Fifth Freedom has some issues with Jesus [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Fifth Freedom has some issues with Jesus


Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 08:48
Fifth Freedom had a list of complaints against Jesus. I explained to him that they come from a slanted point of view. I wanted to give him a chance to see other points of view so I started this thread.

Triple7
07-11-2011, 08:57
Issues with Jesus personally? He doesn't even know the man

FifthFreedom
07-11-2011, 08:57
Sounds good.. Lets start with a partial list:

sorry had to copy paste it from my other posting:

When one examines the Gospels and compares the stories with the commandments of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) this doctrine of a "sinless Jesus" is not supported. Instead we find that Jesus in fact violated a number of Biblical commandments:

1. Procreation
"Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12)

2. Sabbath Observance
"The seventh day is a Sabbath to the L-rd your G-d. Do not do any work" (Exodus 20:9). Jesus defended his "hungry" disciples when they plucked grain on the Sabbath. This is agricultural labor and is unquestionably a violation of the Sabbath.

Christian apologists insist that Jesus was revealing the true meaning of the Sabbath when he said, "The Sabbath is not made for man; man is made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)." This is untenable. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 says that we are to follow the Jewish High Court in disputes of Jewish law and this requirement is recognized by Jesus himself (Matthew 23:2). With whom is he arguing in Mark? It is the same Jewish legal authorities who are Biblicaly authorized to interpret the Law!

If Jesus meant that they were starving and their lives were threatened, the Gospel account must be fictional.1 Talmudic (Pharisee) law agrees this would be a reason to violate the Sabbath (Talmud Yoma ch.8). The Rabbis would not have quarreled with Jesus if this were the case. If there was no danger to life, then plucking grain violates the Sabbath and the apostles were probably guilty of theft for eating from a field not theirs.

3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage
"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33).

4. Hand Washing-Failure to Obey the High Court
(Deuteronomy 17:8-13): The obligation to follow the High Court includes rabbinic law. Jesus defended the failure of the apostles to follow a rabbinic requirement ? to wash their hands before eating. Jesus rejects rabbinic law as the "traditions of men (Mark 7:8)." He also defied the Rabbis regarding the Sabbath (see #2) note: the Rabbinical decree on hand washing post-dates Jesus' supposed life time ergo the hand washing argument in the Christian bible is fictional).

5. Insulting a Human Being
Jesus insulted a gentile woman by calling her a dog (Matthew 15:22-27). This is hardly befitting righteous and holy people. Whatever his pedagogical purpose, such a designation is inappropriate.

6. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. Here is how a prominent Christian commentary (NIV Study Bible p.1613) defends Jesus' "prophecy:"

a. Jesus may be referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

b. Jesus may be referring to a future generation alive at the beginning of "these things."

This is hardly convincing. Jesus explicitly describes his Second Coming: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth will mourn (24:30)." It will involve suffering "never to be equaled again (24:21)." This did not happen when the Temple was destroyed.

The idea that Jesus is referring to a future generation fails too. Throughout this speech Jesus refers to his audience as "you." When Jesus says, "when you see.. (v.15)" the NIV itself explains this as referring to events that happened long ago. Jesus tells his audience they will live to see "all these things" and "all" includes past events and the Second Coming. Obviously Jesus falsely predicted he would return in his audience's lifetime.

7. Not Honoring Parents
"Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12). Jesus ignored his mother when she came to visit. "Someone told him, 'your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you' He replied to him, 'who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers" (Matthew 12:47-49).

Jesus caused his parents a whole day of worrying. His parents returned from Jerusalem, assuming Jesus was with them. In fact, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem without informing his parents. They returned to Jerusalem to look for him.

"His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you?' (Luke 2:48)."

8. Kosher Food (Leviticus 11)
Jesus permitted eating food that is not kosher. Although the beginning of Mark 7 addresses the issue of eating with unwashed hands, the end of that chapter goes much further. "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles but rather what comes out of the mouth that defiles" (Mark 7:15) As if we may have missed the point, 7:19 reads,

"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" [KJV reads 'purged all meats']."

Biblical law teaches that what goes into the mouth indeed defiles (Lev.11:39). Ironically, Christianity maintains that the Original Sin was eating.

9. Failing to Rebuke
"You shall surely rebuke your fellow" (Leviticus 19:18). This requires correcting, not excusing, the infractions of others. We have mentioned that Jesus defended Sabbath violation (see #2) and the failure to wash hands before meals (#4), and permitted non-kosher food (#7). Ironically, Jesus said one who teaches others to break a single commandment "will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:19)

10. Not to Add or Subtract From the Law (Deuteronomy 13:1, 4:2)
Jesus changed Biblical law with regard to divorce. The Bible permits divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). Jesus does not dispute this point, however, he maintains this law is no longer valid. Thus he subtracted from the Law. "Why then, they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning [when G-d made them male and female (Genesis 1:27) and one flesh (2:24)]. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:7-9)."

Since Biblical law permits divorce and does not consider remarriage a form of adultery, Jesus is changing Biblical law. Jesus' reference to Genesis is of no avail, for Moses knew Genesis and still proclaimed divorce permissible. Also, Moses said that the Law cannot be changed. Jesus changed the laws of kosher food too (see #7).

11. Opposing a Biblical Commandment (Vows)
Jesus accuses the Pharisees of undermining the commandment to honor parents with the following statement: "But you say that if a man says to his father or mother 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Korban (that is, a gift devoted to G-d)' then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother" (Mark 7:11-12). What Jesus is opposing is not rabbinic, but Biblical law! 2. The Bible grants human beings the power to bind themselves through vows and oaths. A pledge to the Temple is a valid pledge, however foolish or insensitive. This can be compared to a person who sold his entire property for $1 and has no more money to support his ailing parents. This is a foolish sale, to be sure, but a valid sale that cannot be revoked from the lucky buyer.

12. Truth-telling
"Keep far from a false matter" (Exodus 23:7). This verse obligates us to tell the truth. Jesus made a false accusation when he said the Pharisees bear the blood guilt of Cain's murder of Abel-in fact the guilt of all righteous blood shed on earth (Matthew 23:35). That is libel.

BradD
07-11-2011, 09:59
1. Procreation
"Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12)

What if a person can't get someone to marry him? What is a couple of infertile? Also, what's the minimum number of children to have "multiplied"?

Not trying to be argumentative. Just curious.

Triple7
07-11-2011, 10:24
Interesting.
1. How do you know Jesus wasn't married with children? Dan Brown seems to think he is (yes this is a joke)

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 13:22
Sounds good.. Lets start with a partial list:

When one examines the Gospels and compares the stories with the commandments of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) this doctrine of a "sinless Jesus" is not supported. Instead we find that Jesus in fact violated a number of Biblical commandments:

1. Procreation
"Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12)

Lets start with 1 and work down.

1. "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This was God's Word to Adam. You must interpret this as a command for all men to multiply. Do you Jews encourage those who have genetic defects to multiply? I doubt it. Sounds like you had to work at finding something to fault here.

2. Sabbath Observance. You throw some other things into the mix with a claim of authority for the Jewish High Court. Jesus made His own claim of authority here:
Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
God's authority is above the authority of the Jewish High Court.

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 13:36
3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage

Again, Jesus ha authority above these sages. He was just being honest.

4. Hand Washing-Failure to Obey the High Court

This was not a health issue, but a ritual to follow whether water was available or not. These type of rituals did not come from God, but men. Jesus was making the point that rituals do not make a man clean.

5. Insulting a Human Being
Jesus insulted a gentile woman by calling her a dog (Matthew 15:22-27).

The Jews of the time and even today consider Gentiles below their status. You think of this as an insult, but the word wasn't really dog was it? It means puppy. It actually was a term of endearment. Jesus came unto His own first. This story points up His mercy toward this Gentile woman of faith before the Jew's completely rejected Him and the Gospel went to the Gentiles.

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 13:51
[QUOTE=FifthFreedom;17614189]
6. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. Here is how a prominent Christian commentary (NIV Study Bible p.1613) defends Jesus' "prophecy:"

7. Not Honoring Parents
"Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12). Jesus ignored his mother when she came to visit. "Someone told him, 'your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you' He replied to him, 'who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers" (Matthew 12:47-49).

Jesus caused his parents a whole day of worrying. His parents returned from Jerusalem, assuming Jesus was with them. In fact, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem without informing his parents. They returned to Jerusalem to look for him.

"His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you?' (Luke 2:48)." [QUOTE]



6. This passage certainly does seem ambiguous. Obviously it is the generation that sees all of these signs that will not pass away.

7. Jesus Father is God the Father. This duty is certainly above His duty to His earthly parents.

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 14:01
8. Kosher Food (Leviticus 11)
Jesus permitted eating food that is not kosher. Although the beginning of Mark 7 addresses the issue of eating with unwashed hands, the end of that chapter goes much further. "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles but rather what comes out of the mouth that defiles" (Mark 7:15) As if we may have missed the point, 7:19 reads,

"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" [KJV reads 'purged all meats']."

Biblical law teaches that what goes into the mouth indeed defiles (Lev.11:39). Ironically, Christianity maintains that the Original Sin was eating.
.

The idea that rituals cleans food or hearts is absolutely false. Jesus did not permit the eating of the unclean foods. Peter was never taught that. There are some Christians who believe that though and so the "Jesus declared all foods clean" ended up in the NIV Bible. Notice that it is in parenthesis because that is an added statement.

Peter who walked with Jesus for Jesus entire ministry said:

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Brasso
07-11-2011, 14:04
#1:

Did not David call Him master? Yes he did. If John 1:1 is true, and it is, He is the Word which helped create all living things. We are His brothers and sisters. He already has a family.

#2:

Back to David. Amazing how we keep coming back to David.
David ate bread from the altar, along with his men, yet didn't violate the Law. Figure that one out and answer your own question.

#3:

They were violating the Law themselves. Is the commandment to tell a brother of his sin a greater commandment? Yes it is.

#4:

The court was to follow Moese. Moses never said it was a sin to not wash your hands before you ate. Goes back to #3.

#5:

God called them unclean. Go figure. They were.

#6:

Stretching. You is obviously an inclusive you. This prophecy has two parts.

#7:

Again, quite a stretch. Who was the responsible party here? You walk out of Walmart and leave your kid behind, is it his fault?

#8:

This footnotes were added. Besides, this is in relation to eating bread with unwashed hands, which isn't a sin, not about eating unclean food, as the food being discussed was bread.

I'll try and get to the rest later.

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 14:05
9. Failing to Rebuke[/B]
"You shall surely rebuke your fellow" (Leviticus 19:18). This requires correcting, not excusing, the infractions of others. We have mentioned that Jesus defended Sabbath violation (see #2) and the failure to wash hands before meals (#4), and permitted non-kosher food (#7). Ironically, Jesus said one who teaches others to break a single commandment "will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:19)


You seem to want it both ways. First you complain that Jesus rebukes(see number 3) and now you complain that Jesus does not rebuke. Just more of baseless accusations.

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 14:10
11. Opposing a Biblical Commandment (Vows)
Jesus accuses the Pharisees of undermining the commandment to honor parents with the following statement: "But you say that if a man says to his father or mother 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Korban (that is, a gift devoted to G-d)' then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother" (Mark 7:11-12). What Jesus is opposing is not rabbinic, but Biblical law! 2. The Bible grants human beings the power to bind themselves through vows and oaths. A pledge to the Temple is a valid pledge, however foolish or insensitive. This can be compared to a person who sold his entire property for $1 and has no more money to support his ailing parents. This is a foolish sale, to be sure, but a valid sale that cannot be revoked from the lucky buyer.


What Jesus was referring to was a legal trick to circumvent the commandment to honor their parents by dedicating everything they owned to the temple. This way they could avoid having to take care of their parents as was required by the commandment.

Do you really think that avoiding taking care of parents by a vow is pleasing to God?

Vic Hays
07-11-2011, 14:16
12. Truth-telling
"Keep far from a false matter" (Exodus 23:7). This verse obligates us to tell the truth. Jesus made a false accusation when he said the Pharisees bear the blood guilt of Cain's murder of Abel-in fact the guilt of all righteous blood shed on earth (Matthew 23:35). That is libel.

Only an assertion on your part. Jesus was speaking the Truth.

Schabesbert
07-11-2011, 16:33
Sounds good.. Lets start with a partial list:
6. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. Here is how a prominent Christian commentary (NIV Study Bible p.1613) defends Jesus' "prophecy:"

a. Jesus may be referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

b. Jesus may be referring to a future generation alive at the beginning of "these things."

This is hardly convincing. Jesus explicitly describes his Second Coming: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth will mourn (24:30)." It will involve suffering "never to be equaled again (24:21)." This did not happen when the Temple was destroyed.
Which part do you claim "never happened?"

If the later, are you aware of the great torment that happened during the seige?

If the former, then I'd like to ask your interpretation of Isaiah 13, especially:

Isa 13:6 ¶ Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!
7 Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every man's heart will melt,
8 and they will be dismayed. Pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in travail. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the earth a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light.
11 I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant, and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.
12 I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.
14 And like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with none to gather them, every man will turn to his own people, and every man will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold.
18 Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children.

Isaiah here is talking (primarily, in the same manner as Christ was perhaps speaking polyvalently) about the destruction of Babylon, was he not? Do you consider Isaiah a false prophet, or do you think that he just might be using "apocalyptic" imagery?

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 07:31
Lets start with 1 and work down.

1. "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This was God's Word to Adam. You must interpret this as a command for all men to multiply. Do you Jews encourage those who have genetic defects to multiply? I doubt it. Sounds like you had to work at finding something to fault here.

2. Sabbath Observance. You throw some other things into the mix with a claim of authority for the Jewish High Court. Jesus made His own claim of authority here:
Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
God's authority is above the authority of the Jewish High Court.


1:

G-d's word to Adam is correct therefore it is a commandment to ALL men, not just Jews.

2:

You said: You throw some other things into the mix with a claim of authority for the Jewish High Court


Try reading what I wrote. What I am saying is that the court would have been in total agreement with him, had it been the case that life was in danger since Shabbos observance is suspended in the case of life being in danger. However this was not the case here. He violated Shabbos and allowed others to do so as well.
jsus may have made his own personal claim of authority, but since he isn't G-d, he has no right to do so. Keep in mind he claimed. " He who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called the least in heaven."
See also his remark:
"heaven and Earth shall pass away before one tittle of the Law shall pass away" ( I am paraphrasing here) Heaven and Earth are still here in case you haven't noticed..

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 07:43
3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage

Again, Jesus ha authority above these sages. He was just being honest.

4. Hand Washing-Failure to Obey the High Court

This was not a health issue, but a ritual to follow whether water was available or not. These type of rituals did not come from God, but men. Jesus was making the point that rituals do not make a man clean.

5. Insulting a Human Being
Jesus insulted a gentile woman by calling her a dog (Matthew 15:22-27).

The Jews of the time and even today consider Gentiles below their status. You think of this as an insult, but the word wasn't really dog was it? It means puppy. It actually was a term of endearment. Jesus came unto His own first. This story points up His mercy toward this Gentile woman of faith before the Jew's completely rejected Him and the Gospel went to the Gentiles.



#5 first... Vic, if anyone other than Jesus called you a dog, a #!$#@ or even a puppy-dog would you take it as a COMPLIMENT?

Refer, also to Matthew 15:25 -- it too insults the woman.

You are simply in a total state of denial, and now arguing the ridiculous, in a vain attempt to disprove what is clearly before your eyes.

You keep saying this jsus "has the authority" I notice how you said he basically didn't have to honot the sages yet you always disregard the actual commandment that I listed that he clearly broke "Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33).

It seems the way this is going to go ios every time we come to someplace that he clearly sinned, you are going to say he somehow "had the authority" to sin:upeyes:

Same way with your argument against the high court. WE are COMMANDED by G-d to follow them (Deuteronomy 17:8-13): The obligation to follow the High Court includes rabbinic law. Jesus defended the failure of the apostles to follow a rabbinic requirement ? to wash their hands before eating. Jesus rejects rabbinic law as the "traditions of men (Mark 7:8)." He also defied the Rabbis regarding the Sabbath (see #2) note: the Rabbinical decree on hand washing post-dates Jesus' supposed life time ergo the hand washing argument in the Christian bible is fictional).

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 07:46
[QUOTE=FifthFreedom;17614189]
6. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. Here is how a prominent Christian commentary (NIV Study Bible p.1613) defends Jesus' "prophecy:"



Yes I am fully aware of how Xtian apologist try to explain away his prophecy that never happened.

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 07:51
[QUOTE=FifthFreedom;17614189]

7. Jesus Father is God the Father. This duty is certainly above His duty to His earthly parents.

Our duty is to obey G-d. and one of those is to honor our parent both in life and death..in the same vein, one man told jsus he would follow him but wanted to bury his father first. Jsus in his arrogance said "let the dead bury their dead"
How rude! First this is two separate mitzvot one is to prepare and give the dead a proper burial the second is honoring parents and in burying his father, the main would have been doing what was proper. jsus of course like the serpant before him didn't actually TELL him NOT to, rather put extreme pressure on him to choose between following commandments and following him.

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 07:53
There are some Christians who believe that though and so the "Jesus declared all foods clean" ended up in the NIV Bible. Notice that it is in parenthesis because that is an added statement.



Oh so now you are saying that the "NIV bible" that I should you referred me to to look for it's apologies for unfulfilled prophecy is NOT ACCURATE??

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 08:11
#1:

Did not David call Him master? Yes he did. If John 1:1 is true, and it is, He is the Word which helped create all living things. We are His brothers and sisters. He already has a family.

#2:

Back to David. Amazing how we keep coming back to David.
David ate bread from the altar, along with his men, yet didn't violate the Law. Figure that one out and answer your own question.

#3:

They were violating the Law themselves. Is the commandment to tell a brother of his sin a greater commandment? Yes it is.

#4:

The court was to follow Moese. Moses never said it was a sin to not wash your hands before you ate. Goes back to #3.

#5:

God called them unclean. Go figure. They were.

#6:

Stretching. You is obviously an inclusive you. This prophecy has two parts.

#7:

Again, quite a stretch. Who was the responsible party here? You walk out of Walmart and leave your kid behind, is it his fault?

#8:

This footnotes were added. Besides, this is in relation to eating bread with unwashed hands, which isn't a sin, not about eating unclean food, as the food being discussed was bread.

I'll try and get to the rest later.


Did not David call Him master? Yes he did. If John 1:1 is true, and it is, He is the Word which helped create all living things. We are His brothers and sisters. He already has a family.


Did David call who Master?


Back to David. Amazing how we keep coming back to David.
David ate bread from the altar, along with his men, yet didn't violate the Law. Figure that one out and answer your own question.

Yes it is amazing..it is also amazing how you never quote scripture in context. David didn't sin. he was told that he could only have showbread if they were ritually pure and were not defiled and David answered that they had kept from women. Therefore he was not sinning. Also they were exhausted to the point of near death so even had they been, the preservation of life would supercede eating the bread in a contaminated state.

They were violating the Law themselves. Is the commandment to tell a brother of his sin a greater commandment? Yes it is.

Oh? what law were they violating?

God called them unclean. Go figure. They were.


Jsus insulted a woman for no reason which is clearly a violation of the Torah.
To love the stranger (Devarim / Deuteronomy 10:19)

Not to wrong the stranger in speech (Shemot Exodus 22:20)

Now stop beating a dead horse. Jesus sinned. Get over it! This woman is not the only person Jesus insulted in the Christian bible. There are quite a few examples

6:Stretching. You is obviously an inclusive you. This prophecy has two parts.

I gotta admit, ya lost me there perhaps you could be clearer on your meaning?

Again, quite a stretch. Who was the responsible party here? You walk out of Walmart and leave your kid behind, is it his fault?

Brasso, do you have any children? I do, if one of them were to take off for a whole day, not tell you where they were worry you all day and when you finally found them they responded to you in such a disrespectful way, would you feel disrespected? would you punish them?

This footnotes were added. Besides, this is in relation to eating bread with unwashed hands, which isn't a sin, not about eating unclean food, as the food being discussed was bread.

see my response in my last post to vic.

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 08:14
Which part do you claim "never happened?"

If the later, are you aware of the great torment that happened during the seige?

If the former, then I'd like to ask your interpretation of Isaiah 13, especially:

Isa 13:6 ¶ Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!
7 Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every man's heart will melt,
8 and they will be dismayed. Pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in travail. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the earth a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light.
11 I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant, and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.
12 I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.
14 And like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with none to gather them, every man will turn to his own people, and every man will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold.
18 Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children.

Isaiah here is talking (primarily, in the same manner as Christ was perhaps speaking polyvalently) about the destruction of Babylon, was he not? Do you consider Isaiah a false prophet, or do you think that he just might be using "apocalyptic" imagery?

Are you saying the destruction of Babylon never happened?

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 08:21
What Jesus was referring to was a legal trick to circumvent the commandment to honor their parents by dedicating everything they owned to the temple. This way they could avoid having to take care of their parents as was required by the commandment.

Do you really think that avoiding taking care of parents by a vow is pleasing to God?


Is it pleasing to G-d Acts 4:32 through 5:11?
It was the beginning of making people give up all their money under severe threat. At least that's the way I read it. These two people were suppose to give all their possessions to the apostles? Wow. Sounds like modern day preachers "give give!"........or else..

Schabesbert
07-12-2011, 08:33
Are you saying the destruction of Babylon never happened?
No. Are you saying that the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70) never happened? Same question, very similar prophesy. If you claim one to be a false prophet, how can you avoid calling both false prophets?

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 08:39
No. Are you saying that the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70) never happened? Same question, very similar prophesy. If you claim one to be a false prophet, how can you avoid calling both false prophets?


I think what you're saying is that jsus foretold of the destruction of the Temple in the gospels and that it came true...problem is, there was no NT in 70 ce it's kind of like people who follow Nostradamus who "discover" his prophecy concerning 9/11 After the fact

Schabesbert
07-12-2011, 08:45
I think what you're saying is that jsus foretold of the destruction of the Temple in the gospels and that it came true...
Yes, using very similar language as, and no doubt harkening back to, Isaiah's prediction of the fall of Babylon.

problem is, there was no NT in 70 ce it's kind of like people who follow Nostradamus who "discover" his prophecy concerning 9/11 After the fact
Absoutely not true. Matthew's gospel was written well before the destruction of Temple.
The same people who make these false claims (against all the early Church beliefs) are those who also claim that Isaiah wasn't written until well after the return from Babylonian exile.
One major reason for BOTH claims is that the foretold prophesy was accurate, and therefore it "couldn't" have been stated beforehand. In other words, circular reasoning. That's one of the primary pieces of "evidence" for late-dating Matthew's Gospel.

Vic Hays
07-12-2011, 09:00
Is it pleasing to G-d Acts 4:32 through 5:11?
It was the beginning of making people give up all their money under severe threat. At least that's the way I read it. These two people were suppose to give all their possessions to the apostles? Wow. Sounds like modern day preachers "give give!"........or else..

