jimbobthephonecian

In the old testament, charging interest (usury) is forbidden except with those in the promised land. In that case it was used as an instrument of war. Do you know of any other exceptions to the rule?

I have a concordance that says 'Iesous' is of Hebrew origin, from the word Jehoshua, but it doesn't look to me like they're from the same root. Which is right?

My concordance says that the Greek word Iesous is of Hebrew origin from the word Jehoshua, but those two words don't seem to come from the same root. Iesous looks and sounds like son of Zeus, what am I missing here?

I read an article recently that mentioned some organizations that are somehow able to make gay people straight. They're being attacked by the gay community. Why? If a straight person wanted to become gay and be brainwashed by some organization, it wouldn't bother me.

I can't find it in any of my dictionaries. Not in the list of abbreviations either.

Notice I'm quoting here, "proctitus occurs predominantly among person's who participate in anal intercourse." 'enteritis occurs among those whose sexual practices include oral-fecal contact" "Semen is immunogenic when deposited in the rectum. In addition to the deleterious effects induced by immune response to the components of semen, direct immuno-suppressive effects of semen are well recognized" "Sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall causing immunologic damage" "exposure to semen through anal intercourse can initiate lymphocytotoxic autoimmunity" I could barely make up some of these words much less pronounce them.

Sources: The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Centers for Disease Control

The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control don't have anything good to say about anal intercourse or homosexuality. They go into graphic detail describing the deleterious effects of the gay lifestyle. So how come nobody is calling the medical community a bunch of bigots or homophobic? Is it because scientists and the medical community aren't as vocal as the religious communities?

People like to say that there's no victim or that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, but the medical community says just the opposite.

I've been educating myself with material from The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control and they don't have anything good to say about homosexuality, or anal intercourse. Instead, they go into great detail describing the deleterious effects of these lifestyles. If this information is true, why do people keep saying that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone? If it's false, why isn't the medical community being attacked for hate speech or being homophobic?

I also need to find my outgoing e-mail server name. I clicked 'help' and it suggested contacting my internet service provider. I assume that would be AT&T. I called them and they said that if I wanted help it would cost me $100.00, and that if it didn't work, I had five days to get it fixed for free. What a deal!

As you understand it, what is the gospel that Jesus preached?

My Jewish Study Bible says that "If anything marks Jewish biblical interpretation it is the diversity of approaches employed and the multiplicity of meanings produced."and that,"..there is no official Jewish interpretation of the Bible." If "messianic Jews" were to view Jesus as the messiah, but not God, could they then still be classified as Jews? If they were to see Jesus as fulfilling enough prophecies to qualify as the messiah because of their interpretation, would they still be considered Jews? I don't think that they would be considered christians because they wouldn't accept his divinity.

I've been looking at some websites that deal with the Noahide laws and noticed that some of the sites state that in a court case, only one witness is required for a conviction. Is this true? Does the Babylonian Talmud actually say this? Does anyone have a link to an authoritive website? If it is true, then why would it not be two or three witnesses as stipulated in the Torah? The websites that seem legitimate don't seem to mention the number of witnesses necessary.

God made a distinction between clean and unclean animals when instructing Noah to load up the ark, and afterward when offering sacrifices. Why wouldn't the dietary laws be a part of the Noahide laws?

I've been wanting to post this question for a while, it seems like a bit of a revelation to me. Christianity teaches that we are forgiven through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and that the law is done away with. We no longer have to offer sacrifices for sin. However, in the Torah I have been studying, when one commits an unintentional sin, they make a sin offering(not necessarily blood btw). The remedy for committing an intentional sin was never sacrifice. It would seem that Jesus' sacrifice doesn't cover intentional sin. Here's my question. How can one do away with a law that never existed?

I just read this staement,"Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added." Does the theory of evolution demand that information be added? Is this part of Darwin's theory, or some other part of the theory of evolution?

Rom.14:14,'I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved witih thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.' 1Cor.8,'Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.' and in 1Cor.10:32,'Give none offence neither to the jews, nor to ..etc" If a Jew has made a vow to be obedient to God's laws, in this case the dietary laws, it doesn't seem like it would be charitable to tell them that these laws are done away with. It sounds like Paul is saying that it would be better to keep the dietary laws so that, as he says in verse 33,'they may be saved'. This could be applicable to Sabbath obsevance as well, since it isn't as important to chrisians as it is to Jews what day is observed. Is Paul suggesting we take the high road?

I can see how the wings on birds have evolved and I can see how the wings on airplanes have evolved. An airplane wing is designed for flight and seems to be an intelligent design and the same could be said for a bird's wing. If a bird's wing is not intelligently designed, then it doesn't seem to follow that an airplane wing would be either, especially since they both have the same purpose. A strand of DNA contains vast amounts of information and so do computers, they both seem to evolve as well. How can one be intelligently designed and the other, not? Aren't they both intelligently designed, or would it be that neither of them is intelligently designed? I'm not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God here, but that perhaps the theories of evolution and intelligent design aren't necessarily incompatible.