of complete peace, tolerance, perpetual prosperity, and good relations with the non-Jewish world.

Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE (at the hands of Titus Vespasianus and his Roman legions) and the later exiling of the Jews from the Land of Israel in the wake of the failed Bar Kochba revolt of 135 CE (following the purge and reprisal persecutions the Emperor Hadrian inflicted on the Jews, the Romans put ever more pressure on the Jewish People to leave the land and settle elsewhere, even relocating some by force), the expectations of what the messiah would be came to include the belief that he would inaugurate a new era in Jewish history, wherein the Jews in exile would be returned to the Land of Israel, the Temple would be rebuilt, the Sanhedrin would be reinstituted (this was something akin to a combination Supreme Court and Legislature, and the Romans and their Herodian puppet kings had both severely curtailed its authority as well as undermining it by instituting invalid and corrupt sanhedrins of their own making; the true and full Great Sanhedrin ceased to meet by the end of the first century CE), and Jewish Law would be properly followed according to its various interpretations.

Since that time, also, in addition to the political and social aspects and the general ideas of restoration or return to a fuller observance of the commandments, there have been many speculations about the spiritual duties and/or gifts of the messiah, without any real universal consistency that might be deemed doctrinal (and, BTW, none of this is dogmatic. There is sort of a hazy idea that a Jew is supposed to believe in the coming of the messiah, but it has been deemed of greater and lesser importance by different authorities, and none can agree on the definition of what "believe in the coming of the messiah" ought to be, exactly). These range from rare conceptions of the messiah as being a holy man capable of working wonders, to the more common conceptions of the messiah as a uniquely wise and just ruler who is able to get everyone to enter into useful and productive compromises, to the conception of a messiah as purely a figurehead leader (in this conception, it is the age which is messianic, the person merely the leader during that age).

Despite all the differences of opinion and evolutions of the concept within Judaism, the couple of things nearly everyone has agreed upon are: that the messiah would be a "normal" human being-- not divine, not semidivine, not supernatural in nature (actually, pretty much nobody has disagreed with this one); and that he would bring about or inaugurate an era of world peace, tolerance, justice, and renewed connection of all peoples with God.

Some of the reasons why Jesus has not been seen to fit these definitions should now be self-evident. Others have much to do with the shift in Christianity to defining the messiah as an essentially spiritual/supernatural role, focused on redemption from sin-- primarily Original Sin. Just as in Judaism, the conception of messiah evolved in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple to include further characteristics of sociopolitical redemption and rebuilding the Temple, in Christianity, when it became clear in the decades after Jesus' death that he was not, in fact, coming back (or, to be fair to Christians, at least not any time soon), Pauline theology radically redefined messiahdom, along with its radical reconceptualizations of covenant and salvation, essentially tailoring the definition of messiah specifically to fit only Jesus. This is why even though the same word is used by both Jews and Christians, not only does it not refer to the same concept, it refers to concepts which literally cannot fully include one another.
--- merged: Jun 14, 2015 at 10:46 PM ---

You are a class act, sir. I have said it before, and will no doubt say it again.

 

Completely wrong. Jesus Christ claims to be God. You are too lazy to read it for yourself because you are afraid to be proven wrong.

 

You're daft, punk!

 

Levite, thank you for the explanation. Clearly the meaning of messiah has been.... adopted by the christian faiths. As has a lot of other stuff, the best example that comes to mind is the development of christmas from the roman saturnalia festival.

In spite of the OP's ranting and lack of engagement in debate, I've really enjoyed this thread.

 

Actually you're the one that's wrong. I read the bible back in my uni days and i still have a copy on my shelf.

You're making the claim. Im saying it doesn't exist. I've already done my research so It's up to you to come up with goods if you think it's in there. No skin off my knee if you do or don't.

But ive also enjoyed the mature ways of the TFP. It reminds me why i fell in love with this place so long ago and why i need to visit more often.

 

That's the thing, you know: religions are essentially cultures or quasi-cultures. And like any culture, they don't spring fully formed from a half-shell clam, and don't exist in insulated vacuums. There is evolution and syncretism in every culture, and in every religious tradition, as they are formed out of the religions of previous cultures, and as they evolve in the real world by reacting against and adapting to what is around them, and by learning from others.

Judaism of today is not quite the same thing as Judaism of 500 years ago, which is not quite the same thing as Judaism of 1000 years ago, which is markedly different from Judaism of 2000 years ago, and which does not resemble in most ways Israelite Judaism of 2500+ years ago. It evolves and grows with time, and no doubt the Judaism of 1000 years from now will look back and consider today's Judaism just as different and curious as we do in similar retrospect.

And Christianity is the same way. It didn't just leap forth from turn-of-the-Common-Era Judaism and become what it is today, or even what it was in 1056 when the Great Schism finally severed the Eastern and Western Churches. Early Christianity had roots in several different Jewish schools of thought, then was deeply influenced by Gnosticism, and then Paul and his followers fused and altered those with Greek philosophical thought, with Mystery cult theology and praxis, and possibly even with other religions, such as Mithraism. And the theological squabbles of the early Church was both multitudinous and labyrinthine. Virtually the first whole millennium of Christianity revolved around power struggles, centralization of theological authority, active proselytization campaigns that usually involved calculated syncretization on massive scales, not to mention internal disputes of the Church in matters of the perception and presentation of Jesus and the behavior and expectations of priests. All of which isn't even touching the explosion of change, alteration, evolution, and struggle that has gripped Christianity since Luther began the Reformation 500 years ago.

None of these facts has to be seen by members of Jewish or Christian communities as threatening or destabilizing. They only become so when one chooses to live in denial of history, to try and present a narrative of constancy, uniformity, and/or untarnished innocence that is at odds with historical fact.
--- merged: Jun 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM ---

I'm sorry, how exactly does the above qualify as "debate?" If you think he's wrong, then show him the evidence he asked for and explain it. You are the one who introduced this topic: therefore the onus is on you to defend your position, and to do so with intelligence and respect.