First we are talking about a vow and you say it is ok to dedicate everything to the temple to avoid taking care of parents and now you can't even understand that Ananias and Sapphira vowed the proceeds of their land to the Church.

You guys flip flop like a politician. Or is it that the glasses you are wearing prohibit reading comprehension? Look carefully at this verse:

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

FifthFreedom
07-12-2011, 09:12
First we are talking about a vow and you say it is ok to dedicate everything to the temple to avoid taking care of parents and now you can't even understand that Ananias and Sapphira vowed the proceeds of their land to the Church.

You guys flip flop like a politician. Or is it that the glasses you are wearing prohibit reading comprehension? Look carefully at this verse:

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.


First of all, we only set aside a tenth for the Temple...I have no idea what u are talking about. I was merely pointing out that it seems somewhat hypocritical what u claimed.

Vic Hays
07-12-2011, 09:41
First of all, we only set aside a tenth for the Temple...I have no idea what u are talking about. I was merely pointing out that it seems somewhat hypocritical what u claimed.

I don't see that recognizing that God owns everything is hypocritical or that dedicating 100% of the proceeds of an item to God is hypocritical. The hypocrisy was in them claiming to give all from that piece of land when they secretly did not.

ricklee4570
07-12-2011, 09:46
Interesting thread.

FifthFreedom
07-20-2011, 08:23
Only an assertion on your part. Jesus was speaking the Truth.

What's to "assert" Were these people alive when Abel was alive?

FifthFreedom
07-20-2011, 08:43
You seem to want it both ways. First you complain that Jesus rebukes(see number 3) and now you complain that Jesus does not rebuke. Just more of baseless accusations.

Perhaps you should read number 3 again. Calling people names and embarrassing someone in public is not the proper way to rebuke someone. Not to mention it is forbidden.

Even Paul made mention of it when he said ( I am going by memory here) when you see your brother sin, you should take him aside and correct him.

Take G-d for example. When Cain committed the act of Murder, G-d even gave him space to repent by first asking him where he was ( He knew of course, but it gave Cain a chance to confess what he did wrong) Then he said "What is this that you have done?"
He didn't call him names he didn't belittle him.

Same with Adam.

Vic Hays
07-20-2011, 11:12
Perhaps you should read number 3 again. Calling people names and embarrassing someone in public is not the proper way to rebuke someone. Not to mention it is forbidden.

Even Paul made mention of it when he said ( I am going by memory here) when you see your brother sin, you should take him aside and correct him.

Take G-d for example. When Cain committed the act of Murder, G-d even gave him space to repent by first asking him where he was ( He knew of course, but it gave Cain a chance to confess what he did wrong) Then he said "What is this that you have done?"
He didn't call him names he didn't belittle him.

Same with Adam.

Don't you think that the one who made all things and declared the law at Sinai had the right to interpret His own law?

FifthFreedom
07-20-2011, 11:19
Don't you think that the one who made all things and declared the law at Sinai had the right to interpret His own law?


Jsus did not make any Law on Sinai, we wasn't even born yet. It's kind of just what I expected. Whenever your jsus breaks a commandment, I suppose this is going to be your argument.:whistling:
Would G-d violate his own Law??

Further jsus says:
"...But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." - Matthew 5:22

Compared to:

Matthew 23:17, 19
Luke 11:40
Luke 12:20 (that doesn't bode well)
Luke 24:25

He went around calling people fools all the time and these were some of the nicer things he called people. Not very G-d-like.

Vic Hays
07-20-2011, 11:25
Jsus did not make any Law on Sinai, we wasn't even born yet. It's kind of just what I expected. Whenever your jsus breaks a commandment, I suppose this is going to be your argument.:whistling:
Would G-d violate his own Law??


Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

FifthFreedom
07-20-2011, 11:34
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

Geesh, you people are so predictable. And still always taking things out of context trying to make them "fit" Not to mention, i fail to see how this is an answer.


וְאַתָּ֞ה בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם אֶפְרָ֗תָה
צָעִיר֙ לִֽהְיוֹת֙ בְּאַלְפֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה
מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י יֵצֵ֔א לִֽהְי֥וֹת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
וּמוֹצָֽאֹתָ֥יו מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָם׃


“But as for you, Beit Lĕḥĕm–Ĕfratah...
[although you are] too small to be [counted] among the ‘thousands’ of Y'hudah,
[yet, even so,] from you [one] who will be [literally, 'to be'] My ruler in Yisraél will emerge,
[in the sense that] his roots [were there] from previously—from ancient times.”


The way this verse (which is 5:1, by the way, not 5:2—the “form yourselves into troops” verse that christians call 5:1 is actually the last verse of chapter 4 and is separated from the Beit Lĕḥĕm–Ĕfratah verse by a paragraph-break in the Hebrew text) is “quoted” by Matthew can only be called dishonest, because that writer completely reverses the sense of the verse. Michah says explicitly that the Beit Lĕḥĕm was an insignificant little place in his time: “too small to be reckoned among the ‘thousands’ of Y'hudah” (that is to say, the large cities with populations of 1,000 or more) but, in spite of what a humble little place it was, God says the one who is to be the eventual ruler of Yisraél will “emerge” from it, because he will be a long-time descendant of King David whose home-town Beit Lĕḥĕm was. The deceitful Matthew-writer, however, pretends that the prophet said “And thou Bethlehem in the land of Iuda, art not the least among the Princes of Iuda....” (Matthew 2:6, KJPV), turning it all around and making it look as if he had really said that Beit Lĕḥĕm was quite an important place, which is the opposite of what he did say.

Also, please tell me how this verse somehow means G-d would violate his own Torah?

FifthFreedom
07-21-2011, 07:40
OK since I didn't get an answer, maybe some of you could enlighten me here:

Here is another problem I have with this character.


The messianic candidate must be educated in Torah. And when I say Torah I mean ALL of Torah-- the Written and Oral Tora'ot. Your NT clearly shows that despite its claim that jsus was "the word of God incarnate", when pressed to recite the Torah and Prophets, your "chacham Nazari" didn't really do that well. He first ADDS to the portion of the Prophet Isaiah---"recovery of sight to the blind" is not in the original Text. Then, when he goes into a vitriolic tirade in his attempts to charge Jews with the murder of prophets, he unloads an accusation that shows his utter ignorance of the Torah and basic bible history.

He blames the Jews with murdering EVERY prophet from Abel to Zechariah. There's four problems with this.
a. The apparent "son of G-d" didn't seem to realize that: CAIN, not the Jews killed Abel.
b. Abel wasn't a prophet, knowledge of the name of G-d only returned with Shem, which is why several of Shem's descendants had knowledge of G-d while Cain's descendants perished in the Flood. (Guess jsus was out creating butterflies when this part of the Chumash was reviewed.)
c. Shem is the father of the peoples from whom the Jews came. Shem wasn't even born during Cain's murdering of Abel.
d. While Jews' origins started with Abraham, the term Jew or Yehudi did not begin until at earliest, with Judah, the son of Jacob (several thousand years AFTER Abel)
e. As for killing prophets, if this "son of god" would have done a little more research, the Jews didn't kill any of the prophets. Their corrupt leaders did; many of those corrupt leaders were in league with foreign interlopers. As for Zechariah, this "word of G-d" savior failed to realize that the Zechariah he alleged was killed, wasn't the prophet. Zechariah ben Ido was the prophet. The Zechariah jsus references was a court official and was killed in a political coup.

Triple7
07-21-2011, 08:48
5th...
If Jesus isn't the promised Messiah, will the Temple be rebuilt before the true Messiah comes?
Daniel 9:24-27 (http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Daniel%209.24-27)

Vic Hays
07-21-2011, 18:34
OK since I didn't get an answer, maybe some of you could enlighten me here:

Here is another problem I have with this character.


The messianic candidate must be educated in Torah. And when I say Torah I mean ALL of Torah-- the Written and Oral Tora'ot. Your NT clearly shows that despite its claim that jsus was "the word of God incarnate", when pressed to recite the Torah and Prophets, your "chacham Nazari" didn't really do that well. He first ADDS to the portion of the Prophet Isaiah---"recovery of sight to the blind" is not in the original Text. Then, when he goes into a vitriolic tirade in his attempts to charge Jews with the murder of prophets, he unloads an accusation that shows his utter ignorance of the Torah and basic bible history.

He blames the Jews with murdering EVERY prophet from Abel to Zechariah. There's four problems with this.
a. The apparent "son of G-d" didn't seem to realize that: CAIN, not the Jews killed Abel.
b. Abel wasn't a prophet, knowledge of the name of G-d only returned with Shem, which is why several of Shem's descendants had knowledge of G-d while Cain's descendants perished in the Flood. (Guess jsus was out creating butterflies when this part of the Chumash was reviewed.)
c. Shem is the father of the peoples from whom the Jews came. Shem wasn't even born during Cain's murdering of Abel.
d. While Jews' origins started with Abraham, the term Jew or Yehudi did not begin until at earliest, with Judah, the son of Jacob (several thousand years AFTER Abel)
e. As for killing prophets, if this "son of god" would have done a little more research, the Jews didn't kill any of the prophets. Their corrupt leaders did; many of those corrupt leaders were in league with foreign interlopers. As for Zechariah, this "word of G-d" savior failed to realize that the Zechariah he alleged was killed, wasn't the prophet. Zechariah ben Ido was the prophet. The Zechariah jsus references was a court official and was killed in a political coup.

1. Jesus did not say that the Jews killed Abel, He said they were guilty of His blood because Abel was righteous and they were jealous like Cain of the righteous. He was talking to the leaders as you pointed out.

When Jesus raised lazarus from the dead the religious leaders were enraged and determined to kill Jesus. Why, because they were jealous of Jesus the same as Cain was jealous of Abel.

John 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
11:48 If we let him thus alone, all [men] will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
11:49 And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
11:53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Dalton Wayne
07-21-2011, 19:35
Just read the book and take what you get and leave what you don't :dunno:

Paul7
07-21-2011, 22:27
Sounds good.. Lets start with a partial list:

sorry had to copy paste it from my other posting:

When one examines the Gospels and compares the stories with the commandments of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) this doctrine of a "sinless Jesus" is not supported. Instead we find that Jesus in fact violated a number of Biblical commandments:

1. Procreation
"Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12)

2. Sabbath Observance
"The seventh day is a Sabbath to the L-rd your G-d. Do not do any work" (Exodus 20:9). Jesus defended his "hungry" disciples when they plucked grain on the Sabbath. This is agricultural labor and is unquestionably a violation of the Sabbath.

Christian apologists insist that Jesus was revealing the true meaning of the Sabbath when he said, "The Sabbath is not made for man; man is made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)." This is untenable. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 says that we are to follow the Jewish High Court in disputes of Jewish law and this requirement is recognized by Jesus himself (Matthew 23:2). With whom is he arguing in Mark? It is the same Jewish legal authorities who are Biblicaly authorized to interpret the Law!

If Jesus meant that they were starving and their lives were threatened, the Gospel account must be fictional.1 Talmudic (Pharisee) law agrees this would be a reason to violate the Sabbath (Talmud Yoma ch.8). The Rabbis would not have quarreled with Jesus if this were the case. If there was no danger to life, then plucking grain violates the Sabbath and the apostles were probably guilty of theft for eating from a field not theirs.

3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage
"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33).

4. Hand Washing-Failure to Obey the High Court
(Deuteronomy 17:8-13): The obligation to follow the High Court includes rabbinic law. Jesus defended the failure of the apostles to follow a rabbinic requirement ? to wash their hands before eating. Jesus rejects rabbinic law as the "traditions of men (Mark 7:8)." He also defied the Rabbis regarding the Sabbath (see #2) note: the Rabbinical decree on hand washing post-dates Jesus' supposed life time ergo the hand washing argument in the Christian bible is fictional).

5. Insulting a Human Being
Jesus insulted a gentile woman by calling her a dog (Matthew 15:22-27). This is hardly befitting righteous and holy people. Whatever his pedagogical purpose, such a designation is inappropriate.

6. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. Here is how a prominent Christian commentary (NIV Study Bible p.1613) defends Jesus' "prophecy:"

a. Jesus may be referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

b. Jesus may be referring to a future generation alive at the beginning of "these things."

This is hardly convincing. Jesus explicitly describes his Second Coming: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth will mourn (24:30)." It will involve suffering "never to be equaled again (24:21)." This did not happen when the Temple was destroyed.

The idea that Jesus is referring to a future generation fails too. Throughout this speech Jesus refers to his audience as "you." When Jesus says, "when you see.. (v.15)" the NIV itself explains this as referring to events that happened long ago. Jesus tells his audience they will live to see "all these things" and "all" includes past events and the Second Coming. Obviously Jesus falsely predicted he would return in his audience's lifetime.

7. Not Honoring Parents
"Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12). Jesus ignored his mother when she came to visit. "Someone told him, 'your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you' He replied to him, 'who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers" (Matthew 12:47-49).

Jesus caused his parents a whole day of worrying. His parents returned from Jerusalem, assuming Jesus was with them. In fact, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem without informing his parents. They returned to Jerusalem to look for him.

"His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you?' (Luke 2:48)."

8. Kosher Food (Leviticus 11)
Jesus permitted eating food that is not kosher. Although the beginning of Mark 7 addresses the issue of eating with unwashed hands, the end of that chapter goes much further. "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles but rather what comes out of the mouth that defiles" (Mark 7:15) As if we may have missed the point, 7:19 reads,

"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" [KJV reads 'purged all meats']."

Biblical law teaches that what goes into the mouth indeed defiles (Lev.11:39). Ironically, Christianity maintains that the Original Sin was eating.

9. Failing to Rebuke
"You shall surely rebuke your fellow" (Leviticus 19:18). This requires correcting, not excusing, the infractions of others. We have mentioned that Jesus defended Sabbath violation (see #2) and the failure to wash hands before meals (#4), and permitted non-kosher food (#7). Ironically, Jesus said one who teaches others to break a single commandment "will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:19)

10. Not to Add or Subtract From the Law (Deuteronomy 13:1, 4:2)
Jesus changed Biblical law with regard to divorce. The Bible permits divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). Jesus does not dispute this point, however, he maintains this law is no longer valid. Thus he subtracted from the Law. "Why then, they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning [when G-d made them male and female (Genesis 1:27) and one flesh (2:24)]. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:7-9)."

Since Biblical law permits divorce and does not consider remarriage a form of adultery, Jesus is changing Biblical law. Jesus' reference to Genesis is of no avail, for Moses knew Genesis and still proclaimed divorce permissible. Also, Moses said that the Law cannot be changed. Jesus changed the laws of kosher food too (see #7).

11. Opposing a Biblical Commandment (Vows)
Jesus accuses the Pharisees of undermining the commandment to honor parents with the following statement: "But you say that if a man says to his father or mother 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Korban (that is, a gift devoted to G-d)' then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother" (Mark 7:11-12). What Jesus is opposing is not rabbinic, but Biblical law! 2. The Bible grants human beings the power to bind themselves through vows and oaths. A pledge to the Temple is a valid pledge, however foolish or insensitive. This can be compared to a person who sold his entire property for $1 and has no more money to support his ailing parents. This is a foolish sale, to be sure, but a valid sale that cannot be revoked from the lucky buyer.

12. Truth-telling
"Keep far from a false matter" (Exodus 23:7). This verse obligates us to tell the truth. Jesus made a false accusation when he said the Pharisees bear the blood guilt of Cain's murder of Abel-in fact the guilt of all righteous blood shed on earth (Matthew 23:35). That is libel.

I think fulfilling prophecy, performing many miracles, and rising from the dead trumps your list of nitpicks. Picking one at random (#12), it began with Cain but follows up with 'to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come on this generation'. The expression was somewhat like our 'from Genesis to Revelation'. That prophecy of Jesus' was fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

From Matthew:

"There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."


The Kingdom was taken from the Jews, and given to believing Gentiles.

FifthFreedom
07-24-2011, 08:51
1. Jesus did not say that the Jews killed Abel, He said they were guilty of His blood because Abel was righteous and they were jealous like Cain of the righteous. He was talking to the leaders as you pointed out.

[/U][/B]


try reading what I posted and try reading it s-l-o-w-l-y.

How on earth could THEY have been guilty of his blood???
Not possible in any way, shape of form. As for the rest of what I posted, I notice you carefully avoided any response and went back into your usual copy/pasting of NT but avoid answering anything directly.

FifthFreedom
07-24-2011, 08:54
I think fulfilling prophecy, performing many miracles, and rising from the dead trumps your list of nitpicks. Picking one at random (#12), it began with Cain but follows up with 'to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come on this generation'. The expression was somewhat like our 'from Genesis to Revelation'. That prophecy of Jesus' was fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.




He didn't fulfill a single Messianic prophecy and performing "miracles" does not a Messiah make. Notpicking? Please. This guy was according to all of you "sinless" so he should be able to stand up to criticism.

As for 'to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.


Try going back and re-reading what was posted concerning him. I know, it's a lot of words.

Brasso
07-24-2011, 09:09
How exactly, does a false prophet perform miracles. Much less raise people from the dead?

Seriously? Yeah, other prophets did that too, but a false prophet can't. So you're left with a problem if you're going to call Him a false prophet.

Either He was a false prophet, in which He couldn't have done these things. OR
He was a prophet, meaning that all the things He said were true.

He brought these same questions to the religious leaders of the day. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

FifthFreedom
07-24-2011, 09:33
How exactly, does a false prophet perform miracles. Much less raise people from the dead?

Seriously? Yeah, other prophets did that too, but a false prophet can't. So you're left with a problem if you're going to call Him a false prophet.

Either He was a false prophet, in which He couldn't have done these things. OR
He was a prophet, meaning that all the things He said were true.

He brought these same questions to the religious leaders of the day. A house divided against itself cannot stand.


First, it helps if one know what actually constitutes a prophet. Miracle's don't make a person a prophet. Pharoah's attendants mimicked many of Moshe's miracles, were they Prophets from G-d?

I don't believe what the NT says anyway starting with the "trial" of jsus.
As I posted in another thread but you carefully avoided responding to with any rebuttals based on facts....I posted:

The travesty of justice portrayed in the Greek Text is designed to make the Jews look bad is propaganda and fiction it violates not only Jewish law, but Roman laws imposed upon the Jews at the time.

By 30 CE Jews had LOST the right to pass a death penalty -- both by the Romans and also by Jewish law.

1. The Sanhedrin never met at night --- they met from 9 - 4

2. The Sanhedrin (a combination of the Congress and Supreme Court) only met in the Temple, never at someone's home

3. The Sanhedrin rarely passed the death sentence and when they did the method was stoning -- crucifiction is Roman not Jewish

4. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out -- this was to give time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned

5. The Sanhedrin had lost the ability to pass the death sentence a few years before and by 30 CE were not meeting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone (the only place they COULD pass a sentence of death)

6. The Sanhedrin never met on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

7. The GT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin -- that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the GT.

The Jews didn't have the authority to pass a death sentence and the "trial" as portrayed in the GT is nothing but a farce. It is akin to thinking the United States Supreme court would meet in someone's house and pass a sentence there. Solomon Zeitlin in his book The Rise and Fall of the Judean State Part 2:


Quote: Any disturbance was a peril to the Judean authorities, who could maintain their status only if complete tranquility prevailed.

The high priest in particular - then Caiaphas - was really a servant, or lackey of Rome, appointed by the legate or procurator to ensure local control of malcontents. His sensitivity to the Galilean preacher is not difficult to imagine. Nor is Pilate's...

Pilate was vicious to the people and hostile to their religion. He was cunning and treacherous. Due to his provocations, Judaea was on the brink of rebellion. The leaders of the people and High Priest Caiaphas, knowing his cunning and treachery, were fearful that if anything should happen Pilate would hold them responsible and wreak vengeance on the entire people.


And in THIS thread I posted:

when pressed to recite the Torah and Prophets, your "chacham Nazari" didn't really do that well. He first ADDS to the portion of the Prophet Isaiah---"recovery of sight to the blind" is not in the original Text. Then, when he goes into a vitriolic tirade in his attempts to charge Jews with the murder of prophets, he unloads an accusation that shows his utter ignorance of the Torah and basic bible history.

He blames the Jews with murdering EVERY prophet from Abel to Zechariah. There's four problems with this.
a. The apparent "son of G-d" didn't seem to realize that: CAIN, not the Jews killed Abel.
b. Abel wasn't a prophet, knowledge of the name of G-d only returned with Shem, which is why several of Shem's descendants had knowledge of G-d while Cain's descendants perished in the Flood. (Guess jsus was out creating butterflies when this part of the Chumash was reviewed.)
c. Shem is the father of the peoples from whom the Jews came. Shem wasn't even born during Cain's murdering of Abel.
d. While Jews' origins started with Abraham, the term Jew or Yehudi did not begin until at earliest, with Judah, the son of Jacob (several thousand years AFTER Abel)
e. As for killing prophets, if this "son of god" would have done a little more research, the Jews didn't kill any of the prophets. Their corrupt leaders did; many of those corrupt leaders were in league with foreign interlopers. As for Zechariah, this "word of G-d" savior failed to realize that the Zechariah he alleged was killed, wasn't the prophet. Zechariah ben Ido was the prophet. The Zechariah jsus references was a court official and was killed in a political coup.



I realize there is a lot of big words in there, but clearly he wasn;t who he claimed to be. even if I believed he brought someone back from the dead.
I leave you with the words of Deuteronomy:

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them," (The "Other god" is clearly himself, since he decided to say that He was "alpha and Omega" this was a title that G-d alone claims)
4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him. (jsus wanted us to listing to his(jsus') voice. WE are to listen to nobody but G-d Himself.)
6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.

dbcooper
07-24-2011, 09:59
Ah, Haysus I like him very much



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhWsNtZXdpY&feature=related

Paul7
07-24-2011, 16:25
First, it helps if one know what actually constitutes a prophet. Miracle's don't make a person a prophet.

Miracles helped verify Old Testament Jewish prophets.

[I]The travesty of justice portrayed in the Greek Text is designed to make the Jews look bad is propaganda and fiction it violates not only Jewish law, but Roman laws imposed upon the Jews at the time.

Did you ever consider that the NT accounts were an accurate record of what happened, rather that 'designed to make Jews look bad'? Many of the early Christians WERE Jews, with no motive to make their own people look bad.

Are Jews the only group that can never look bad? They looked bad plenty of times in the OT, where there was a constant cycle of obedience and apostasy, with the obedient times being exceptional. See Jeremiah for how the OT Jews often treated prophets of God. About like they treated Jesus.

By 30 CE Jews had LOST the right to pass a death penalty -- both by the Romans and also by Jewish law.

Exactly why they sought the intervention of Pontius Pilate.

Brasso
07-24-2011, 19:23
The fact that they lost the ability to impose the death penalty should have been their clue. Instead, they chose to believe that Scripture had been broken. They should have known better.

Vic Hays
07-24-2011, 22:47
Miracles helped verify Old Testament Jewish prophets.

Did you ever consider that the NT accounts were an accurate record of what happened, rather that 'designed to make Jews look bad'? Many of the early Christians WERE Jews, with no motive to make their own people look bad.


Miracles did not seem to impress some of the leaders. I guess they were jealous of Jesus.

John 12:9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
12:10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
12:11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

FifthFreedom
07-25-2011, 07:37
Miracles did not seem to impress some of the leaders. I guess they were jealous of Jesus.

John 12:9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
12:10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
12:11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.


I have a hard time understanding why you wished to "call me out" in a sense with this thread, since basically you have done nothing but dance, dodge and excessively post NT writings that you copy/paste without ever actually refuting or discussing the points I make.
:dunno:

FifthFreedom
07-25-2011, 07:38
The fact that they lost the ability to impose the death penalty should have been their clue. Instead, they chose to believe that Scripture had been broken. They should have known better.

Not sure exactly the point you were trying to make.
Scripture had in fact been broken. I have given several examples and am soon going to give more. I am Actually Glad Vic started this thread, I may make the link part of my signature.

FifthFreedom
07-25-2011, 07:47
Miracles helped verify Old Testament Jewish prophets.



Did you ever consider that the NT accounts were an accurate record of what happened, rather that 'designed to make Jews look bad'? Many of the early Christians WERE Jews, with no motive to make their own people look bad.

Are Jews the only group that can never look bad? They looked bad plenty of times in the OT, where there was a constant cycle of obedience and apostasy, with the obedient times being exceptional. See Jeremiah for how the OT Jews often treated prophets of God. About like they treated Jesus.



Exactly why they sought the intervention of Pontius Pilate.



Miracles helped verify Old Testament Jewish prophets.


There were many many prophets in the Tanach, actually not very many of them actually performed miracles. That's just wrong on your part.


Did you ever consider that the NT accounts were an accurate record of what happened, rather that 'designed to make Jews look bad'?

A Torah educated Jew can see that the NT is clearly "anti-Jewish" given the political climate of the time and the fact that Paul seemed to want to start a new "Gentile friendly" religion as a break away from Rome's enemy's religion, I can understand it if not condone it. As to being an "accurate record" The trial and other things wouldn't have happened under Jewish Law the way the NT describes it nor would women be preparing his body for burial, etc. Clearly if these Gospels were "divinely inspired" there would not have been so many glaring mistakes when quoting either the Law or the Tanach.

Are Jews the only group that can never look bad? They looked bad plenty of times in the OT, where there was a constant cycle of obedience and apostasy, with the obedient times being exceptional.

No the Jews are not a group that can never look bad, on the contrary our mistakes were held up as examples to the rest of the world. However, The nations around us were worse which is why we were to refrain from following their idolatrous and hedonistic practices.
If you are claiming our obedient times were somehow the "exception" I suggest you do some more studying because you are clearly wrong.


Exactly why they sought the intervention of Pontius Pilate

And yet the "charges" they allegedly brought against him had nothing to do with his trial, he was killed for sedition along with countless other Jews of his time. Since you seem to think you know so much about our laws, is it within Jewish law to hand a Jew over to a gentile court?

Paul7
07-25-2011, 10:08
There were many many prophets in the Tanach, actually not very many of them actually performed miracles. That's just wrong on your part.

I said miracles helped verify prophets, I didn't say all prophets did miracles. Interesting that the Babylonian Talmud talks about Jesus' miracles, except it attributes them to 'sorcery', just as the Jewish leadership in the NT did.

A Torah educated Jew can see that the NT is clearly "anti-Jewish" given the political climate of the time and the fact that Paul seemed to want to start a new "Gentile friendly" religion as a break away from Rome's enemy's religion,

Why would Paul make up his vision of Jesus, etc. in order to start a new religion? Who gained? All he got was persecution, torture and death. People don't knowingly die for a lie.

No the Jews are not a group that can never look bad, on the contrary our mistakes were held up as examples to the rest of the world.

So why do you reject the Gospel accounts just because they make Jews look bad?

Since you seem to think you know so much about our laws, is it within Jewish law to hand a Jew over to a gentile court?

There were many Jewish laws that were broken in the trial of Jesus:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-arrest-trial-jesus-contrary-to-biblical-jewish-law.html

Again, you admit Jews did wrong in the OT, why is impossible for them to have done wrong in the NT?

FifthFreedom
07-25-2011, 10:35
I said miracles helped verify prophets, I didn't say all prophets did miracles. Interesting that the Babylonian Talmud talks about Jesus' miracles, except it attributes them to 'sorcery', just as the Jewish leadership in the NT did.



Why would Paul make up his vision of Jesus, etc. in order to start a new religion? Who gained? All he got was persecution, torture and death. People don't knowingly die for a lie.



So why do you reject the Gospel accounts just because they make Jews look bad?



There were many Jewish laws that were broken in the trial of Jesus:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-arrest-trial-jesus-contrary-to-biblical-jewish-law.html

Again, you admit Jews did wrong in the OT, why is impossible for them to have done wrong in the NT?



I said miracles helped verify prophets, I didn't say all prophets did miracles. Interesting that the Babylonian Talmud talks about Jesus' miracles, except it attributes them to 'sorcery', just as the Jewish leadership in the NT did.

Please post the tractate and in context please. ( should be interesting)


Why would Paul make up his vision of Jesus, etc. in order to start a new religion? Who gained? All he got was persecution, torture and death. People don't knowingly die for a lie.

They don't? so the early Mormons were dying and being persecuted for truth? How do you explain all the Jews during their persecution by the xtians willing to kiss the sward instead of kiss the cross? Wouldn't the same standard apply?

So why do you reject the Gospel accounts just because they make Jews look bad?

I have given several reason BESIDES that for why I reject it. would you like some more?



There were many Jewish laws that were broken in the trial of Jesus:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-arrest-trial-jesus-contrary-to-biblical-jewish-law.html


Exactly what I thought basically someone trying to prove the NT by constantly quoting...yep, the NT. Wow, what a shock. It is also funny since in another thread you wanted a more "objective source" now you are simply linking me to an article written by missionaries. :yawn:

Paul7
07-25-2011, 11:46
[B]
They don't? so the early Mormons were dying and being persecuted for truth? How do you explain all the Jews during their persecution by the xtians willing to kiss the sward instead of kiss the cross? Wouldn't the same standard apply?

People die for lies all the time, I said knowingly.

Exactly what I thought basically someone trying to prove the NT by constantly quoting...yep, the NT. Wow, what a shock. It is also funny since in another thread you wanted a more "objective source" now you are simply linking me to an article written by missionaries. :yawn:

No, written by people who were there, unlike you. Or are you going to now quit quoting the OT since apparently we can't quote the NT?

Still waiting for you to explain why Jews erred BC but not AD.

FifthFreedom
07-26-2011, 07:35
People die for lies all the time, I said knowingly.



No, written by people who were there, unlike you. Or are you going to now quit quoting the OT since apparently we can't quote the NT?

Still waiting for you to explain why Jews erred BC but not AD.


People die for lies all the time, I said knowingly.



But how do you class "knowingly?"
People who fly plains into buildings "know" that they will be rewarded in heaven. The Early Mormons "knew" they had the truth. The Pagans in Northern Europe who refused xtianity and found themselves beheaded "knew" their gods were the "right ones"


No, written by people who were there, unlike you. Or are you going to now quit quoting the OT since apparently we can't quote the NT?

The people who started that website "were there?" when?
Nobody can be sure of who actually wrote the "gospels"
The link you provided me with strengthens my position more than hurts it. It backs up what I said that clearly this NT "trial" could not have ever happened the way the authors ( whoever they are) actually claimed.

Still waiting for you to explain why Jews erred BC but not AD.

The point of the entire thread is not whether or not Jews ever "erred" in their history, the thread is to counter the claim that somehow jsus was "sinless" I notice you constantly want questions answered, but never want to answer any yourself.

I also notice how you ignored my request that you quote the area of Talmud that you refer to. Funny how xtians always reject the Talmud except when they "think" it supports them.

Also, please show me where Obedience was "Exceptional" and how you arrive at such a conclusion.

Paul7
07-26-2011, 08:38
But how do you class "knowingly?"
People who fly plains into buildings "know" that they will be rewarded in heaven. The Early Mormons "knew" they had the truth. The Pagans in Northern Europe who refused xtianity and found themselves beheaded "knew" their gods were the "right ones"

"Knowingly" would be one who died who claimed to have seen the risen Lord personally, as opposed to one who died because they were told Jesus was resurrected. Why would someone make up a story like that and die for it? Who gained?

Nobody can be sure of who actually wrote the "gospels"

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses. Do you also think nobody knows who wrote the books of the Old Testament?

Also, please show me where Obedience was "Exceptional" and how you arrive at such a conclusion.

What were the 40 years wandering in the wilderness and the Babylonian exile all about? As Stephen said in Acts 7, right before the Jews killed him: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?"

FifthFreedom
07-26-2011, 08:45
"Knowingly" would be one who died who claimed to have seen the risen Lord personally, as opposed to one who died because they were told Jesus was resurrected. Why would someone make up a story like that and die for it? Who gained?



The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses. Do you also think nobody knows who wrote the books of the Old Testament?



What were the 40 years wandering in the wilderness and the Babylonian exile all about? As Stephen said in Acts 7, right before the Jews killed him: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?"

"Knowingly" would be one who died who claimed to have seen the risen Lord personally, as opposed to one who died because they were told Jesus was resurrected. Why would someone make up a story like that and die for it? Who gained?

I guess the same as anyone else who has died for their beliefs. People of countless religions have done so. It doesn't make or break the argument for truth. There is no proof outside of the NT of people who saw anything personally, not is there any eyewitness testimony of any such trial, nor any evidence of it.

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses. Do you also think nobody knows who wrote the books of the Old Testament?

Nobody knows who wrote them. Not to mention originally there were 200 or more, but the church only accepts 4. Why?


What were the 40 years wandering in the wilderness and the Babylonian exile all about?

Um, something to do with ONE particular sin. For the 40 years.
YOu do realize that our biggest reason for being punished is when we copied the acts of our gentile neighbors, not because we were worse than them

Deuteronomy 9:5
Not because of your righteousness or because of the honesty of your heart, do you come to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and in order to establish the matter that the Lord swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

WE were never overly righteous. Nobody said otherwise. I think it's an interesting tactic you are using to get off topic though. When confronted with sins and Torah violations of jsus, you do what missionaries often do, point to someone/something else ;)

Paul7
07-26-2011, 12:20
I guess the same as anyone else who has died for their beliefs. People of countless religions have done so.

Nonsense, I don't know of anyone who has knowingly died for a lie. You and I would probably both agree Islam is not a true religion, but the 9/11 killers didn't know that. If someone like Muhammed made up that cave incident and then died defending the lie, you might have a case.

There is no proof outside of the NT of people who saw anything personally, not is there any eyewitness testimony of any such trial, nor any evidence of it.

Only the testimony of Rome's greatest historian, Tacitus, among others. Why do we even bother?

Nobody knows who wrote them. Not to mention originally there were 200 or more, but the church only accepts 4. Why?

The church was guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should list some of these alleged 200. Again, do we not know who wrote any of the Old Testament?

Um, something to do with ONE particular sin. For the 40 years.
YOu do realize that our biggest reason for being punished is when we copied the acts of our gentile neighbors, not because we were worse than them

I never said Israel was worse than their neighbors.

WE were never overly righteous. Nobody said otherwise.

But you say concerning Jesus, the Jews couldn't possibly have done wrong.

I think it's an interesting tactic you are using to get off topic though. When confronted with sins and Torah violations of jsus, you do what missionaries often do, point to someone/something else ;)

We reject your bogus 'violations' of Jesus, don't you get it?

FifthFreedom
07-26-2011, 12:55
Nonsense, I don't know of anyone who has knowingly died for a lie. You and I would probably both agree Islam is not a true religion, but the 9/11 killers didn't know that. If someone like Muhammed made up that cave incident and then died defending the lie, you might have a case.



Only the testimony of Rome's greatest historian, Tacitus, among others. Why do we even bother?



The church was guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should list some of these alleged 200. Again, do we not know who wrote any of the Old Testament?



I never said Israel was worse than their neighbors.



But you say concerning Jesus, the Jews couldn't possibly have done wrong.



We reject your bogus 'violations' of Jesus, don't you get it?


Nonsense, I don't know of anyone who has knowingly died for a lie. You and I would probably both agree Islam is not a true religion,


Why would Islam not be a true religion? Because it is a different one from yours?

Only the testimony of Rome's greatest historian, Tacitus, among others. Why do we even bother?

You're right, why bother? Because somehow the concept and meaning of EYEWITNESS seems to keep alluding you.

Tacitus is not proof. Tacitus was born in 55 CE -- a good 20 years after the Jsus supposedly died. Ergo he isn't a "witness" to history.

The quote about Jesus that is attributed to Tacitus is never mentioned by anyone until the 15th century of the common era. There was only ONE copy of the "Annals" by Tacitus and it was supposedly "copied" in the 8th century of the common era (700 years after it was supposedly written). The writing itself supposedly dates to about 112 CE -- 70+ years after Jsus supposed death, so definitely not proof of anything even if the quote were from Tacitus himself.

Not to mention that this quote speaks of a "Christos" but nowhere does he identify that person by name. Christos is a Greek word for messiah and there were many messianic claimants. Ergo whether a later forgery or written by Tacitus it is not proof of Jesus as the Christians portray him ever having lived.


The church was guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should list some of these alleged 200. Again, do we not know who wrote any of the Old Testament?

No, it was guided by money and power. Why do you suppose xtianity was nothing more than a fringe group until it gained acceptance by the ruling powers of Rome?

None of the Roman records mention Jsus. Yet we have proof that Bar Kochba (another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jsus' supposedly lived) has archeological and historical proof of HIS existance. Not one record for Jsus, though!

Xians will say "he was unimportant so that is why the Romans didn't mention him" but how can you say a man with thousands of followers (remember the fish and wine bit?) go un-noticed?

I never said Israel was worse than their neighbors.

So why did you go into: What were the 40 years wandering in the wilderness and the Babylonian exile all about? As Stephen said in Acts 7, right before the Jews killed him: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?"

On a side note, here again is a character who seems to enjoy blasting an entire group of people, despite the fact that the majority of the Jews lived in the Diaspora at the time. Yet somehow, the NT authors constantly label "The Jews"


But you say concerning Jesus, the Jews couldn't possibly have done wrong.

No, I say concerning jsus, that like any other man, he sinned. That's not condemning him, everyone sins, but the NT tries to push off this idea that this guy was sinless despite the fact that you have failed to rebutt the list of sins committed, not the least of which was his insulting of a gentile woman, insulting Torah sages, Breaking Sabbath, disprespect to his parents, encouraging other to disrespect their parents ( let the dead bury their dead, he who does not hate his father, mother, sister....is not worthy of me)
He claimed he came not for his own glory but to glorify the Father, yet the only person this joker ever tried to glorify was himself. His two favorite words were "I" and "Me"
He was arrogant even to the point of letting a woman humiliate herself by drying his feet with her hair ( very inappropriate not to mention demeaning) Please show me an example of a real prophet in the Tanach doing something so crude)
Called people fools where by his own mouth he claimed anyone who did so was in danger of "Hell fire"
Every prophet ( and jsus claimed to be one) showed humility, behaved themselves properly and all admonished that the people follow G-d's Torah. jsus however, was all about people following HIM, and while you keep trying to put down the Sages at the time. it's clear from this list that while they were human and no doubt sinned as all people do. The NT does not exactly show a picture of a shining example of morality of this guy who would insult them merely because they asked him why his disciples violated Shabbos. They not only had the right to ask, they have an obligation to do so as do all Jews.
Further The Jewish attitude toward non-Jews is most clearly expressed in King Solomon's prayer, where he says

Quote: (I Kings 8:41-43), When a stranger, who is not of Your people Israel, but comes from a distant land . . . turns in prayer toward this Temple, then listen to his prayers.

Jsus, however, was not so broad minded. When he sent out his twelve disciples, he charged them

Quote: (Matthew 10:5, 6), Do not take the road to gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan city. Go only to the lost sheep of Israel.


(Matthew 5:43:44), You have been previously taught to love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

Where does the Torah state "Thou shalt hate your enemy?"
Like in a previous post in this thread which you and your friends here failed to respond to ( willingly I would imagine) This guy didn't even obviously know Torah, much less be a "living word"
So as a person, he didn't emulate G-d in any way, he was arrogant, behaved like a spoiled child, was rude, violated Torah. and as for being a Messiah,
The Tanach says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "G-d will be King over all the world -- on that day, G-d will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."
So given all this, sorry but you have been misled. Xtianity is what it is. A religion designed for the masses. It may be a truly enlightening religion for millions of people, but clearly jsus wasn't all you build him up to be.

We reject your bogus 'violations' of Jesus, don't you get it?

Yes I do in fact "get it" You reject it. Have at it.

Paul7
07-26-2011, 13:54
Why would Islam not be a true religion? Because it is a different one from yours?

Two conflicting ideas can't both be true. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 can't be both true either. Islam says Jesus isn't God, didn't die on the cross (they don't listen to Tacitus either), etc.

You're right, why bother? Because somehow the concept and meaning of EYEWITNESS seems to keep alluding you.

I have a David McCulloch book on John Adams. David wasn't an eyewitness either. So what? You don't believe the eyewitnesses who did write of the events, and you don't believe Tacitus. As I said, why bother?

Tacitus is not proof. Tacitus was born in 55 CE -- a good 20 years after the Jsus supposedly died. Ergo he isn't a "witness" to history.

I never said he was a witness, he was called 'Rome's Greatest Historian'. Do you throw out everything else he wrote also? If not, why the double standard?

The quote about Jesus that is attributed to Tacitus is never mentioned by anyone until the 15th century of the common era. There was only ONE copy of the "Annals" by Tacitus and it was supposedly "copied" in the 8th century of the common era (700 years after it was supposedly written). The writing itself supposedly dates to about 112 CE -- 70+ years after Jsus supposed death, so definitely not proof of anything even if the quote were from Tacitus himself.

Not to mention that this quote speaks of a "Christos" but nowhere does he identify that person by name. Christos is a Greek word for messiah and there were many messianic claimants. Ergo whether a later forgery or written by Tacitus it is not proof of Jesus as the Christians portray him ever having lived.

Wikipedia disagrees with you:

"The Roman historian Tacitus's evidence for the historical existence of Christ and early Christians is found in his Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44. Tacitus refers to Christ, Pontius Pilate, and mass executions of the Christians.[1] The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[2][3]"

No, it was guided by money and power.

So where was the payoff for the Apostles, 10 or 11 of whom died for their faith, according to tradition? Is Judaism also just about money and power?

None of the Roman records mention Jsus.

Completely false, see Wikipedia on Tacitus. Also see Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Josephus also mentions Jesus.

Yet we have proof that Bar Kochba (another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jsus' supposedly lived) has archeological and historical proof of HIS existance.

No, that 'proof' is from biased promoters of the Bar Kochba-myth. Do you have evidence from anyone not a biased promoter of this myth? See how that works?

Xians will say "he was unimportant so that is why the Romans didn't mention him"

No, we would say the Romans DID mention him, several times.

On a side note, here again is a character who seems to enjoy blasting an entire group of people,

Who's blasting an entire group of people? I'm saying they are not above reproach in the trial of Jesus, as you maintain.

No, I say concerning jsus, that like any other man, he sinned. That's not condemning him, everyone sins, but the NT tries to push off this idea that this guy was sinless despite the fact that you have failed to rebutt the list of sins committed, not the least of which was his insulting of a gentile woman,

Huh?

insulting Torah sages,

Who were apparantly hypocritical 'whited sepulchres', like some of their OT predecesors.

Breaking Sabbath,

As Jesus pointed out, even David 'broke' the Sabbath. It was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Called people fools where by his own mouth he claimed anyone who did so was in danger of "Hell fire"

He is God, and perfectly able to judge anyone. What God can do and fallen and finite man can do are two different things.

Every prophet ( and jsus claimed to be one)

Actually, He claimed to be God.

The NT does not exactly show a picture of a shining example of morality of this guy

A billion Christians disagree with your opinion.

Further The Jewish attitude toward non-Jews is most clearly expressed in King Solomon's prayer, where he says

Quote: (I Kings 8:41-43), When a stranger, who is not of Your people Israel, but comes from a distant land . . . turns in prayer toward this Temple, then listen to his prayers.

Jsus, however, was not so broad minded. When he sent out his twelve disciples, he charged them

Quote: (Matthew 10:5, 6), Do not take the road to gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan city. Go only to the lost sheep of Israel.


Another 'contradiction' that isn't. The good news about the kingdom was to be proclaimed first to Jews only. After His death and resurrection, Jesus commanded the message to be taken to all nations (Matt. 28:19).

(Matthew 5:43:44), You have been previously taught to love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

Where does the Torah state "Thou shalt hate your enemy?"

Where did Jesus say that was from the Torah? According to some Biblical scholars, hatred for one's enemies was an accepted part of the Jewish ethic at that time.

The Tanach says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Why do you think this refers to the Third Temple, and do you think it will last forever, as v. 28 says?

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "G-d will be King over all the world -- on that day, G-d will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

He will fulfill these at the Second Coming.


Just curious, do you know what tribe you are? The OT says the Messiah will come from a certain tribe, and since the temple records were destroyed in 70AD, few if any Jews know what tribe they're descended from. Therefore, you have to pick a Messiah from someone who lived prior to 70AD.

Schabesbert
07-26-2011, 14:06
Nonsense, I don't know of anyone who has knowingly died for a lie. You and I would probably both agree Islam is not a true religion,


Why would Islam not be a true religion? Because it is a different one from yours?
That's not what he meant, but that's irrelevant. Do you now understand what he meant by not knowingly dying for a lie?

Only the testimony of Rome's greatest historian, Tacitus, among others. Why do we even bother?

You're right, why bother? Because somehow the concept and meaning of EYEWITNESS seems to keep alluding you.

Tacitus is not proof. Tacitus was born in 55 CE -- a good 20 years after the Jsus supposedly died. Ergo he isn't a "witness" to history.
FF, I have to ask here: where did you get this "test" for veracity?
It certainly can't be applied, for instance, to the witnessing of God at Mt. Sinai, right? In other words, there are no historical witnesses to that Theophany outside of Scriptures, so why the differing standards?

Not to mention that this quote speaks of a "Christos" but nowhere does he identify that person by name. Christos is a Greek word for messiah and there were many messianic claimants. Ergo whether a later forgery or written by Tacitus it is not proof of Jesus as the Christians portray him ever having lived.
Possible but extremely weak argument. By this time, the believers' name had long been changed to "Christians." This is in reference to that same titular "name." It would only make sense that this title would be associated with that religion only.

The church was guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should list some of these alleged 200. Again, do we not know who wrote any of the Old Testament?

No, it was guided by money and power. Why do you suppose xtianity was nothing more than a fringe group until it gained acceptance by the ruling powers of Rome?
Fringe group? Really?

How many other fringe groups were actually, specifically called out to be cursed in the Synagogue? (Birkat ha-minim)

None of the Roman records mention Jsus. Yet we have proof that Bar Kochba (another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jsus' supposedly lived) has archeological and historical proof of HIS existance.
Because this instigated a rebellion!
The Romans didn't care much what gods were worshipped, so long as the subjected people didn't rebel!!!

FifthFreedom
07-26-2011, 16:54
Two conflicting ideas can't both be true. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 can't be both true either. Islam says Jesus isn't God, didn't die on the cross (they don't listen to Tacitus either), etc.



I have a David McCulloch book on John Adams. David wasn't an eyewitness either. So what? You don't believe the eyewitnesses who did write of the events, and you don't believe Tacitus. As I said, why bother?



I never said he was a witness, he was called 'Rome's Greatest Historian'. Do you throw out everything else he wrote also? If not, why the double standard?



Wikipedia disagrees with you:

"The Roman historian Tacitus's evidence for the historical existence of Christ and early Christians is found in his Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44. Tacitus refers to Christ, Pontius Pilate, and mass executions of the Christians.[1] The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[2][3]"



So where was the payoff for the Apostles, 10 or 11 of whom died for their faith, according to tradition? Is Judaism also just about money and power?



Completely false, see Wikipedia on Tacitus. Also see Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Josephus also mentions Jesus.



No, that 'proof' is from biased promoters of the Bar Kochba-myth. Do you have evidence from anyone not a biased promoter of this myth? See how that works?



No, we would say the Romans DID mention him, several times.



Who's blasting an entire group of people? I'm saying they are not above reproach in the trial of Jesus, as you maintain.



Huh?



Who were apparantly hypocritical 'whited sepulchres', like some of their OT predecesors.



As Jesus pointed out, even David 'broke' the Sabbath. It was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.



He is God, and perfectly able to judge anyone. What God can do and fallen and finite man can do are two different things.



Actually, He claimed to be God.



A billion Christians disagree with your opinion.



Another 'contradiction' that isn't. The good news about the kingdom was to be proclaimed first to Jews only. After His death and resurrection, Jesus commanded the message to be taken to all nations (Matt. 28:19).



Where did Jesus say that was from the Torah? According to some Biblical scholars, hatred for one's enemies was an accepted part of the Jewish ethic at that time.



Why do you think this refers to the Third Temple, and do you think it will last forever, as v. 28 says?



He will fulfill these at the Second Coming.


Just curious, do you know what tribe you are? The OT says the Messiah will come from a certain tribe, and since the temple records were destroyed in 70AD, few if any Jews know what tribe they're descended from. Therefore, you have to pick a Messiah from someone who lived prior to 70AD.


Two conflicting ideas can't both be true. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 can't be both true either. Islam says Jesus isn't God, didn't die on the cross (they don't listen to Tacitus either), etc.


In other words, Islam doesn't agree with your religion, therefore, by default, you claim it is false. A billion muslims disagree with you ( see we all can play the numbers game;)


I have a David McCulloch book on John Adams. David wasn't an eyewitness either. So what? You don't believe the eyewitnesses who did write of the events, and you don't believe Tacitus. As I said, why bother?

My point was. This is supposed to be something rather monumental no? "G-d" allegedly taking the form of a man, appearing to "countless people" after his "resurrection" wouldn't the eyewitness records of his trial be a hot item? yet as i pointed out, there are no (here we go again) EYE WITNESS outside of the NT that offer any supporting evidence of such.

I never said he was a witness, he was called 'Rome's Greatest Historian'. Do you throw out everything else he wrote also? If not, why the double standard?
Again nobody is saying he was a bad historian, but writing about something he heard is not the same as writing about something HE WITNESSED


"The Roman historian Tacitus's evidence for the historical existence of Christ and early Christians is found in his Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44. Tacitus refers to Christ, Pontius Pilate, and mass executions of the Christians.[1] The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[2][3]"


So please post the direct quotes form the book please. I have no doubt it would make a reference to xtians, etc. Not sure exactly what you think that proves.



So where was the payoff for the Apostles, 10 or 11 of whom died for their faith, according to tradition? Is Judaism also just about money and power?

I think you missed my point.


Who's blasting an entire group of people? I'm saying they are not above reproach in the trial of Jesus, as you maintain.

No human being is "above reproach" including jsus. My point was and is, that the "trial" in the NT goes against history and doesn't jive with Halacha either.



Completely false, see Wikipedia on Tacitus. Also see Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Josephus also mentions Jesus.



you mentioned Pliny. As with Tacitus, he was born to late to "prove" that Jesus was a real person. Pliny is said to have written a letter to the Roman Emperor in the early 2nd century of the common era asking how to deal with Christians. Now the question here is "which Christians?" The word "christ" simply meant "messiah" or "anointed one." There were many messianic claimants in those days and nothing says the Christians in questions were followers of Jesus (they could have been following another "christ").

Lastly you mention Lucian. He is in the boat with Pliny the Younger and Tacitus -- he was born AFTER Jesus supposedly existed -- again 2nd century of the common era. He supposedly wrote about Christians (again WHICH Christians?) not about Jesus ever having lived.


Lucian is not an independent witness to Jsus.

Lucian of Samosata (c.125-180 CE), was a Greek satirist best known for his dialogues (Dialogues of the gods, Dialogues of the Dead, The Sale of Lives) ridiculing Greek mythology and philosophy; he also authored a work entitled True History. McDowell cites the following statement by Lucian written around 170 CE:

Quote: ... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.[144]



In a previous version of this essay, quoting Michael Grant, I questioned whether Lucian was concerned with historical accuracy.[145] I misinterpreted Grant; elsewhere Grant makes it clear that Lucian was concerned with historical accuracy. According to Grant, Lucian felt it important to separate instruction from entertainment.[146] Grant notes that Lucian felt a historian should be "stateless;" in other words, Lucian thought the historian should try to remain impartial when recording events concerning the historian's own nation.[147] Moreover, Lucian "denounced fraudulent biography" and said that "it was the sole duty of the historian to ... say exactly how things happened."[148]

Nevertheless, given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jsus. Lucian may have relied upon Chrstian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources, we will never know.

Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Chrstian claim that their founder had been crucified. There is simply no evidence that Lucian ever doubted the historicity of Jsus. Therefore, Lucian's concern for historical accuracy is not even relevant as Lucian would have had no motive for investigating the matter.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html



Who were apparantly hypocritical 'whited sepulchres', like some of their OT predecesors.


Based on "This guy said so" otherwise there are really no proofs of this. A lot of accusations against them, yet even the NT doesn't exactly provide many details except "jsus said so"


As Jesus pointed out, even David 'broke' the Sabbath. It was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.


Please point out in the scripture where David broke the Sabbath please.


Actually, He claimed to be God.

Actually he didn't.


Another 'contradiction' that isn't. The good news about the kingdom was to be proclaimed first to Jews only. After His death and resurrection, Jesus commanded the message to be taken to all nations

Actually, it is another example of a "prophecy that isn't" point to the prophets of the Tanach and tell me which one made that claim.


He is God, and perfectly able to judge anyone. What God can do and fallen and finite man can do are two different things.

So now back to he is G-d. Yet he says "why callest me thou good? there is none good except your Father in heaven." Obviously he did didn't think he was G-d.
Likewise, G-d wouldn't violate his own Law. Why would he?


He will fulfill these at the Second Coming.

Another "prophecy that isn't" there is nowhere in the Tanach that states the Messiah will die and then somehow return for "round two" a few thousand years later. it's just another way for apologist to explain away why he didn't fulfill the prophecies.


Just curious, do you know what tribe you are? The OT says the Messiah will come from a certain tribe, and since the temple records were destroyed in 70AD, few if any Jews know what tribe they're descended from. Therefore, you have to pick a Messiah from someone who lived prior to 70AD.

So without Roman Records, G-d would be confused and therefore wouldn't know who to provide as a Messiah?

FifthFreedom
07-27-2011, 06:56
That's not what he meant, but that's irrelevant. Do you now understand what he meant by not knowingly dying for a lie?


FF, I have to ask here: where did you get this "test" for veracity?
It certainly can't be applied, for instance, to the witnessing of God at Mt. Sinai, right? In other words, there are no historical witnesses to that Theophany outside of Scriptures, so why the differing standards?


Possible but extremely weak argument. By this time, the believers' name had long been changed to "Christians." This is in reference to that same titular "name." It would only make sense that this title would be associated with that religion only.


Fringe group? Really?

How many other fringe groups were actually, specifically called out to be cursed in the Synagogue? (Birkat ha-minim)


Because this instigated a rebellion!
The Romans didn't care much what gods were worshipped, so long as the subjected people didn't rebel!!!


FF, I have to ask here: where did you get this "test" for veracity?
It certainly can't be applied, for instance, to the witnessing of God at Mt. Sinai, right? In other words, there are no historical witnesses to that Theophany outside of Scriptures, so why the differing standards?


You and I covered this before Bert.


Fringe group? Really?

Yes, really.


How many other fringe groups were actually, specifically called out to be cursed in the Synagogue?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our Mishnah ( Avodah Zarah)

Because this instigated a rebellion!

Really? According to Paul7 it was a "myth"
What is more important in history, a rebellion, or the "savior of the world" coming to planet earth to save all of humanity? One is record worthy and one isn't?

In short, I have mentioned before, whether or not this guy actually lived isn't relevant to me either way. When someone/something goes against Torah, I reject it. Why? Because We are commanded to.
I gave a fairly decent list of problems i have with this character, you may disagree, but so be it.
The response so far seems to be, since this guy claims he was "G-d" he somehow can be a hypocrite and break rules and behave in a manner opposite of what he commands of his people, namely respect of parents, love one's neighbor, not to vex the stranger, etc. jsus broke all of these per the NT yet the main rebuttal from paul7 seems to be summed up on simply the whole Sabbath breaking ordeal which he claimed was ok since "David did it too"
He is wrong here as well, I think he is misquoting the passage in Luke that refers to David eating of the showbread, which, if this "living word" would have done his homework, he would have seen that David did not commit any transgression by doing so.

FifthFreedom
07-27-2011, 07:08
As Jesus pointed out, even David 'broke' the Sabbath. It was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.


And yet another scriptural mistake from the "living word" Funny how a guy can claim to be a prophet or as some claim, "Be at one with G-d" yet constantly get G-d's word wrong




We read from the Prophet Isaiah:

58:13. If you restrain your foot because of the Sabbath, from performing your affairs on My holy day, and you call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honored, and you honor it by not doing your wonted ways, by not pursuing your affairs and speaking words.
14. Then, you shall delight with the Lord, and I will cause you to ride on the high places of the land, and I will give you to eat the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

The Sabbath is G-d's day, not man's while we do see it as a gift because we refrain from work and take the time to reflect on G-d's creation as well as our freedom from bondage, we have no right to desecrate it and treat it however we want to.

Paul7
07-27-2011, 07:57
And yet another scriptural mistake from the "living word" Funny how a guy can claim to be a prophet or as some claim, "Be at one with G-d" yet constantly get G-d's word wrong

"On the 7th day (yom) HaShem completed His work that he had done, and he abstained on the 7th day From all the work He had done. HaShem blessed the 7thy day and made it holy...."

Here is a newsflash...on the 7th day, there was no such animal as "Man"
G-d is the Creator who brought the world into creation and rested on the 7th day (yom) The observance of the Sabbath Laws constitutes devoted testimony to this.

Now if I know anyone on here, I am sure the counter argument will be " well, G-d forsaw man would need a rest day so he created a special day before hand just for him"

We read from the Prophet Isaiah:

58:13. If you restrain your foot because of the Sabbath, from performing your affairs on My holy day, and you call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honored, and you honor it by not doing your wonted ways, by not pursuing your affairs and speaking words.
14. Then, you shall delight with the Lord, and I will cause you to ride on the high places of the land, and I will give you to eat the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

The Sabbath is G-d's day, not man's while we do see it as a gift because we refrain from work and take the time to reflect on G-d's creation as well as our freedom from bondage, we have no right to desecrate it and treat it however we want to.

In answer to your question about David, he broke the law by eating the temple shewbread, not by breaking the Sabbath as I originally said. From an article by Ivan Maddox:



"Fortunately, this is not all Jesus had to say on the subject of his Sabbath activities. Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be of "quick understanding in the fear of the Lord..." (Isaiah 11:3) Nowhere is this more evident than in Jesus' handling of the Sabbath issues. Far from disobeying the Law regarding the Sabbath, Jesus understood it and obeyed it far better than anyone before or since.

Jesus gave at least eleven different reasons for apparently breaking the Sabbath law .


1. Pulling an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath was permitted.
2. Circumcision is permitted on the Sabbath.
3. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
4. The precedent of David and his men eating the shewbread.
5. Priests work on the Sabbath and are blameless.
6. The ministry of the Messiah is greater than the ministry of the Temple.
7. God desires mercy from His people and not sacrifice.
8. The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
9. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
10. It is lawful to lead animals to water on the Sabbath.
11. The Father works on the Sabbath.


As we examine these reasons, we will see the greatness of his respect for and adherence to God's written revelation. We will see how carefully Jesus distinguished between what men said, and what God said. We will gain greater insight into how Jesus applied the scriptures to everyday life, and how he balanced walking in love with walking according to the scriptures. And we will gain an even greater appreciation of the incredible insight Jesus had into the heart of God.

Luke 14:1-6
1 ¶ And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.
2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.
3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
4 And they held their peace. And he took [him], and healed him, and let him go;
5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
6 And they could not answer him again to these things.
In this instance, Jesus was preparing to heal someone on the Sabbath. Knowing that the lawyers and Pharisees were going to make an issue of this, he raised the question himself: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?

The lawyers and Pharisees knew the "legal" answer to this question. The Sabbath law in the scriptures did not address this at all.

Exodus 20:8-11.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
However, in defining the word "work," the rabbis had concluded that giving medical attention to an individual on the Sabbath constituted work. They ruled, for instance, that if someone broke his or her arm on the Sabbath, the arm could not be set until the Sabbath was over. They also ruled that a person with a toothache could not suck on vinegar (the common toothache remedy) to ease his or her pain. (The sufferer could, however, choose to drink vinegar with his or her regular meals.) In light of these rulings, healing on the Sabbath was definitely out of the question.

The lawyers and Pharisees, though, wisely decided to keep their mouths shut. Jesus gave his own answer to his question emphatically and unequivocally by healing the sick man in front of him. He then gave the lawyers and Pharisees his reason for doing so.

While the rabbis had forbidden people from coming to the aid of other people in distress, no such rule applied to animals. Routinely, people who found their animals in a potentially dangerous situation rescued them from it. There are two logical reasons for this. First, rescuing the animal showed mercy to the animal; something that was encouraged in the scriptures.

Proverbs 12:10
10 A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel.
Second, not rescuing the animal could result in major financial loss, or, in some cases, loss of livelihood. The rabbis, by their silence, gave their approval to what was technically a breaking of the Sabbath law. Jesus did not disagree with this practice; he simply extended the same courtesy that was routinely given to animals to human beings. If it was lawful to help an animal who MIGHT be injured on the Sabbath, how could it possibly be wrong to help a human being who was already hurt?

Jesus gave another reason for healing on the Sabbath in John 7.

John 7:19-24
19 Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Jesus gave an example here of a situation where two provisions of the Law were in conflict. Under the Law, a male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. However, the Law also required that no work be done on the Sabbath day. Circumcising a child was clearly work. What did you do, then, when two provisions of the Law were in conflict?

The rabbis had concluded that the provision requiring that the child be circumcised on the eighth day took precedence over the Sabbath prohibition against work. Jesus agreed with their conclusion, but argued that a similar issue was at stake on the issue of healing on the Sabbath.

The Law required that a man love his neighbor as himself.

Leviticus 19:17-18.
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Jesus identified this as one of the two key provisions of the Law.

Matthew 22:35-39.
35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
When you are sick, there is no real question about what you would like for yourself: you want to be made whole. What does it mean, then, to love your neighbor as yourself when your neighbor is sick or injured? It means helping your neighbor regain his health; whether that means setting a broken bone or ministering divine healing. For Jesus, loving your neighbor meant making a valid exception for adhering to the Sabbath law in order to minister to the very real need of your neighbor.

In Matthew 12, two incidents of apparent Sabbath law breaking by Jesus and his disciples are described. In the second of these incidents, the issue was healing on the Sabbath. Jesus once again used the animal in a pit argument to make his case.

Matthew 12:9-13.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
But Jesus makes another statement here; and it is this which is really the point he is making: it is not contrary to the Law to do that which is good on the Sabbath days.

Jesus understood that the purpose of the Law was not merely to get people to follow the right rules, but to produce a changed heart which issued forth willingly the right thoughts and actions desired by God. The provisions of the Law were a means to an end.

Jesus’ point was that ministering to the needs of a man who needed healing was just the kind of righteous act, issuing forth from righteous motives, that God was looking for from those who obeyed Him by obeying His Law. This act of love was not a violation of the Sabbath, even though it technically involved working on a day on which the Law forbade work. Rather, it was exactly the kind of loving act that obedience to the Law was meant to encourage.

The end purpose of knowing and doing the Law was bringing forth the right kind of fruit. Psalm 1 says of the man who delights in God’s Law and meditates on it (speaks it to himself) day and night, that he will be like a tree "that brings forth his fruit in his season." A certain scribe grasped this when he said in Mark 12:33,

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

And the Apostle Paul echoed this when, after listing the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5, he wrote, "against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:23.)

Galatians 5:14
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
In healing a man on the Sabbath day, Jesus was not rebelling against God’s instructions; rather, he saw in this man’s need an opportunity to bring forth exactly the kind of fruit God was looking for, and he did not use the provisions of the Sabbath law as an excuse for not walking in love toward his neighbor. He balanced his obligation to love God with his whole heart and his obligation to love his neighor as himself, in this instance, by ministering to his neighbor on the Sabbath even though that was technically a violation of the Sabbath law. There is no law against bringing forth righteous fruit.

In the other incident in this passage -- the incident which occurs first -- Jesus was accused, not of healing on the Sabbath, but of allowing his disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath. On the surface, this appears to be a much more grievous violation of the Sabbath law, and seems indefensable. However, Jesus gave at least five reasons for allowing his disciples to do what they did.

Matthew 12:1-8.
1 ¶ At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

First, Jesus pointed to the incident where David and his men ate the shewbread, described in I Samuel 21.

I Samuel 21:1-6.
1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee?
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed [my] servants to such and such a place.
3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women havebeen kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.
6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.
As Jesus pointed out, what the priest did for David was contrary to the Law. But Jesus here makes his argument from the silence of the scriptures, for God nowhere in the scriptures condemns what the David and the priest did, but silently passes over it. From this, Jesus concludes that neither David and his men nor the priest were guilty of sin, even though they were disobeying an explicit provision of the Law. Rather, the priest was showing mercy to David in the best way he could. If he had had common bread on hand, he would have given that only to David, and strictly upheld the provisions of the Law. But he had no common bread on hand, and thus was forced to choose between not showing mercy, and disobeying a clear and explicit commandment of the Law. He chose the latter, and God honored his decision.

Second, Jesus pointed out that the priests work every Sabbath day. The Law required that the priests offer both a morning sacrifice and an evening sacrifice seven days a week. However, this is at odds with the Sabbath law, which requires that men refrain from work on the Sabbath day. The priests were forced to choose between regularly omitting the commanded sacrifices each Sabbath, or regularly and systematically disobeying the Sabbath law in order to obey the sacrifice law. They chose the latter, and God approved of their decision. The ministry required of them in the Temple was important enough to warrant making an exception to the Sabbath law.

Third, Jesus pointed out that if the ministry of the Temple was important enough to warrant this, the ministry of the Messiah was even more important. Thus the Messiah, in the course of carrying out his God-given duties, might need on occasion to make an exception to the Sabbath law in order to carry out the work God had given him to do.

Fourth, Jesus quoted part of a verse from Hosea.

Hosea 6:6.
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Jesus explained that if one understood the meaning of the words, "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice," one would refrain from condemning one who had done no wrong in this matter. By pointing his hearers to this verse, Jesus was emphasizing that what God was looking for from men was not external obedience to a set of rules, but rather a changed heart from which sprang forth love for God, and lovingkindness and mercy for one’s fellow men. This truth is emphasized by a passage in Zechariah.

Zechariah 7:4-13.
4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying,
5 Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh [month], even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, [even] to me?
6 And when ye did eat, and when ye did drink, did not ye eat [for yourselves], and drink [for yourselves]?
7 [Should ye] not [hear] the words which the LORD hath cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, when [men] inhabited the south and the plain?
8 And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying,
9 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother:
10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.
11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
12 Yea, they made their hearts [as] an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts.
13 Therefore it is come to pass, [that] as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the LORD of hosts:
When Jerusalem rebelled against God, what was God’s plea to her? Was it, "Return to offering your sacrifices?" or, "Return to your fasting?" or even, "Return to keeping the Sabbath day holy?" Or was it instead, "Be honest in your judgments, and show mercy and love to your brother?" What was the bottom line of God’s will for them? If you understand this, you will understand the point that Jesus was trying to make here. It is not that the other things were not important; rather the point is that love and mercy and justice are the bottom line of what God is looking for, and not these other things.

Fifth, and most important, Jesus pointed out that as the Messiah, he is the Lord of the Sabbath. This is not a minor point at all, but strikes right at the heart of the issue of Jesus’ actions and attitude with regard to the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:8.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Schabesbert
07-27-2011, 08:09
FF, I have to ask here: where did you get this "test" for veracity?
It certainly can't be applied, for instance, to the witnessing of God at Mt. Sinai, right? In other words, there are no historical witnesses to that Theophany outside of Scriptures, so why the differing standards?


You and I covered this before Bert.
Was the conclusion that you were using a double-standard?

How many other fringe groups were actually, specifically called out to be cursed in the Synagogue?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our Mishnah ( Avodah Zarah)
Or, perhaps you could answer the question?

Because this instigated a rebellion!

Really? According to Paul7 it was a "myth"
What is more important in history, a rebellion, or the "savior of the world" coming to planet earth to save all of humanity?
In reality, the latter. In the minds of those who put political power first (such as the Roman officials, Herod, Annas and Caiaphas), the former is much, much more important.

One is record worthy and one isn't?
Yes, absolutely.

FifthFreedom
07-27-2011, 08:13
Paul,
you really don't need to post all that concerning Sabbath, there are no doubt things we are in fact allowed to do and things we are NOT allowed to do. The problem with this analogy given by the NT is thus:

The People asked him why his disciples were doing something that was forbidden on Shabbos. This itself is not a crime, they called them no names, didn't insult them, nor threaten them. They did what they had a right to do. Not to mention violation of Shabbos under the Law was a capitol offense. It seems funny that they didn't have him put to death for this, since according to the NT, all they ever wanted to do was have jsus killed.
In Luke, they also warned him that Herod wanted to kill him. Why would people allegedly committed to his destruction help him avoid danger? He also addressed himself as " a prophet" in that passage but i digress.

The problem you are having with the Passage concerning David.....

I Samuel 21:1-6.
1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee?
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed [my] servants to such and such a place.
3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women havebeen kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.
6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.


Three things:
1: I fail to see what this has to do with Shabbat.
2: ( Highlighted in black)The problem would have arisen had they eaten the bread in a contaminated state ( see Leviticus 15 i think, but going from memory here) which would have been a transgression.
3: (highlighted in blue) there was no other bread available and the Kohen had the right to allow them to eat the bread if their lives/health was at stake. Under Jewish Law any Torah mandate can be temporarily suspended if human life is at stake except for murder, adultery, and idolatry.
So you see, David didn't transgress at all.
Even if he did, it doesn't excuse anyone else. Nobody claimed that David was sinless ( Bath-sheba)

In contrast, the disciples clearly were not in a life or death situation and had they been, it may explain why no action was taken other than someone questioning them. The fact that jsus responded with jeers and insults and accusations against them and then trying to excuse it by trying to point to an alleged "sin" by David is not a show of a very godly person.

FifthFreedom
07-27-2011, 08:23
Was the conclusion that you were using a double-standard?


Or, perhaps you could answer the question?


In reality, the latter. In the minds of those who put political power first (such as the Roman officials, Herod, Annas and Caiaphas), the former is much, much more important.


Yes, absolutely.


Was the conclusion that you were using a double-standard?


No. We discussed an unbroken chain from Sianai to the present, if i remember correctly, thoug, you fussed that you thought you saw a "lapse" in the chain.


Or, perhaps you could answer the question?

Any and all forms of Avodah Zarah were condemned. We were surrounded by heretical groups, pagans, etc. Xtianity was certainly no threat to What we call Judaism today in jsus' time. It was a tiny sect of a religion just like countless others. The Romans had a religion for everything and anything. Xtianity was just another "flavor"



In reality, the latter. In the minds of those who put political power first (such as the Roman officials, Herod, Annas and Caiaphas), the former is much, much more important.

Well on that we both agree at last on the first part of your post. Difficult thing to understand, if this "miraculous resurrection" was so well known, wouldn't people like Herod be shaking in their boots at that point thinking "oh *****! That was the Son of G-d I mistreated!"
While on the subject, why would someone who wanted to save the whole world not at least go to Herod, Pilate, the Roman people, etc. to reveal his resurrected self? Contrast this to G-d revealing himself to the entire nation of Israel from smallest to greatest.


Yes, absolutely.

That is a matter of opinion.

Paul7
07-27-2011, 12:15
Difficult thing to understand, if this "miraculous resurrection" was so well known, wouldn't people like Herod be shaking in their boots at that point thinking "oh *****! That was the Son of G-d I mistreated!"

"The Roman officer and the other soldiers at the crucifixion were terrified by the earthquake and all that had happened. They said, "This man truly was the Son of God!"

Matt. 27:54

While on the subject, why would someone who wanted to save the whole world not at least go to Herod, Pilate, the Roman people, etc. to reveal his resurrected self?

The purpose was to convince the Apostles, etc. that He really did did rise from the dead, which have them the gumption to change from a small band of timid followers to a force nobody could silence. Before His appearance, they were not disposed to believe in the Resurrection, Peter had gone back to his old profession of fishing, Thomas refused to believe at first, etc.

Vic Hays
07-27-2011, 13:43
Well on that we both agree at last on the first part of your post. Difficult thing to understand, if this "miraculous resurrection" was so well known, wouldn't people like Herod be shaking in their boots at that point thinking "oh *****! That was the Son of G-d I mistreated!"
While on the subject, why would someone who wanted to save the whole world not at least go to Herod, Pilate, the Roman people, etc. to reveal his resurrected self? Contrast this to G-d revealing himself to the entire nation of Israel from smallest to greatest.


Would you have believed if someone claiming to be Jesus showed up?

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Paul7
07-27-2011, 20:13
Would you have believed if someone claiming to be Jesus showed up?

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Exactly. Most of the Jewish leadership who saw Jesus do miracles did not believe. It is interesting that both in the NT and the later Babylonian Talmud they did not deny the miracles, but attributed them to 'sorcery'.

FifthFreedom
07-28-2011, 06:45
"The Roman officer and the other soldiers at the crucifixion were terrified by the earthquake and all that had happened. They said, "This man truly was the Son of God!"

Matt. 27:54



The purpose was to convince the Apostles, etc. that He really did did rise from the dead, which have them the gumption to change from a small band of timid followers to a force nobody could silence. Before His appearance, they were not disposed to believe in the Resurrection, Peter had gone back to his old profession of fishing, Thomas refused to believe at first, etc.


Well in fairness, this group that couldn't be silenced didn't actually become much of a force until almost 400 years later. Long after they were dead.

Why wouldn't they have believed in resurrection? According to what xtians love to say "the first xtians were mostly Jews" The Pharisees very much believed in resurrection. Peter went back to his profession more than likely because working usually has something to do with eating. Can't a fisherman believe in resurrection?

FifthFreedom
07-28-2011, 06:46
Exactly. Most of the Jewish leadership who saw Jesus do miracles did not believe. It is interesting that both in the NT and the later Babylonian Talmud they did not deny the miracles, but attributed them to 'sorcery'.

You keep making this statement but continue to refuse to site the section of the Talmud you are referring to? May I ask why?

FifthFreedom
07-28-2011, 06:48
Would you have believed if someone claiming to be Jesus showed up?

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Notwithstanding this story is metaphorical, why the the resurrection at all then?

Vic Hays
07-28-2011, 09:38
Notwithstanding this story is metaphorical, why the the resurrection at all then?

Why the resurrection? This is a good question.

It goes back to the beginning with the penalty for sin. God cannot lie so when He says the penalty for sin is death, it must be so.
God did not want to leave Adam and Eve in a lost condition with death as the only future for them.

The redeemer showed the way. He would die and then because He did not sin He could be resurrected.

Anyone willing to accept the death of Jesus in their stead can be raised like Jesus was.

Hebrews 2:14-18 Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

FifthFreedom
07-28-2011, 09:53
Why the resurrection? This is a good question.

It goes back to the beginning with the penalty for sin. God cannot lie so when He says the penalty for sin is death, it must be so.
God did not want to leave Adam and Eve in a lost condition with death as the only future for them.

The redeemer showed the way. He would die and then because He did not sin He could be resurrected.

Anyone willing to accept the death of Jesus in their stead can be raised like Jesus was.

Hebrews 2:14-18 Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.


So Elijah accepted this person's "death" and that's why he was taken directly to Shomayim?

G-d didn't say the penalty for sin was death. Paul did. Now you are saying Paul trumps G-d, who is next?

No G-d did not want Adam And Chava to die, yet their living forever depended on them eating from the tree of life, they were driven from it and eventually died.


For in that He himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Well congrats. You just killed your own argument that jsus is G-d. According to your own scripture:
James1:13 it reads: "Let no man say he is tempted of G-d, for G-d cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

So If jsus was tempted with sin, he clearly cannot be G-d.

Vic Hays
07-28-2011, 10:10
So Elijah accepted this person's "death" and that's why he was taken directly to Shomayim?

G-d didn't say the penalty for sin was death. Paul did. Now you are saying Paul trumps G-d, who is next?

No G-d did not want Adam And Chava to die, yet their living forever depended on them eating from the tree of life, they were driven from it and eventually died.


For in that He himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Well congrats. You just killed your own argument that jsus is G-d. According to your own scripture:
James1:13 it reads: "Let no man say he is tempted of G-d, for G-d cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

So If jsus was tempted with sin, he clearly cannot be G-d.

1. Yes, Old testament characters faith was an acceptance of Jesus death for them.

2. God said that if they disobeyed Him (sinned) they would die.
Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yopu shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

3. Jesus was tempted just like any other man, but without sin. He did not put on a spacesuit to visit us, He became flesh.
" For in that He himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted."

FifthFreedom
07-28-2011, 10:21
1. Yes, Old testament characters faith was an acceptance of Jesus death for them.

2. God said that if they disobeyed Him (sinned) they would die.
Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yopu shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

3. Jesus was tempted just like any other man, but without sin. He did not put on a spacesuit to visit us, He became flesh.
" For in that He himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted."


Now you're just making things up as you go along, and it's actually starting to get boring. Their faith had nothing to do with any jsus,

And he drove man out of the garden lest he eat from the tree of life and live forever. Got it?

If he was tempted, he was NOT G-D per the NT. Trying to twist it into something else won't work. When jsus prayed, who do you think he prayed to?? The NT in the verse I quoted states as a fact "G-d cannot be tempted" so you saying he was tempted but didn't sin though, is quite irrelevant.
As was shown in this thread, his sins were right there in the NT. Nobody claimed he was "sinless" except Paul, who, ironically never met the man per the NT, but claimed he had a "vision" of him. How original.
He was a man Vic. get over it, just a regular man, may have had some interesting ideas, but a man nonetheless. He also sinned. Get over it. Just like every other man.

Paul7
07-28-2011, 10:52
You keep making this statement but continue to refuse to site the section of the Talmud you are referring to? May I ask why?

Because I didn't see your request. Sanhedrin 43A



"There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."

Michael Gleghorn

Vic Hays
07-28-2011, 14:56
He was a man Vic. get over it, just a regular man, may have had some interesting ideas, but a man nonetheless. He also sinned. Get over it. Just like every other man.

And you witnessed this?

Where is the "Desire of all nations" that was supposed to show up at the second temple?

If it was Jesus that means that you are fighting against God.

Paul7
07-28-2011, 15:33
Well congrats. You just killed your own argument that jsus is G-d. According to your own scripture:
James1:13 it reads: "Let no man say he is tempted of G-d, for G-d cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

So If jsus was tempted with sin, he clearly cannot be G-d.

God normally doesn't get tired, hungry, or thirsty, but He did during His earthly incarnation. God in His very nature is holy, there is nothing in Him for sin to appeal to.

FifthFreedom
07-29-2011, 07:01
And you witnessed this?

Where is the "Desire of all nations" that was supposed to show up at the second temple?

If it was Jesus that means that you are fighting against God.

I don;t have to witness it, your NT documents it.

FifthFreedom
07-29-2011, 07:26
Because I didn't see your request. Sanhedrin 43A



"There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."

Michael Gleghorn

This
Michael Gleghorn proves why non-Jews shouldnt be trying to cherry pic Talmud which they clearly do not understand.


Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a
It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.

Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.

R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.

[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.

[No,] the mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband.

What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic. His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada. His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah. Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born.



Proof
Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.

Problems
1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser.
2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.
3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father.


Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a


What of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah?

When John [Hyrcanus] the king killed the rabbis, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah [and Yeshu] went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Shimon Ben Shetach sent to him "From me [Jerusalem] the holy city to you Alexandria of Egypt. My husband remains in your midst and I sit forsaken."

[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].

[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes.

[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself?

[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him.

[Yeshu] came before [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] many times and said: Accept me. But [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] paid him no attention.

One day [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was reciting Shema [during which one may not be interrupted]. [Yeshu] came before him. He was going to accept [Yeshu] and signalled to [Yeshu] with his hand. [Yeshu] thought that [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was repelling him. He went, hung a brick, and bowed down to it.

[Yeshu] said to [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah]: You taught me that anyone who sins and causes others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.

And the master said: Yeshu {the Notzri} practiced magic and deceive and led Israel astray.

Background and Summary
Note that historians differ on the exact years of these events. For simplicity, we will assume the latest possible dates as suggested by Gershon Tannenbaum [Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, p. 87].

John Hyrcanus was a successful king and soldier. During a banquet celebrating his victories in 93 BCE, some Pharisee rabbis offended him and he was convinced by Sadducee leaders to try to kill every Pharisee rabbi [Hyman, vol. II pp. 691-692, 766]. Some rabbis, such as R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah and his student Yeshu, fled to Alexandria outside of John Hyrcanus's reach [Hyman vol. II pp. 647, 692]. Shimon Ben Shetach, however, was hidden in Jerusalem by his sister, Salome Alexandra, who was John Hyrcanus's daughter-in-law [Hyman, vol. II pp. 647, 692, 766, vol. III pp. 1212-1213]. The extremely diverse religious population of Palestine, full of sects such as the Essenes, Kumrans, and numerous other groups, was temporarily devoid of any public Pharisee leaders.

By the year 91 BCE, John Hyrcanus and his sons Antigonus and Aristobulos had died and his third son Alexander Janneus became king. Even though Alexander Janneus was an ardent Sadducee, his wife convinced him to appoint his Pharisaic brother-in-law, Shimon Ben Shetach, to the Sanhedrin, then dominated by Sadducees. Slowly, over the course of a number of years, Shimon Ben Shetach outshone his Sadducee opponents in the Sanhedrin and appointed his Pharisaic students as members [Hyman, vol. II pp. 766-767, vol. III pp. 1213-1214].

By the year 80 BCE it was finally safe for the Pharisee rabbis to quietly return and Shimon Ben Shetach sent a cryptic note to his mentor, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah, encouraging him to return [Hyman, vol. II pp. 647-648, vol. III pp. 1213-1214].

Some 50 to 60 years after the great Pharisaic victory of the Hasmoneans, in which Pharisees rebelled against the Greek-Syrians and gained the monarchy, these Pharisee rabbis returned to a country full of heretical sects that had either integrated aspects of Hellenist paganism into their religion or had, in an attempt to repel all unproven influence, rejected the traditions of the rabbis. The Pharisees who remembered the prominence in which they had so recently been held were now witnesses to the disintegration of their religious society.

While returning, Yeshu misunderstood one of his teacher's remarks and said something that demonstrated that he was interested in and looking at married women. As sexual promiscuity was a sign of many of the Hellenist sects, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah suspected his student of being yet another leader influenced by Hellenism and had him excommunicated [this hasty conclusion was condemned by the Talmud a few lines before our passage]. After many attempts by Yeshu to reconcile with his mentor, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah was finally ready. However, Yeshu approached him while he was reciting Shema, the most important part of the morning prayer during which he could not stop to speak. He motioned to Yeshu with his hand which was misinterpreted as a signal to go away. Yeshu finally gave up and fulfilled his teacher's suspicion. He adopted a pagan religion and went on to create his own sect of Judaism and lead many Jews astray.


Proof
Some historians note some similarities here between Yeshu and Jesus. Most notably, in one manuscript of the Talmud he is called Yeshu the Notzri which could be rendered (with only a little difficulty) Jesus the Nazarene.

Problems
1. Yeshu lived about a century before Jesus.
2. Only one of the approximately four distinct manuscripts available have the title HaNotzri (possibly, the Nazarene). None of the other manuscripts contain that title which make it suspect as a later interpolation, as medieval commentators suggest [cf. Menachem HaMeiri, Beit Habechirah, Sotah ad. loc.].
3. Notzri does not necessarily mean Nazarene. It is actually a biblical term (Jeremiah 4:16). While centuries later it was undoubtedly used to refer to Christians in the form of Notzrim or Netzarim, it could have been a term used to refer to many strong communities. The name "Ben Netzar" was used by the Talmud to refer to the famous chief of robbers Odenathus of Palmyra [see Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary p. 930]
4. The name Yeshu alone could have been common. We know that the name Jesus was common [see Collossians 4:11 and above].
5. Other than the name, nothing in the story fits anything we know about Jesus.


Talmud Sanhedrin 67a

It is taught: For all others liable for the death penalty [except for the enticer to idolatry] we do not hide witnesses. How do they deal with [the enticer]? They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place witnesses in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them. One says to him "Tell me again what you said to me in private" and he tells him. He says "How can we forsake our G-d in heaven and worship idolatry?" If he repents, good. If he says "This is our obligation and what we must do" the witnesses who hear him from outside bring him to the court and stone him. And so they did to Ben Stada in Lud and hung him on the eve of Passover.


Summary
This passage discusses how an enticer to idolatry, one of the worst religious criminals (see Deuteronomy 13:7-12), was caught. The Talmud then continues and says that this was the method used to catch the notorious Ben Stada.

Proof
Again we see Ben Stada. Above we were told that he performed witchcraft and we are now told that he was an idolater as well. The connection to Jesus is that Ben Stada is connected to Jesus in the passage above and that he was executed on the eve of Passover. The Gospel of John (19:14) has Jesus being executed on the eve of Passover.

Problems
1. The same problems above connecting Ben Stada to Jesus apply here as well, including his living almost a century after Jesus.
2. Ben Stada was stoned by a Jewish court and not crucified by the Roman government like Jesus.
3. The Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus was executed on Passover itself (Matthew 26:18-20; Mark 14:16-18; Luke 22:13-15) and not the eve of Passover.
4. Jesus was not crucified in Lud.


Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.


Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.

Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.

Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.


Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d."
They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."

They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay."
They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."

They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots."
They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."

They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel."
They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."

They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]."
They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me."


Summary
Five of Yeshu's disciples were brought before a court, tried for the crime against G-d and society of idolatry, and executed according to biblical law. This passages presents each disciple cleverly bringing a biblical verse in an attempt to exonerate himself and the court responding likewise.

Proof
The name Yeshu is used as above. The additional proof this passage provides is that Matai is the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples.

Problems
1. The same problems above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here.
2. Of the five disciples, only one is recognized. What of the other four?
3. The name Matai seems like a nickname or Aramaic equivalent of Matityahu, which was a known Jewish name in that time period. It was probably a common name, considering the high esteem in which the patriarch of the Hasmonean dynasty, Matityahu, was held by the common people. Some manuscripts have the name of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah's famous colleague as Matai from Arbel [cf. R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, ed. Zeini (Jerusalem:2000) p. 31].

FifthFreedom
07-29-2011, 07:27
Early Jesus
Some historians go further. It is well known, and long a matter of controversy, that beginning in the early 19th century some historians disputed the existence of an historical Jesus at all. According to this theory, Jesus never existed and the early church fathers created him as a figure for their religion. The gospels are compilations of various legends that were attributed to this mythical character Jesus. Much ink has been spilled debating this theory, but there are some historians who accept this and go one step further. They identify the basis of the New Testament Jesus in the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira. This legendary figure, who was branded a heretic by Jewish leaders, founded a Jewish sect that inspired and influenced the early Christians. These early Christians then adopted the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira and modified it to fit into a later historical period and their own eclectic religious beliefs. [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Sefer Hakabbalah, 53; Sefer Hayuchasin, ibid.; Avraham Korman, Zeramim Vekitot Beyahadut, pp. 354-364].

Some daring scholars have even identified the original Jesus or proto-Jesus, Yeshu Ben Pandira, as the Teacher of Righteousness who led the sect in Qumran [cf. Alvar Ellegård, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ; G.R.S. Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?; G. A. Wells, The Jesus Myth].

While these theories are highly speculative and certainly not mainstream, researchers have amassed a large amount of evidence, from archaelogical finds to medieval references, that point to either this or a similar conclusion.

Conclusion

It seems clear by now that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud. Most of the supposed "blasphemies" of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all. However, there can be no denying, and no rabbi would deny this, that the authors of the Talmud did not believe in Jesus' messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look. However, there is no basis at all to state unequivocably that the Talmud calls Jesus a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute who had sex with many men. As has been shown, those passages definitely do not refer to Jesus.

Paul7
07-30-2011, 10:23
Early Jesus
Some historians go further. It is well known, and long a matter of controversy, that beginning in the early 19th century some historians disputed the existence of an historical Jesus at all. According to this theory, Jesus never existed and the early church fathers created him as a figure for their religion. The gospels are compilations of various legends that were attributed to this mythical character Jesus. Much ink has been spilled debating this theory, but there are some historians who accept this and go one step further. They identify the basis of the New Testament Jesus in the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira. This legendary figure, who was branded a heretic by Jewish leaders, founded a Jewish sect that inspired and influenced the early Christians. These early Christians then adopted the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira and modified it to fit into a later historical period and their own eclectic religious beliefs. [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Sefer Hakabbalah, 53; Sefer Hayuchasin, ibid.; Avraham Korman, Zeramim Vekitot Beyahadut, pp. 354-364].

Some daring scholars have even identified the original Jesus or proto-Jesus, Yeshu Ben Pandira, as the Teacher of Righteousness who led the sect in Qumran [cf. Alvar Ellegård, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ; G.R.S. Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?; G. A. Wells, The Jesus Myth].

While these theories are highly speculative and certainly not mainstream, researchers have amassed a large amount of evidence, from archaelogical finds to medieval references, that point to either this or a similar conclusion.

Excuse me, but that is a crackpot theory along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. Few serious historians dispute the existance of Jesus. You are alleging a vast conspiracy with no evidence. The Christians of the first centuries got all worked up and died for a dream, huh? Rome's greatest historian slipped up, huh?

It seems clear by now that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud. Most of the supposed "blasphemies" of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all. However, there can be no denying, and no rabbi would deny this, that the authors of the Talmud did not believe in Jesus' messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look. However, there is no basis at all to state unequivocably that the Talmud calls Jesus a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute who had sex with many men. As has been shown, those passages definitely do not refer to Jesus.

I agree there are arguments on both sides of the argument, just want you to admit it also. Do you deny Mainmonides mentioned Jesus? Gee, maybe he never really existed either.

FifthFreedom
07-31-2011, 10:03
Excuse me, but that is a crackpot theory along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. Few serious historians dispute the existance of Jesus. You are alleging a vast conspiracy with no evidence. The Christians of the first centuries got all worked up and died for a dream, huh? Rome's greatest historian slipped up, huh?



I agree there are arguments on both sides of the argument, just want you to admit it also. Do you deny Mainmonides mentioned Jesus? Gee, maybe he never really existed either.



Excuse me, but that is a crackpot theory along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. Few serious historians dispute the existance of Jesus. You are alleging a vast conspiracy with no evidence. The Christians of the first centuries got all worked up and died for a dream, huh? Rome's greatest historian slipped up, huh?

So this is your rebuttal? No the "crackpot theory" is that the Talmud was speaking of YOUR jsus as you can see, that doesn't hold up. You make it sound like all these xtians were dying. There is no proof that they were dying any more than anyone else in Rome. They were fed to lions, just like countless other groups of people were. Whether jsus existed or not isn't relevant to me. Tacitus writing about what other people said doesn't make him real or unreal. As I said, it's not relevant.


I agree there are arguments on both sides of the argument, just want you to admit it also. Do you deny Mainmonides mentioned Jesus? Gee, maybe he never really existed either

Why not actually quote what RamBam said?

Paul7
07-31-2011, 22:14
So this is your rebuttal? No the "crackpot theory" is that the Talmud was speaking of YOUR jsus as you can see, that doesn't hold up.

That's one theory, and a very weak one.

You make it sound like all these xtians were dying. There is no proof that they were dying any more than anyone else in Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

Whether jsus existed or not isn't relevant to me. Tacitus writing about what other people said doesn't make him real or unreal.

You assume Tacitus didn't research it himself. If he made a habit of just repeating any old hearsay he wouldn't have been called Rome's greatest historian. Have you retracted your false claim yet that there is no Roman record of the trial of Jesus?

Why not actually quote what RamBam said?

He certainly was honest enough to acknowledge Jesus existed. If he can mention Jesus, why not the Talmud?

achysklic
08-01-2011, 03:59
To say Jesus never existed is crap, let's see how many people outside of the bible mentioned His life and death.

Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Justin, Origin,Tacitus ,Lucian,Seutonius,Plinius Secundus, (also called Pliny the Younger,Julius Africanus,

There are more, but isn't this enough to convince FF?

Paul7
08-01-2011, 09:16
To say Jesus never existed is crap, let's see how many people outside of the bible mentioned His life and death.

Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Justin, Origin,Tacitus ,Lucian,Seutonius,Plinius Secundus, (also called Pliny the Younger,Julius Africanus,

There are more, but isn't this enough to convince FF?

You would think it would, but I doubt it. Similarly, the Jewish leadership of Jesus' day disbelieved despite witnessing the miracles, etc.

FifthFreedom
08-01-2011, 10:07
That's one theory, and a very weak one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire



You assume Tacitus didn't research it himself. If he made a habit of just repeating any old hearsay he wouldn't have been called Rome's greatest historian. Have you retracted your false claim yet that there is no Roman record of the trial of Jesus?



He certainly was honest enough to acknowledge Jesus existed. If he can mention Jesus, why not the Talmud?



That's one theory, and a very weak one.

No, it is a very strong one. You quoted a passage of the Talmud, something you clearly dont study nor understand based on what someone told you. My response was:

Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.


Now of course if you have some actual FACTS to rebuff this claim other than you don't liek the answer therefore you don't accept it, I would be very glad to hear it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire




What is your facination with WiKi? You think they are always accuate? I that your new Bible or something? I don't call citing wiki which has been known to make mistakes as "research"


You assume Tacitus didn't research it himself. If he made a habit of just repeating any old hearsay he wouldn't have been called Rome's greatest historian. Have you retracted your false claim yet that there is no Roman record of the trial of Jesus?

I don't assume anything. Since you love copying/pasting/linking so much, why not quote what he said concerning jsus and we'll anyalyze, no big deal.


He certainly was honest enough to acknowledge Jesus existed. If he can mention Jesus, why not the Talmud?

Why not anything? Again my answer the the above is the same here. Quote what he said, w can go from there.

FifthFreedom
08-01-2011, 10:09
To say Jesus never existed is crap, let's see how many people outside of the bible mentioned His life and death.

Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Justin, Origin,Tacitus ,Lucian,Seutonius,Plinius Secundus, (also called Pliny the Younger,Julius Africanus,

There are more, but isn't this enough to convince FF?

As already covered in this thread although maybe you weren't following. the above had already been rebuffed not were they "eyewitnesses"

Paul7
08-01-2011, 12:09
As already covered in this thread although maybe you weren't following. the above had already been rebuffed not were they "eyewitnesses"

Nobody claimed Tacitus was an eyewitness, he was brought up to counter your false claim that the Romans never wrote of the trial of Jesus.

FifthFreedom
08-01-2011, 12:16
Nobody claimed Tacitus was an eyewitness, he was brought up to counter your false claim that the Romans never wrote of the trial of Jesus.

So for the Nth time. Please post what he wrote so we can talk about it.

I am referring to the Roman AT THE TIME HE ALLEGEDLY LIVED. not a hundred or more years afterwards

Paul7
08-01-2011, 12:24
[I]Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.

The reference that this crucifixion happned "on the eve of Passover" agrees with John 19:14. The phrase is also found in b. Sanh. 67a; y. Sanh. 7:16.

2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.

"Yeshu" translates through Greek to English as "Jesus", and the reference to him being a Nazarene in one version of this text makes the link to Jesus even stronger.

3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.

No contradiction here. It says 'they' hanged Yeshu, it never says precisely who was responsible, nor is that ommission relevant to the passage.

3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

Who said He did?


What is your facination with WiKi? You think they are always accuate? I that your new Bible or something?

Wiki is a whole lot less biased than the rest of us.

I don't call citing wiki which has been known to make mistakes as "research"

So we're restricted to infallible sources?

I don't assume anything. Since you love copying/pasting/linking so much, why not quote what he said concerning jsus and we'll anyalyze, no big deal.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[4]"

Why not anything? Again my answer the the above is the same here. Quote what he said, w can go from there.

From Wikipedia again:

Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) lamented the pains that Jews felt as a result of new faiths that attempted to supplant Judaism, specifically Christianity and Islam. Referring to Jesus, he wrote:

"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."[43]

Nonetheless, Maimonides continued,

"But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for his thoughts and ways are unlike ours. And all these things of Jesus the Nazarene, and of (Muhammad) the Ishmaelite who stood after him – there is no (purpose) but to straighten out the way for the King Messiah, and to restore all the world to serve God together. So that it is said, “Because then I will turn toward the nations (giving them) a clear lip, to call all of them in the name of God and to serve God (shoulder to shoulder as) one shoulder.” (Zephaniah 3:9). How is this? The entire world had become filled with the issues of the anointed one and of the Torah and the Laws, and these issues had spread out unto faraway islands and among many nations uncircumcised in the heart, and they discuss these issues and the Torah's laws. These say: These Laws were true but are already defunct in these days, and do not rule for the following generations; whereas the other ones say: There are secret layers in them and they are not to be treated literally, and the Messiah had come and revealed their secret meanings. But when the anointed king will truly rise and succeed and will be raised and uplifted, they all immediately turn about and know that their fathers inherited falsehood, and their prophets and ancestors led them astray." (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12.)[43]

[edit] Maimonides' Epistle to YemenJesus is mentioned in Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen, written about 1172 to Rabbi Jacob ben Netan'el al-Fayyumi, head of the Yemen Jewish community during a time when Jews of that country were passing through a crisis inaugurated about 1165 by 'Abd-al-Nabi ibn Mahdi, and a campaign conducted by a recent convert to win them to his new faith. The context of Maimonides' mention of Jesus is during a portion retelling the history of those who tried to destroy Judaism 1) by the sword, 2) by controversies, and 3) by both conquest and controversy. The latter category begins with Jesus, and goes on to mention Paul, and then Muhammad.

Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute....

After that there arose a new sect which combined the two methods, namely, conquest and controversy, into one, because it believed that this procedure would be more effective in wiping out every trace of the Jewish nation and religion. It, therefore, resolved to lay claim to prophecy and to found a new faith, contrary to our Divine religion, and to contend that it was equally God-given. Thereby it hoped to raise doubts and to create confusion, since one is opposed to the other and both supposedly emanate from a Divine source, which would lead to the destruction of both religions. For such is the remarkable plan contrived by a man who is envious and querulous. He will strive to kill his enemy and to save his own life, but when he finds it impossible to attain his objective, he will devise a scheme whereby they both will be slain.

The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile. For in accordance with the principles of our law, a child born of a Jewess and a Gentile, or of a Jewess and a slave, is legitimate. (Yebamot 45a). Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.

Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavor to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretenses to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah, as it is written, "Also the children of the impudent among thy people shall make bold to claim prophecy, but they shall fall." (Daniel 11:14).[44]

In the context of refuting the claims of a contemporary in Yemen purporting to be the Messiah, Maimonides mentions Jesus again:

"You know that the Christians falsely ascribe marvelous powers to Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust, such as the resurrection of the dead and other miracles. Even if we would grant them for the sake of argument, we should not be convinced by their reasoning that Jesus is the Messiah. For we can bring a thousand proofs or so from the Scripture that it is not so even from their point of view. Indeed, will anyone arrogate this rank to himself unless he wishes to make himself a laughing stock?[45]



Note this: "The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

That is a statement of fact, it isn't smearing Jews.

Paul7
08-01-2011, 12:29
So for the Nth time. Please post what he wrote so we can talk about it.

I am referring to the Roman AT THE TIME HE ALLEGEDLY LIVED. not a hundred or more years afterwards

Using your standard, we would have to throw out much of what we know of ancient history. Were all the OT events written about in the participants lifetimes?

Paul7
08-01-2011, 12:30
As already covered in this thread although maybe you weren't following. the above had already been rebuffed

You mean ignored, not rebuffed.

FifthFreedom
08-01-2011, 12:37
You mean ignored, not rebuffed.

I suggest you do a search. Each of these was rebuffed.

FifthFreedom
08-01-2011, 12:48
The reference that this crucifixion happned "on the eve of Passover" agrees with John 19:14. The phrase is also found in b. Sanh. 67a; y. Sanh. 7:16.



"Yeshu" translates through Greek to English as "Jesus", and the reference to him being a Nazarene in one version of this text makes the link to Jesus even stronger.






Who said He did?




Wiki is a whole lot less biased than the rest of us.



So we're restricted to infallible sources?



"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[4]"



From Wikipedia again:

Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) lamented the pains that Jews felt as a result of new faiths that attempted to supplant Judaism, specifically Christianity and Islam. Referring to Jesus, he wrote:

"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."[43]

Nonetheless, Maimonides continued,

"But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for his thoughts and ways are unlike ours. And all these things of Jesus the Nazarene, and of (Muhammad) the Ishmaelite who stood after him – there is no (purpose) but to straighten out the way for the King Messiah, and to restore all the world to serve God together. So that it is said, “Because then I will turn toward the nations (giving them) a clear lip, to call all of them in the name of God and to serve God (shoulder to shoulder as) one shoulder.” (Zephaniah 3:9). How is this? The entire world had become filled with the issues of the anointed one and of the Torah and the Laws, and these issues had spread out unto faraway islands and among many nations uncircumcised in the heart, and they discuss these issues and the Torah's laws. These say: These Laws were true but are already defunct in these days, and do not rule for the following generations; whereas the other ones say: There are secret layers in them and they are not to be treated literally, and the Messiah had come and revealed their secret meanings. But when the anointed king will truly rise and succeed and will be raised and uplifted, they all immediately turn about and know that their fathers inherited falsehood, and their prophets and ancestors led them astray." (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12.)[43]

[edit] Maimonides' Epistle to YemenJesus is mentioned in Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen, written about 1172 to Rabbi Jacob ben Netan'el al-Fayyumi, head of the Yemen Jewish community during a time when Jews of that country were passing through a crisis inaugurated about 1165 by 'Abd-al-Nabi ibn Mahdi, and a campaign conducted by a recent convert to win them to his new faith. The context of Maimonides' mention of Jesus is during a portion retelling the history of those who tried to destroy Judaism 1) by the sword, 2) by controversies, and 3) by both conquest and controversy. The latter category begins with Jesus, and goes on to mention Paul, and then Muhammad.

Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute....

After that there arose a new sect which combined the two methods, namely, conquest and controversy, into one, because it believed that this procedure would be more effective in wiping out every trace of the Jewish nation and religion. It, therefore, resolved to lay claim to prophecy and to found a new faith, contrary to our Divine religion, and to contend that it was equally God-given. Thereby it hoped to raise doubts and to create confusion, since one is opposed to the other and both supposedly emanate from a Divine source, which would lead to the destruction of both religions. For such is the remarkable plan contrived by a man who is envious and querulous. He will strive to kill his enemy and to save his own life, but when he finds it impossible to attain his objective, he will devise a scheme whereby they both will be slain.

The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile. For in accordance with the principles of our law, a child born of a Jewess and a Gentile, or of a Jewess and a slave, is legitimate. (Yebamot 45a). Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.

Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavor to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretenses to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah, as it is written, "Also the children of the impudent among thy people shall make bold to claim prophecy, but they shall fall." (Daniel 11:14).[44]

In the context of refuting the claims of a contemporary in Yemen purporting to be the Messiah, Maimonides mentions Jesus again:

"You know that the Christians falsely ascribe marvelous powers to Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust, such as the resurrection of the dead and other miracles. Even if we would grant them for the sake of argument, we should not be convinced by their reasoning that Jesus is the Messiah. For we can bring a thousand proofs or so from the Scripture that it is not so even from their point of view. Indeed, will anyone arrogate this rank to himself unless he wishes to make himself a laughing stock?[45]



Note this: "The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

That is a statement of fact, it isn't smearing Jews.



The reference that this crucifixion happned "on the eve of Passover" agrees with John 19:14. The phrase is also found in b. Sanh. 67a; y. Sanh. 7:16.


As opposed to the other three gospels.


"Yeshu" translates through Greek to English as "Jesus", and the reference to him being a Nazarene in one version of this text makes the link to Jesus even stronger.

Yet what makes it weaker is that THIS yeshu lived 100 years before the time whne jsus lived. Therefore if you claim that this is in fact YOUR jsus, then you guys better go back to the drawing boards and fix your dates because if it is speaking of your jsus, your timing for when he lived and died is clearly off.
Not to mention that despite what the gospels claim, there is no prophecy stating Messiah would be a "Nazarene"


Wiki is a whole lot less biased than the rest of us.

And also often wrong.

You quote Maimonides as saying:

Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."[43]

Do you also agree with this statement?


Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute....

I agree with this statement

further RamBam goes on....

"You know that the Christians falsely ascribe marvelous powers to Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust, such as the resurrection of the dead and other miracles. Even if we would grant them for the sake of argument, we should not be convinced by their reasoning that Jesus is the Messiah. For we can bring a thousand proofs or so from the Scripture that it is not so even from their point of view. Indeed, will anyone arrogate this rank to himself unless he wishes to make himself a laughing stock?[45]

Do you agree with this statement? I guess you do because you said: "That is a statement of fact,"

I never said RamBam didn't wrote concerning this jsus of yours but clearly his view of this character is different then yours so I find it funny your pointing to him as "proof" that jsus was anything other than a charlatan.

Did you actually read this before you posted it?

Paul7
08-01-2011, 17:45
I suggest you do a search. Each of these was rebuffed.

No they weren't, you threw out an opinion that I reject.

Paul7
08-01-2011, 17:52
As opposed to the other three gospels.

It is possible that Mark's Gospel contains a copyist's error, as we see in the OT, for the Greek numerals for three and six could be confused. Or it may be that John was using Roman time, in which case the appearance before Pilate would have been at 6 am and the crucifixion at 9 am (the third hour according to Jewish reckoning, see Mark 15:33).

Yet what makes it weaker is that THIS yeshu lived 100 years before the time whne jsus lived.

Only your opinion. Again, the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner believed this passage to refer to the NT Jesus.

Therefore if you claim that this is in fact YOUR jsus, then you guys better go back to the drawing boards and fix your dates because if it is speaking of your jsus, your timing for when he lived and died is clearly off.

See Joseph Klausner. He would say it is you who are off.

Not to mention that despite what the gospels claim, there is no prophecy stating Messiah would be a "Nazarene"

Micah 5:2 predicts Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, which He was. The exact word 'Nazarene' is not found in the OT, but the Gospel passage probably refers to predictions that the Messiah will be despised. In Jesus' day, "Nazarene" was practically a synonym for "despised" (see John 1:46). As we see on this thread, Jesus is still despised by many.

You quote Maimonides as saying:

Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God."[43]

Do you also agree with this statement?


Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute....

I agree with this statement

further RamBam goes on....

"You know that the Christians falsely ascribe marvelous powers to Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust, such as the resurrection of the dead and other miracles. Even if we would grant them for the sake of argument, we should not be convinced by their reasoning that Jesus is the Messiah. For we can bring a thousand proofs or so from the Scripture that it is not so even from their point of view. Indeed, will anyone arrogate this rank to himself unless he wishes to make himself a laughing stock?[45]

Do you agree with this statement? I guess you do because you said: "That is a statement of fact,"

I never said RamBam didn't wrote concerning this jsus of yours but clearly his view of this character is different then yours so I find it funny your pointing to him as "proof" that jsus was anything other than a charlatan.

Did you actually read this before you posted it?

No, I just randomly post stuff. :upeyes: Once again you miss the point, which was that if Maimonides can mention Jesus (his wrong conclusions about Him aside), why can't the Talmud?

FifthFreedom
08-03-2011, 10:14
It is possible that Mark's Gospel contains a copyist's error, as we see in the OT, for the Greek numerals for three and six could be confused. Or it may be that John was using Roman time, in which case the appearance before Pilate would have been at 6 am and the crucifixion at 9 am (the third hour according to Jewish reckoning, see Mark 15:33).



Only your opinion. Again, the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner believed this passage to refer to the NT Jesus.



See Joseph Klausner. He would say it is you who are off.






Micah 5:2 predicts Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, which He was. The exact word 'Nazarene' is not found in the OT, but the Gospel passage probably refers to predictions that the Messiah will be despised. In Jesus' day, "Nazarene" was practically a synonym for "despised" (see John 1:46). As we see on this thread, Jesus is still despised by many.



No, I just randomly post stuff. :upeyes: Once again you miss the point, which was that if Maimonides can mention Jesus (his wrong conclusions about Him aside), why can't the Talmud?



Only your opinion. Again, the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner believed this passage to refer to the NT Jesus.


No this is not my opinion. this is when this actual person lived, Like I said, if you have some proof to refute it, I would be happy to see it.
You cite Talmud as proof then you have to be able to accept the characters as real no?


See Joseph Klausner. He would say it is you who are off.

Then he would also say you were off, since his method of death isn't the same. since this yeshu was hanged and according to the talmud practiced sorcery, do you then say that only that particular part of the Talmud is wrong, but the jsus they mention is your jsus, was your jsus hanged there is a difference between that and crucifixion. did your jsus practice sorcery?

Already covered Micah in another thread so won't waste my time on it again.


No, I just randomly post stuff. :upeyes: Once again you miss the point, which was that if Maimonides can mention Jesus (his wrong conclusions about Him aside), why can't the Talmud?

Because the Talmud doesn't maybe? I am not sure i even get your logic on this one.
As put to you before, whether he actually existed or not is no more relevant to me than if bddah existed. The problem was he clearly was someone who despised the Torah, attempted to change it and wasn't much more than an egotistical, arrogant person who often didn't practice what he preached.

Schabesbert
08-03-2011, 10:28
Then he would also say you were off, since his method of death isn't the same. since this yeshu was hanged and according to the talmud practiced sorcery, do you then say that only that particular part of the Talmud is wrong, but the jsus they mention is your jsus, was your jsus hanged there is a difference between that and crucifixion. did your jsus practice sorcery?
Nope, you're wrong. Being "hanged" was an idiom that was used to describe crucifixion. Even in the NT, it was used, in multiple places:

Lu 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

Ac 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.

Ac 10:39 And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree;

FifthFreedom
08-03-2011, 11:04
No, I am not. There is a very specific formula for "hanging" under Jewish Law and it in no way resembles a "crucifixion"
Perhaps it was a "copyist error"

Schabesbert
08-03-2011, 11:47
No, I am not. There is a very specific formula for "hanging" under Jewish Law and it in no way resembles a "crucifixion"
Perhaps it was a "copyist error"
Yes, perhaps this unspecified "Jewish Law" was the result of a "copyist error."
:winkie:

FifthFreedom
08-03-2011, 14:15
Yes, perhaps this unspecified "Jewish Law" was the result of a "copyist error."
:winkie:

Nah I doubt it.
The actual punishment for practicing sorcery was hanging though.

Paul7
08-04-2011, 21:52
No, I am not. There is a very specific formula for "hanging" under Jewish Law and it in no way resembles a "crucifixion"


Again quoting the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, "The Talmud speaks of hanging in place of crucifixion, since this horrible Roman form of death was only known to Jewish scholars from Roman trials, and not from the Jewish legal system. Even Paul the Apostle (Gal. 3:13) expounds the passage 'for a curse of God is that which is hanged' (Deut. 21:23) as applicable to Jesus."

FifthFreedom
08-06-2011, 20:12
Again quoting the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, "The Talmud speaks of hanging in place of crucifixion, since this horrible Roman form of death was only known to Jewish scholars from Roman trials, and not from the Jewish legal system. Even Paul the Apostle (Gal. 3:13) expounds the passage 'for a curse of God is that which is hanged' (Deut. 21:23) as applicable to Jesus."

And that would make sense if only Jewish courts were able to "hang" someone during the time jsus lived but unfortunately, they had no authority to do so.
100 years when the yeshu mentioned in the Talmud was hanged, they did have the authority.
Something your "scholar" forgets to mention.

FifthFreedom
08-07-2011, 10:53
Again quoting the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, "The Talmud speaks of hanging in place of crucifixion, since this horrible Roman form of death was only known to Jewish scholars from Roman trials, and not from the Jewish legal system. Even Paul the Apostle (Gal. 3:13) expounds the passage 'for a curse of God is that which is hanged' (Deut. 21:23) as applicable to Jesus."



This is another example of how "Paul" didn't know what he was talking about. In Deut 23. this is referring to a very specific form of punishment for a very specific sin. I.e. someone who commits a sin worthy of such an execution. Has nothing to do with "crucifixion" and if is applicable to jsus, then he must have commited a serious sin no?

I also find it funny how you keep quoting this Joseph Klausner, up until you pulled his name off of Wiki, i am willing to bet you never even heard of him, much less studied his works to be able to come to an informed conclusion one way or another. You think his scholarly abilities out do Maimonides?

Paul7
08-07-2011, 17:15
I also find it funny how you keep quoting this Joseph Klausner, up until you pulled his name off of Wiki, i am willing to bet you never even heard of him, much less studied his works to be able to come to an informed conclusion one way or another.

You lose the bet, over on another religion forum we had a big argument where another Jew denied Klausner would ever say such things as he did in his book, 'Jesus of Nazareth'. It didn't turn out so well for him either.

Since you have apparently never heard of Klausner, he was a candidate for president in the first Israeli presidential election, and a Jewish historian and professor of Hebrew Literature. He was the chief redactor of The Hebrew Encyclopedia.

You think his scholarly abilities out do Maimonides?

I think he was more honest than Maimonides was.

Paul7
08-07-2011, 17:16
And that would make sense if only Jewish courts were able to "hang" someone during the time jsus lived but unfortunately, they had no authority to do so.
100 years when the yeshu mentioned in the Talmud was hanged, they did have the authority.
Something your "scholar" forgets to mention.

Probably because he doesn't believe the 'Yeshu' mentioned was anyone other than Jesus of the NT.

FifthFreedom
08-08-2011, 08:21
Probably because he doesn't believe the 'Yeshu' mentioned was anyone other than Jesus of the NT.

LOL. You are so funny. Please show me where you feel Maimonides was dishonest and kindly provide whatever facts you have to support your position.

FifthFreedom
08-10-2011, 07:23
....and still waiting

FifthFreedom
08-10-2011, 07:28
And while I am waiting..still more in response to the OP who seems strangely silent on the thread he himself started...:yawn:


What does this have to do with the Messiah? The Messiah will be a Torah scholar who knows and understands the finest minutia of Torah Law and application and will unite the Jewish People and reestablish "...your Courts and Judges as in days of old". Your guy has yet to do that. You can't claim to be a Torah scholar when you annihilate and disown the very institution you are to not only establish and confirm and to which concede to its authority. Starting a breakaway sect is incongruent to the Messiah's job duties. In addition, Jeesus states that he has "not lost one that you have given to me". However, this too goes against Torah as any one of the Jews foolish enough to abandon Judaism and accept him were, within ONE generation, lost to the Jewish people forever. It may be true Jeesus may have gained them, but they are lost to the Jewish People and to Judaism forever(unless they repent and do t'shuvah, which is ALWAYS an option).

A Uniter of the Jewish People. "The son shall turn to his father and the father to his son" ... This is what the Prophet Malachi predicted would precede the Messianic Age. Your guy reveled in the fact that he came to bring a sword. Right away the red flags should have gone up and immediately excised him from any messianic contention. The Messiah is to bring families together, not tear them asunder. Also, the way he allegedly treated his own family and in particular his own mother clearly shows he has no sense of loyalty or compassion. He didn't extend that to his disciples either. In one gospel, jeesus did not even allow a potential disciple to give his father a proper burial or sit shiva! If jeesus were really the Torah-observant Jew xians want to sell to Jews, Jeesus would have understood that giving a proper burial to a fellow Jew, (even more his own father!) is an act which its merit cannot be measured. But what does this "uber Jew" jeesus say?-- "let the dead bury their dead". A far cry from the character of the Messiah.

In addition, the Messiah understands the importance of Jewish unification and solidarity under a central authority. Because the Messiah is also a Torah Scholar, he knows that the Torah is no longer in heaven and that true authority rests within the Jewish Sanhedrin (as outlined in the Book of Deuteronomy). The fact that it was undermined and later destroyed by Edomite forces (of which xianity is its product) proves again, that Jeesus was not the Messiah. The Messiah preserves Jewish integrity and institutions ordained by G-d, not goes off and allows another force to destroy that which he is to protect and uphold.

He is a servant of G-d. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with references to how the Messiah is a servant of G-d and fears G-d. He accepts the yoke of heaven via the Mitzvot and the authority of the Sanhedrin (again as outlined in Deuteronomy). Your guy did everything but that--- from making his disciples eat raw grain on the shabbat and then challenge the Sages on the subject (which is probable never occurred), to challenging the authority/validity of the Oral Torah, to disrespecting and ad libbing the Torah to equating himself with G-d, to making a new religion. The Messiah will be a Torah-observant, humble, firm, strong, compassionate and wise leader who SERVES/Loves G-d and the Jewish People. Your guy was neither, despite the cries and fabrications and artists' renditions to the contrary.

Paul7
08-10-2011, 19:11
LOL. You are so funny. Please show me where you feel Maimonides was dishonest and kindly provide whatever facts you have to support your position.

You're right, I have no way of knowing if he was dishonest without knowing what was going on in his head. I'll change it to grossly mislead.

Paul7
08-10-2011, 19:31
What does this have to do with the Messiah? The Messiah will be a Torah scholar who knows and understands the finest minutia of Torah Law

Jesus did that, saying, 'Have ye not read....' when correcting the Pharisees.

and application and will unite the Jewish People and reestablish "...your Courts and Judges as in days of old". Your guy has yet to do that. You can't claim to be a Torah scholar when you annihilate and disown the very institution you are to not only establish and confirm and to which concede to its authority. Starting a breakaway sect is incongruent to the Messiah's job duties.

It's called the New Covenant, which was fortold in Jeremiah:

31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:(1) (2)
32
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:(1)[/quote]

A Uniter of the Jewish People. "The son shall turn to his father and the father to his son" ... This is what the Prophet Malachi predicted would precede the Messianic Age. Your guy reveled in the fact that he came to bring a sword. Right away the red flags should have gone up and immediately excised him from any messianic contention. The Messiah is to bring families together, not tear them asunder.

The verse right before this in Malachi 4 says, "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah [not the Messiah] before that great and dreadful day of the Lord [the Messiah, Jesus Christ] comes." As Elijah came before Elisha (whose ministry was one of judgement and redemption), so 'Elijah' will be sent to prepare God's people for the Lord's coming. John the Baptist ministered 'in the spirit and power of Elijah' (Luke 1:17). 'And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdon of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.'

Also, the way he allegedly treated his own family and in particular his own mother clearly shows he has no sense of loyalty or compassion. He didn't extend that to his disciples either. In one gospel, jeesus did not even allow a potential disciple to give his father a proper burial or sit shiva! If jeesus were really the Torah-observant Jew xians want to sell to Jews, Jeesus would have understood that giving a proper burial to a fellow Jew, (even more his own father!) is an act which its merit cannot be measured. But what does this "uber Jew" jeesus say?-- "let the dead bury their dead". A far cry from the character of the Messiah.

Again you completely misunderstand. If the potential disciple's father had already died, the man would have been busy with the burial then. But he wanted to wait until after his father's death, which might have been years away. It was just an excuse.

He is a servant of G-d. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with references to how the Messiah is a servant of G-d and fears G-d. He accepts the yoke of heaven via the Mitzvot and the authority of the Sanhedrin (again as outlined in Deuteronomy). Your guy did everything but that--- from making his disciples eat raw grain on the shabbat and then challenge the Sages on the subject

And David ate the shewbread when he and his men were hungry, which Jesus pointed out. Not bad for someone who supposedly doesn't know the Torah. BTW, Jesus Christ was the author of the Torah.

to challenging the authority/validity of the Oral Torah, to disrespecting and ad libbing the Torah to equating himself with G-d, to making a new religion.

What if he really was God, you know, part of the Godhead who said 'Let us make God in OUR image' in Genesis?

FifthFreedom
08-11-2011, 06:46
Jesus did that, saying, 'Have ye not read....' when correcting the Pharisees.




[/B]

Again you completely misunderstand. If the potential disciple's father had already died, the man would have been busy with the burial then. But he wanted to wait until after his father's death, which might have been years away. It was just an excuse.



And David ate the shewbread when he and his men were hungry, which Jesus pointed out. Not bad for someone who supposedly doesn't know the Torah. BTW, Jesus Christ was the author of the Torah.



What if he really was God, you know, part of the Godhead who said 'Let us make God in OUR image' in Genesis?



Jesus did that, saying, 'Have ye not read....' when correcting the Pharisees.

And that makes him a Torah Scholar?? LOL while we are on the subject. remind us please of what they should have read that he was referring to.


It's called the New Covenant, which was fortold in Jeremiah:

31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:(1) (2)
32
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:(1)[

Already rebuffed before which is why you are taking a scalpel and not quoting the entire section concerning this "new covenant" this kind of proof texting only works with people who don't do their homework. How about posting the entire section.



The verse right before this in Malachi 4 says, "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah [not the Messiah] before that great and dreadful day of the Lord [the Messiah, Jesus Christ] comes." As Elijah came before Elisha (whose ministry was one of judgement and redemption), so 'Elijah' will be sent to prepare God's people for the Lord's coming. John the Baptist ministered 'in the spirit and power of Elijah' (Luke 1:17). 'And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdon of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.'


Wow I love how you just managed to insert "The Messiah jesus christ" into that passage. somehow I must have missed where that was written in the text. Please tell me where it states someone would minister in the "spirit of Eliyahu" or someone will go before him in the "spirit and power of Eliyahu" The Scripture states it will be Eliyahu himself, not someone going on in his spirit. Just another example of people reinventing scripture when their "scripture" falls short.


And David ate the shewbread when he and his men were hungry, which Jesus pointed out. Not bad for someone who supposedly doesn't know the Torah. BTW, Jesus Christ was the author of the Torah.


Do you always keep posting the same non-sense over and over in the hopes that somehow it will somehow turn into truth. I believe this was already covered and David did not sin by eating Showbread as was demonstrated and if this "messiah" of your "wrote the Torah" he should have known that. Not to mention he would not have listed the WRONG Zechariah the Prophet and included Abel among them LOL ROTFL


What if he really was God, you know, part of the Godhead who said 'Let us make God in OUR image' in Genesis?

This also was covered in a recent thread ( assuming you actually read them)



Again you completely misunderstand. If the potential disciple's father had already died, the man would have been busy with the burial then. But he wanted to wait until after his father's death, which might have been years away. It was just an excuse.

How do we know that his father wasn;t being prepared for his burial. Your scriptures do not say. If it was just an excuse, why wouldn't jsus just say "that's just an excuse. Likewise telling someone they shouldn't go and say goodbye to their families or they are not worthy of Him? What arrogance. Go and see what Eliyahu, a true prophet did in the same situation.

FifthFreedom
08-11-2011, 06:56
You're right, I have no way of knowing if he was dishonest without knowing what was going on in his head. I'll change it to grossly mislead.

Really? Maimonides who has more Torah/Talmud knowledge than you, me and everyone on this board could hope to have was "grossly misled huh?
Ok, my challenge remains. Prove it by presenting whatever "facts" you base this on.
I look foreward to your reply :grill:

Paul7
08-11-2011, 18:29
Really? Maimonides who has more Torah/Talmud knowledge than you, me and everyone on this board could hope to have was "grossly misled huh?
Ok, my challenge remains. Prove it by presenting whatever "facts" you base this on.
I look foreward to your reply :grill:

He was grossly mislead in the same sense everyone is who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord. We do agree he did that, right?

Truly, 'the stone that the builders [Jewish leadership of Jesus' day] has rejected has become the chief cornerstone.'

Brasso
08-11-2011, 19:28
He has rejected Jesus, the invention of the Catholic Church. Not the Messiah. They have mostly never heard of Him.

FifthFreedom
08-12-2011, 09:10
He was grossly mislead in the same sense everyone is who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord. We do agree he did that, right?

Truly, 'the stone that the builders [Jewish leadership of Jesus' day] has rejected has become the chief cornerstone.'

That's a typical non-answer.

"Sure the Emperor is wearing gorgeous clothes, any one who is truly wise can see them!"

...Still care to explain why you only quoted part of Jeremiah 31?

Paul7
08-12-2011, 17:18
That's a typical non-answer.

"Sure the Emperor is wearing gorgeous clothes, any one who is truly wise can see them!"

...Still care to explain why you only quoted part of Jeremiah 31?

Go ahead and quote all of Jeremiah 31, it won't help you.

Schabesbert
08-12-2011, 17:38
He has rejected Jesus, the invention of the Catholic Church.
You've got that backwards.
Jesus built the Catholic Church.

Not the Messiah. They have mostly never heard of Him.
Or, it may be that He has never heard of YOU! (Matthew 7:23)

creaky
08-12-2011, 22:06
He has rejected Jesus, the invention of the Catholic Church. Not the Messiah. They have mostly never heard of Him.

Wait, What? Have you completely lost your mind?

Did you just say that Jesus is the "invention" of the Catholic Church?

creaky
08-12-2011, 22:07
Really? Maimonides who has more Torah/Talmud knowledge than you, me and everyone on this board could hope to have was "grossly misled huh?
Ok, my challenge remains. Prove it by presenting whatever "facts" you base this on.
I look foreward to your reply :grill:

Those hotdogs kosher?

Brasso
08-13-2011, 08:42
Wait, What? Have you completely lost your mind?

Did you just say that Jesus is the "invention" of the Catholic Church?

Yes, I did.

If you want to know who the real Messiah is, read the Bible.

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 07:48
Those hotdogs kosher?


Yep...Hebrew nationals ;)

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 08:06
Go ahead and quote all of Jeremiah 31, it won't help you.

No I don't need the help and you are way too brainwashed/dishonest for it to probably help you. It may however help people who actually would like to know what this whole "new covenant" listed there is all about.. So lets see what the rest of the text says, that you would ratrher not quote:

26. Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts.
27. And it shall be, as I have watched over them to uproot and to break down, to demolish and to destroy and to afflict, so will I watch over them to build and to plant, says the Lord.

G-d did indeed punish us, but he will restore us to our land for more details read Ezekiel and Isaiah.


28. In those days, they shall no longer say, "Fathers have eaten unripe grapes, and the teeth of the children shall be set on edge."
29. But each man shall die for his iniquity; whoever eats the unripe grapes- his teeth shall be set on edge.

Here again, no vicarious atonement, no "saviors" dying "in place" of anyone else. Each person pays for their own sins. Nobody can pay for somebody else's sins.

30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
32. For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

So here, we see that the only thing "New" about this covenant ( renewed may be the better translation btw) is that no longer will people need to be taught the Torah, they will have it already.
Notice also, the Torah (Law) is still very much in effect, it isn't nor was it ever "temporary" nor will it be replaced with something "new"

34. So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the laws of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name.
35. If these laws depart from before Me, says the Lord, so will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time.

Again, no "replacement theology", no "new" Israel. We have never been permanently rejected. Never will be. Contrary to your NT lies. We have never been "replaced"


36. So said the Lord: If the heavens above will be measured and the foundations of the earth below will be fathomed, I too will reject all the seed of Israel because of all they did, says the Lord.

We know the heavens cannot be measured. G-d is saying very matter-of-factly. He will never totally reject Israel.

Notice, there is no vicarious atonements, crucifixions, blood drinkings, laws of Grace, Eat of my body/drink of my blood nonsense in any of this. Show me Where those things fit into what G-d is saying through his Prophet. That is why you missionaries are always careful to take a scalpel to your "proof texts"

It also shows that you are dishonest and misleading and seem to have no problems twisting and distorting G-d's message to suit your own needs. Then in the same breath accuse great Torah sages of somehow being "grossly misled"

Still waiting for you to explain how your "Living word" could have named the wrong Zecheriah, placed a blood libel on his own people for the deaths of the "prophet" Abel ( who wasn't even a prophet anyway) and why he sinned in violating the Torah for the Nth time here by being vengeful and supporting holding a grudge against his fellow Jews in this case for something they could not possibly even be guilty of.

Paul7
08-14-2011, 08:48
No I don't need the help and you are way too brainwashed/dishonest for it to probably help you.

Pot, meet kettle. Exactly why I don't waste too much time responding to you.

It may however help people who actually would like to know what this whole "new covenant" listed there is all about.. So lets see what the rest of the text says, that you would ratrher not quote:

26. Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts.
27. And it shall be, as I have watched over them to uproot and to break down, to demolish and to destroy and to afflict, so will I watch over them to build and to plant, says the Lord.

G-d did indeed punish us, but he will restore us to our land for more details read Ezekiel and Isaiah.

Already happened in 1947. Interesting how this verse states the obvious that God can uproot and demolish, but you say there's no way that happened in 70 AD.

28. In those days, they shall no longer say, "Fathers have eaten unripe grapes, and the teeth of the children shall be set on edge."
29. But each man shall die for his iniquity; whoever eats the unripe grapes- his teeth shall be set on edge.

Here again, no vicarious atonement, no "saviors" dying "in place" of anyone else.

Yes, that is addressed in Is. 53:5:

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

If not Jesus, who do you think that verse is referring to?

Each person pays for their own sins.

How do you know when you've paid up?

Nobody can pay for somebody else's sins.

If that person is God, they can. As our sins are an offense against God, only He could pay for them through His atoning death on the cross.

30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
32. For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

So here, we see that the only thing "New" about this covenant ( renewed may be the better translation btw) is that no longer will people need to be taught the Torah, they will have it already.
Notice also, the Torah (Law) is still very much in effect, it isn't nor was it ever "temporary" nor will it be replaced with something "new"

34. So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the laws of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name.
35. If these laws depart from before Me, says the Lord, so will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time.

Yes, just as God's creation order is securely established, so Israel will always have descendents. It is not referring to nation as 'country' since Israel obviously was not a country for a long time.

Again, no "replacement theology", no "new" Israel. We have never been permanently rejected. Never will be. Contrary to your NT lies. We have never been "replaced"


36. So said the Lord: If the heavens above will be measured and the foundations of the earth below will be fathomed, I too will reject all the seed of Israel because of all they did, says the Lord.

We know the heavens cannot be measured. G-d is saying very matter-of-factly. He will never totally reject Israel.

I agree. Romans 11:26, 27 says, "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Three main interpretations of this verse are:

1. The total number of elect Jews of every generation (equivalent to the "fullness" of Israel (v. 12), which is similar to the "fullness [full number]" of the Gentiles in v. 25 .
2. The total number of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles, of every generation.
3. The great majority of Jews of the final generation.

The salvation of the Jews will be on the same basis as anyone's salvation: personal faith in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead.

'The deliverer will come from Zion' part comes from Is. 59:20, where the deliverer ('Redeemer') seems to refer to God. The Talmud understood the text to be a reference to the Messiah, and Paul uses it in this way.

Notice, there is no vicarious atonements, crucifixions, blood drinkings, laws of Grace, Eat of my body/drink of my blood nonsense in any of this. Show me Where those things fit into what G-d is saying through his Prophet.

Straw man, I never claimed all of that was covered in this one particular prophecy, just that there would be a new covenant. Israel often rebelled when God decided to change directions for them, as in the flight from Egypt.

It also shows that you are dishonest and misleading and seem to have no problems twisting and distorting G-d's message to suit your own needs. Then in the same breath accuse great Torah sages of somehow being "grossly misled"

They are grossly misled, just as you are.

It also shows that you are dishonest

Funny how you can say that about Christians you disagree with, but I can't say that about Jews I disagree with. Back it up or retract it.

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 09:16
Pot, meet kettle. Exactly why I don't waste too much time responding to you.



Already happened in 1947. Interesting how this verse states the obvious that God can uproot and demolish, but you say there's no way that happened in 70 AD.



Yes, that is addressed in Is. 53:5:

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

If not Jesus, who do you think that verse is referring to?



How do you know when you've paid up?



If that person is God, they can. As our sins are an offense against God, only He could pay for them through His atoning death on the cross.



Yes, just as God's creation order is securely established, so Israel will always have descendents. It is not referring to nation as 'country' since Israel obviously was not a country for a long time.



I agree. Romans 11:26, 27 says, "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Three main interpretations of this verse are:

1. The total number of elect Jews of every generation (equivalent to the "fullness" of Israel (v. 12), which is similar to the "fullness [full number]" of the Gentiles in v. 25 .
2. The total number of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles, of every generation.
3. The great majority of Jews of the final generation.

The salvation of the Jews will be on the same basis as anyone's salvation: personal faith in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead.

'The deliverer will come from Zion' part comes from Is. 59:20, where the deliverer ('Redeemer') seems to refer to God. The Talmud understood the text to be a reference to the Messiah, and Paul uses it in this way.



Straw man, I never claimed all of that was covered in this one particular prophecy, just that there would be a new covenant. Israel often rebelled when God decided to change directions for them, as in the flight from Egypt.



They are grossly misled, just as you are.



. Exactly why I don't waste too much time responding to you.

Must be, because you keep refusing to answer my question concerning your man-god. If I was wrong, then why are you too afraid to answer??


Already happened in 1947. Interesting how this verse states the obvious that God can uproot and demolish, but you say there's no way that happened in 70 AD.


Where did I ever say that never happened in 70 CE. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. i.e. lying. I guess lying isn't considered a sin to xtians.



Yes, just as God's creation order is securely established, so Israel will always have descendents. It is not referring to nation as 'country' since Israel obviously was not a country for a long time.

Please show me where I was referring to Israel as a "country" This isn't saying we will just have "decendants" This is referring to the fact that G-d has established a covenant with us that will never be annulled.



Yes, that is addressed in Is. 53:5:

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."


Uh no Isaiah 53 again. Pathetic. You people go missionary 101 and never leave the proof texting on the shelf. Who is the Servant? Jacob. How do we know this? Because if you go back two chapters and read through, the servant is identified by name. Problem is this whole "pierced" thing gets xtians all excited. Isaiah 53 isn't even a messianic passage. Also where does it state this "servant" will die??
It also states: " ..."If his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand.."

Hmmm if this is about your "messiah" I thought he was sinless, why would he need to "acknowledge guilt?" He had no offspring and certainly didn't live a long life..:crying:
Here is more food for thought. For the other readers anyway:

52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is called G-d's servant throughout Isaiah

Isaiah 41 8. But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me, 9. Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant"; I chose you and I did not despise you.

Isaiah 44 1. And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. 2. So said HaShem your Maker, and He Who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 44:21 "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you.

Isaiah 45 4. For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name; I surnamed you, yet you have not known Me.

Isaiah 49 3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."

Isaiah 49:7 This is what HaShem says- the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel- to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: "Kings will see you and rise up, princes will see and bow down, because of HaShem , who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you."

Jeremiah 30:10 " 'So do not fear, O Jacob my servant; do not be dismayed, O Israel,' declares HaShem .

Also see Isaiah 42:19-20; 43:10 to see that Israel is the singular servant, nowhere is this term used for the messiah. Jeremiah 30:10 also names Israel as the servant and Jeremiah 30:17 says that the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by G-d, just like in Isaiah 53:4!

So with all this, how in the world are you confused about who this "servant" is??


I agree. Romans 11:26, 27 says, "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."


And has this happened yet? Must not because every time you mention us, we are somehow "evil"


1. The total number of elect Jews of every generation (equivalent to the "fullness" of Israel (v. 12), which is similar to the "fullness [full number]" of the Gentiles in v. 25 .

I see you copied/pasted this from somewhere can u quote the book and chapter as well? Please cite the Tanach where we come up with this equivalent "fullness" and "elect" please.



The salvation of the Jews will be on the same basis as anyone's salvation: personal faith in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead.


And yet your "proof text" (Jeremiah 31) makes no such mention of any JC crucified and "rising from the dead" which is my whole point. You cite a scripture as "proof" then go off somewhere else when someone calls you on it. As I pointed out, the "New" covenant is only new in that there will no longer be a need for people to have to Learn the Torah, G-d will write it in their hearts. There is no mention of your so-called "elect"



The Talmud understood the text to be a reference to the Messiah, and Paul uses it in this way.

Here you go again speaking for the Talmud. You don't study nor understand Talmud. Not to mention earlier you were trying to quote it as "proof" while at the same time in the same breath claiming it was somehow "inaccurate."


2. The total number of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles, of every generation.

All of Israel has a share in The World to Come. There is no "elect" except in the mind of "Paul"

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 09:18
Funny how you can say that about Christians you disagree with, but I can't say that about Jews I disagree with. Back it up or retract it.


I just did back it up. Been backing it up throughout this thread.

Paul7
08-14-2011, 09:26
I just did back it up. Been backing it up throughout this thread.

No you haven't, just more of your insults. No different from me calling Maimonodis a dishonest liar.

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 09:31
No you haven't, just more of your insults. No different from me calling Maimonodis a dishonest liar.

Show me the insults. You made a claim. I rebuffed it using the Torah in it's proper context. Sorry if you consider that an "insult" I personally take it as an insult when someone takes my G-d's Torah and twists it, adds to it, takes away from it, and distorts it just so it fits what they want it to say. Not to mention we are commanded not to do these things. I also find it offensive you and your xtian friends are on here trying to tell educated Jews what their Scriptures say when you have so little knowledge of them, can't even read them. And then claim that G-d is a liar and that he lied to Moshe on Sinai and that all along there was only the xtian way to "be saved" and G-d's way was somehow a bit "short" I take that as very insulting. So if you can't handle the heat, as they say, get out of the kitchen. :wavey:

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 09:34
No you haven't, just more of your insults. No different from me calling Maimonodis a dishonest liar.

No see I can show where you are wrong and I would do it in a respectful way if I could but you wanna turn this into a mud-slinging contest. On the other hand, you call RamBam a liar but can't offer one bit of proof to back up what you say.
( oh sorry, he was "misguided" :upeyes:)
Likewise, put up where you think he was misguided. Are you familiar with his works? Have you studied them? I have.

Paul7
08-14-2011, 09:34
Still waiting for you to explain how your "Living word" could have named the wrong Zecheriah, placed a blood libel on his own people for the deaths of the "prophet" Abel ( who wasn't even a prophet anyway)


Now you're just making stuff up. If you're referring to Matt. 23, Jesus didn't call Abel a 'prophet'.

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zecahriah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the alter, I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Matt. 23:36,37


You know, you claim I'm somehow unqualified here for not having studied the Torah. I bet I've studied the OT way more than you have studied the NT.

Paul7
08-14-2011, 09:37
Show me the insults. You made a claim. I rebuffed it using the Torah in it's proper context. Sorry if you consider that an "insult" I personally take it as an insult when someone takes my G-d's Torah and twists it, adds to it, takes away from it, and distorts it just so it fits what they want it to say. Not to mention we are commanded not to do these things. I also find it offensive you and your xtian friends are on here trying to tell educated Jews what their Scriptures say when you have so little knowledge of them, can't even read them.

My pastor learned Hebrew in seminary.

And then claim that G-d is a liar and that he lied to Moshe on Sinai and that all along there was only the xtian way to "be saved" and G-d's way was somehow a bit "short" I take that as very insulting. So if you can't handle the heat, as they say, get out of the kitchen. :wavey:

Talk about and distortion, where do we say God 'lied' to Moses?

Paul7
08-14-2011, 09:37
No see I can show where you are wrong and I would do it in a respectful way if I could but you wanna turn this into a mud-slinging contest. On the other hand, you call RamBam a liar but can't offer one bit of proof to back up what you say.
( oh sorry, he was "misguided" :upeyes:)
Likewise, put up where you think he was misguided. Are you familiar with his works? Have you studied them? I have.

How about for a start, we both stop using the word liar for disagreement?

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 10:22
Now you're just making stuff up. If you're referring to Matt. 23, Jesus didn't call Abel a 'prophet'.

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zecahriah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the alter, I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Matt. 23:36,37


You know, you claim I'm somehow unqualified here for not having studied the Torah. I bet I've studied the OT way more than you have studied the NT.



Now you're just making stuff up. If you're referring to Matt. 23, Jesus didn't call Abel a 'prophet'.

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zecahriah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the alter, I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Matt. 23:36,37

What does Luke 11:50-51 say??

50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. ( again, wrong guy) Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

Sounds like he is lumping Abel in there to me. care to revise your statement?
In either case. As I already pointed out:
He blames the Jews with murdering EVERY prophet from Abel to Zechariah. There's four problems with this.
a. The apparent "son of god" didn't seem to realize that: CAIN, not the Jews killed Abel.
b. Abel wasn't a prophet, knowledge of the name of G-d only returned with Shem, which is why several of Shem's descendants had knowledge of G-d while Cain's descendants perished in the Flood. Guess jeesus was out creating butterflies when this part of the Chumash was reviewed.
c. Shem is the father of the peoples from whom the Jews came. Shem wasn't even born during Cain's murdering of Abel.
d. While Jews' origins started with Abraham, the term Jew or Yehudi did not begin until at earliest, with Judah, the son of Jacob (several thousand years AFTER Abel)
e. As for killing prophets, if this "son of god" would have done a little more research, the Jews didn't kill any of the prophets. Their corrupt leaders did; many of those corrupt leaders were in league with foreign interlopers. As for Zechariah, this "word of god" savior failed to realize that the Zechariah he alleged was killed, wasn't the prophet. Zechariah ben Ido was the prophet. The Zechariah jeesus references was a court official and was killed in a political coup. Sorry I had to copy/paste this from an earlier post if mine since nobody would address it.

Um and BTW you would be wrong on your 2nd point.


You want some more?

Matt.10:35 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against the mother in law..."

The notation here in my KJV cites Micah 7:6. When you read Micah in context it is the Prophet bewailing the bad situation the people are in then.
throughout his seventh chapter, Michah is lamenting his fate of having been commissioned to prophesy to such an unreceptive, unrighteous nation—but, in contrast, in Matt. 10:34-35 and in Luke 12:51-53, jsus revels gleefully in claiming that his “purpose” was to foment discord and rebellion!

huh? The Messiah is to bring an age of peace. jsus claims:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword—for I have come to create division between a man and his father, and between a daughter and her mother, and between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law.” (Matt. 10:34-35)

and further:

“Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division: For from now onwards if there are five in one house they will be divided three against two and two against three: the father will be divided against his son, and the son against his father; the mother will be divided against her daughter, and the daughter against her mother; the mother-in-law will be divided against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Lukos 12:51-53)

Understand that this is NOT the Messiah's job! Certainly not what G-d had promised us throughout the centuries.

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 10:29
My pastor learned Hebrew in seminary.



Talk about and distortion, where do we say God 'lied' to Moses?



My pastor learned Hebrew in seminary.


Mazal Tov!


Talk about and distortion, where do we say God 'lied' to Moses?


Exodus 34:
1. And the Lord said to Moses: "Hew for yourself two stone tablets like the first ones. And I will inscribe upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
2. Be prepared for the morning, and in the morning you shall ascend Mount Sinai and stand before Me there on the top of the mountain.
3. No one shall ascend with you, neither shall anyone be seen anywhere on the mountain, neither shall the sheep and the cattle graze facing that mountain."
4. So he [Moses] hewed two stone tablets like the first ones, and Moses arose early in the morning and ascended Mount Sinai as the Lord had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5. And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and He called out in the name of the Lord.
6. And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth,
7. preserving loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and rebellion and sin; yet He does not completely clear [of sin] He visits the iniquity of parents on children and children's children, to the third and fourth generations."

Here G-d is making it clear that he can and does forgive sins. He doesn't need an intermediary. He doesnt need a human sacrifice. G-d made it clear in his Torah, nobody can die for another person's sins ( as I just pointed out about 30 mins ago) Made it clear his Torah is eternal and that there is NONE beside him, etc... Yet you would have us believe some 1800 years later that G-d said to himself and to the Jewish people: "Ah heck, this Torah thing isn't working, my Torah couldn't save you, here, just believe that this guy was Me, and that when he prays to me, he is really praying to himself, believe in him and you can ignore the rest of my Torah and then presto, you get a free ticket to Heaven."


..........Seriously?

FifthFreedom
08-14-2011, 10:30
How about for a start, we both stop using the word liar for disagreement?

OK.. works for me

Paul7
08-14-2011, 15:35
My pastor learned Hebrew in seminary.


Mazal Tov!


Talk about and distortion, where do we say God 'lied' to Moses?


Exodus 34:
1. And the Lord said to Moses: "Hew for yourself two stone tablets like the first ones. And I will inscribe upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
2. Be prepared for the morning, and in the morning you shall ascend Mount Sinai and stand before Me there on the top of the mountain.
3. No one shall ascend with you, neither shall anyone be seen anywhere on the mountain, neither shall the sheep and the cattle graze facing that mountain."
4. So he [Moses] hewed two stone tablets like the first ones, and Moses arose early in the morning and ascended Mount Sinai as the Lord had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5. And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and He called out in the name of the Lord.
6. And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth,
7. preserving loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and rebellion and sin; yet He does not completely clear [of sin] He visits the iniquity of parents on children and children's children, to the third and fourth generations."

Exactly why God could punish Jews for rejecting the Messiah. I also noticed you stopped before verse 9, "This is a stiff-necked people...."

Here G-d is making it clear that he can and does forgive sins.

Through faith, just as we see in the NT. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, for example, all who looked on it were saved. Exactly what Jesus did on the cross.

He doesn't need an intermediary. He doesnt need a human sacrifice. G-d made it clear in his Torah, nobody can die for another person's sins ( as I just pointed out about 30 mins ago) Made it clear his Torah is eternal

Cite?

and that there is NONE beside him, etc... Yet you would have us believe some 1800 years later that G-d said to himself and to the Jewish people: "Ah heck, this Torah thing isn't working, my Torah couldn't save you, here, just believe that this guy was Me, and that when he prays to me, he is really praying to himself, believe in him and you can ignore the rest of my Torah and then presto, you get a free ticket to Heaven."

You won't agree with this, but to Christians Israel was the special vehicle the Messiah came from, to complete his mission of salvation for all mankind, not just Jews, who were not some kind of special people.

Paul7
08-14-2011, 15:50
What does Luke 11:50-51 say??

50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. ( again, wrong guy) Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

Sounds like he is lumping Abel in there to me. care to revise your statement?

Not at all. To quote one commentary, "The violent deaths of both men, who were considered righteous before the Lord, is what testifies to Christ and His Crucifixion. It is because they were both slain and the latter in such a very sacriligeous manner (ie in the Temple) that there murders were so horrifying to Jews. To put it simply, the murder of Abel brought this sin into the world for the first time. The murder of Zechariah (I argue that of 2 Chronicles) in the Holy Temple was believed to be a defilement of God's Holy Place and brought about the destruction of the First Temple."

If Jesus really is God and He calls Abel a prophet, who are you to argue?

In either case. As I already pointed out:
He blames the Jews with murdering EVERY prophet from Abel to Zechariah.

No, He blames them for the deaths of the prophet's that were killed.

b. Abel wasn't a prophet, knowledge of the name of G-d only returned with Shem,

Nonsense, Abel was described as a righteous man before God.

d. While Jews' origins started with Abraham, the term Jew or Yehudi did not begin until at earliest, with Judah, the son of Jacob (several thousand years AFTER Abel)

That doesn't mean there weren't righteous men before this.

e. As for killing prophets, if this "son of god" would have done a little more research, the Jews didn't kill any of the prophets. Their corrupt leaders did; many of those corrupt leaders were in league with foreign interlopers.

And what faith and people were the 'corrupt leaders', and how do you know they didn't act with the support of the people?

As for Zechariah, this "word of god" savior failed to realize that the Zechariah he alleged was killed, wasn't the prophet. Zechariah ben Ido was the prophet. The Zechariah jeesus references was a court official and was killed in a political coup. Sorry I had to copy/paste this from an earlier post if mine since nobody would address it.

Wrong again:

"WHICH ZECHARIAH IN MATTHEW 23:35?
N. Sebastian Desent, Ph.D.; Th.D.; D.D., Pastor, Historic Baptist Church, Rhode Island
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Matthew 23:35
There are plenty of commentaries from the first century until now discussing which Prophet Jesus was speaking of
in this passage (Matthew 23:35) and in Luke 11:51.
Distilling the possible options, we have the Zechariah son of Jehoida in 2Chronicles 23, Zechariah the son of
Berechiah the son of Iddo in Zechariah 1:1; or some other Zechariah (there were many in the Old Testament and
also the father of John Baptist). Irresponsible and unreasonable options are that Jesus made a mistake or a scribe
mistakenly changed Jehoida to Berechiah when copying the Book of Matthew. We will not consider these two
options.
Jehoida’s son in 2Chronicles 23 lived 300 years (around the 9th century BC) before the son of Berechiah, the son of
Iddo.
From the context where Jesus was speaking, Jesus is requiring the blood of the righteous prophets from Abel to a
specific Zechariah. Abel is the first righteous blood shed in the Old Testament. As Jesus was (I suppose) giving a
complete range of the Old Testament prophets, he ended with a prophet from 2Chronicles. 2Chronicles is the last
book on the Hebrew Old Testament (their order is different from the Christian Old Testament).
I contend the Zechariah Jesus referred to is the Zechariah from Zechariah 1:1 – the son of Berechiah (Barachias) the
son of Iddo. This Zechariah prophesied around 520 BC, after the 70 years of Babylonian captivity led to the
rebuilding of the temple. Now, although many better men than I have commented, I shall also give my opinion. I
dare not say this is the final answer, but it is worth a hearing.
Here are my reasons for presenting this Zechariah as the son of Berechiah and Iddo (Zechariah 1:1):
1 Jesus specifically described which Zechariah he spoke of. Jesus said, “… the son of Barachias.” A simple
search shows only one, and that is the Zechariah from the Minor Prophets, the second to the last book in
our Old Testament. As the old saying goes, if you hear hoof beats, think horses before zebras. This is the
direct and simplest direction, considering Jesus made the effort to specify which Zechariah he was speaking
of.
2 This Zechariah prophesied to encourage the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian destruction of
Solomon’s Temple (see 2Chronicles 36:19-23). Jesus’ comments referred to the temple. Although there
have been a few killed in the temple area, to suppose Zechariah the son of Jehoida is the one Jesus
mentioned (simply because of his name, which was not uncommon) ignores the possibility that there were
others.
3 This Zechariah prophesied in the second year of Darius (Zechariah 1:1). According to Ezra 6:14, 15; the
temple was rebuilt in the 6th year of Darius. It is very likely Zechariah the son of Berechiah prophesied in
the temple, especially considering his ministry was centered on the rebuilding of the temple.
4 Reading 2Chronicles 36:19-23, you see that Zechariah – although not mentioned by name – was likely part
of the “Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.”
This still fulfills the point that Jesus was including the blood of prophets from the Abel (the first in the first
book) to the prophet in the last book (actually, the last chapter of the last book). The son of Jehoida was
killed in 2Chronicles 23, 300 years before the son of Berechiah, probably among those mentioned in
2Chronicles 36. This is even a better fulfillment of Jesus’ mention of the complete Old Testament.
5 Lastly, and though not totally scriptural, the Targum version of Lamentations adds to Jeremiah’s writing a
mention of Zechariah. Here is the Old Testament reading of Jeremiah 2:20:
Behold, O LORD, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their
fruit, and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary
of the Lord?
Here is the Targum reading:
See, O LORD, and observe from heaven against whom have you turned. Thus is it right
for the Daughters of Israel to eat the fruit of their wombs due to starvation, lovely
children wrapped in fine linen? The Attribute of Justice replied, and said, Is it right to kill
priest and prophet in the Temple of the LORD, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo,
the High Priest and faithful prophet in the Temple of the LORD on the Day of Atonement
because he told you not to do evil before the LORD?
Although I am not saying that the Targum readings are inspired * – they were Aramaic renderings added to
the Old Testament by the Jews in dispersion to help them understand and teach the sacred books – I am
saying the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking in Matthew 25 did know the Targum. They were Aramaicspeaking
Jews. Since Jesus mentioned that the son of Barachias was slain “between the temple and the
altar,” this is added inspired revelation from the mouth of our Saviour. Similar to the revelation that the
two who withstood Moses were Jannes and Jambres, which we know as a result of Paul’s writings to
Timothy (2Timothy 3:8).
With the above-listed reasons, we still maintain the context of what Jesus was communicating; do not add to or take
away from his words, but take them at face-value; and we span the prophets from Abel (Genesis 4) to Zechariah
(2Chronicles 36; Zechariah 1:1); or, from the beginning of mankind (Abel) to the end of the Babylonian captivity
(Zechariah).
I hope this is a help to the readers.
* Lamentations was written by Jeremiah shortly after 586 BC. The prophet Zechariah the son of Berechiah died over 70 years later. The Targum
reading is obviously an addition made long after Jeremiah wrote it.
NSD 12/1/10

You want some more?

Matt.10:35 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against the mother in law..."

The notation here in my KJV cites Micah 7:6. When you read Micah in context it is the Prophet bewailing the bad situation the people are in then.
throughout his seventh chapter, Michah is lamenting his fate of having been commissioned to prophesy to such an unreceptive, unrighteous nation—but, in contrast, in Matt. 10:34-35 and in Luke 12:51-53, jsus revels gleefully in claiming that his “purpose” was to foment discord and rebellion!

huh? The Messiah is to bring an age of peace. jsus claims:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword—for I have come to create division between a man and his father, and between a daughter and her mother, and between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law.” (Matt. 10:34-35)

and further:

“Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division: For from now onwards if there are five in one house they will be divided three against two and two against three: the father will be divided against his son, and the son against his father; the mother will be divided against her daughter, and the daughter against her mother; the mother-in-law will be divided against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Lukos 12:51-53)

Understand that this is NOT the Messiah's job! Certainly not what G-d had promised us throughout the centuries.

The age of peace will arrive at the Second Coming, as far as present strife, we still have freewill, and many will misuse it, as IMHO you do.

FifthFreedom
08-15-2011, 07:08
Exactly why God could punish Jews for rejecting the Messiah. I also noticed you stopped before verse 9, "This is a stiff-necked people...."



Through faith, just as we see in the NT. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, for example, all who looked on it were saved. Exactly what Jesus did on the cross.



Cite?




You won't agree with this, but to Christians Israel was the special vehicle the Messiah came from, to complete his mission of salvation for all mankind, not just Jews, who were not some kind of special people.



Exactly why God could punish Jews for rejecting the Messiah. I also noticed you stopped before verse 9, "This is a stiff-necked people...."


Again, what exactly does this have to do with "rejecting Messiah?"
Why you keep inserting and adding? Ok, "for you are a stiffnecked people" there I added it. They were. No argument there.


Through faith, just as we see in the NT. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, for example, all who looked on it were saved. Exactly what Jesus did on the cross.

I just wish for once, you could have a conversation where you don't try to insert "jesus" into every topic even when it's plain that he has no connection with it whatsoever. The serpant in the wilderness that Moshe maid wasn't "suffering in their place." and the whole subject was something totally different.

Cite?

What? Again? And you thing We are stiff-necked :whistling:

You won't agree with this, but to Christians Israel was the special vehicle the Messiah came from, to complete his mission of salvation for all mankind, not just Jews, who were not some kind of special people.

I am fully aware of what the xtian position is on this subject. For one. One of the Messiah's missions is NOT to atone for sins or save souls. His job is well outlined and I went to great lengths to explain it to you.
The Messiah will bring the Messianic age and it will indeed be a benefit to all the righteous of ALL nations. Not just Jews. I don't believe I ever said otherwise. However, he will be just a man. A very holy man, but a man nonetheless.

Paul7
08-15-2011, 07:12
Exactly why God could punish Jews for rejecting the Messiah. I also noticed you stopped before verse 9, "This is a stiff-necked people...."


Again, what exactly does this have to do with "rejecting Messiah?"
Why you keep inserting and adding? Ok, "for you are a stiffnecked people" there I added it. They were. No argument there.


Through faith, just as we see in the NT. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, for example, all who looked on it were saved. Exactly what Jesus did on the cross.

I just wish for once, you could have a conversation where you don't try to insert "jesus" into every topic even when it's plain that he has no connection with it whatsoever. The serpant in the wilderness that Moshe maid wasn't "suffering in their place." and the whole subject was something totally different.

Cite?

What? Again? And you thing We are stiff-necked :whistling:

You won't agree with this, but to Christians Israel was the special vehicle the Messiah came from, to complete his mission of salvation for all mankind, not just Jews, who were not some kind of special people.

I am fully aware of what the xtian position is on this subject. For one. One of the Messiah's missions is NOT to atone for sins or save souls. His job is well outlined and I went to great lengths to explain it to you.
The Messiah will bring the Messianic age and it will indeed be a benefit to all the righteous of ALL nations. Not just Jews. I don't believe I ever said otherwise. However, he will be just a man. A very holy man, but a man nonetheless.

FF, I think we've both said our piece on the subject of Jesus Christ.

FifthFreedom
08-15-2011, 07:28
Not at all. To quote one commentary, "The violent deaths of both men, who were considered righteous before the Lord, is what testifies to Christ and His Crucifixion. It is because they were both slain and the latter in such a very sacriligeous manner (ie in the Temple) that there murders were so horrifying to Jews. To put it simply, the murder of Abel brought this sin into the world for the first time. The murder of Zechariah (I argue that of 2 Chronicles) in the Holy Temple was believed to be a defilement of God's Holy Place and brought about the destruction of the First Temple."

If Jesus really is God and He calls Abel a prophet, who are you to argue?



No, He blames them for the deaths of the prophet's that were killed.



Nonsense, Abel was described as a righteous man before God.



That doesn't mean there weren't righteous men before this.



And what faith and people were the 'corrupt leaders', and how do you know they didn't act with the support of the people?



Wrong again:

"WHICH ZECHARIAH IN MATTHEW 23:35?
N. Sebastian Desent, Ph.D.; Th.D.; D.D., Pastor, Historic Baptist Church, Rhode Island
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Matthew 23:35
There are plenty of commentaries from the first century until now discussing which Prophet Jesus was speaking of
in this passage (Matthew 23:35) and in Luke 11:51.
Distilling the possible options, we have the Zechariah son of Jehoida in 2Chronicles 23, Zechariah the son of
Berechiah the son of Iddo in Zechariah 1:1; or some other Zechariah (there were many in the Old Testament and
also the father of John Baptist). Irresponsible and unreasonable options are that Jesus made a mistake or a scribe
mistakenly changed Jehoida to Berechiah when copying the Book of Matthew. We will not consider these two
options.
Jehoida’s son in 2Chronicles 23 lived 300 years (around the 9th century BC) before the son of Berechiah, the son of
Iddo.
From the context where Jesus was speaking, Jesus is requiring the blood of the righteous prophets from Abel to a
specific Zechariah. Abel is the first righteous blood shed in the Old Testament. As Jesus was (I suppose) giving a
complete range of the Old Testament prophets, he ended with a prophet from 2Chronicles. 2Chronicles is the last
book on the Hebrew Old Testament (their order is different from the Christian Old Testament).
I contend the Zechariah Jesus referred to is the Zechariah from Zechariah 1:1 – the son of Berechiah (Barachias) the
son of Iddo. This Zechariah prophesied around 520 BC, after the 70 years of Babylonian captivity led to the
rebuilding of the temple. Now, although many better men than I have commented, I shall also give my opinion. I
dare not say this is the final answer, but it is worth a hearing.
Here are my reasons for presenting this Zechariah as the son of Berechiah and Iddo (Zechariah 1:1):
1 Jesus specifically described which Zechariah he spoke of. Jesus said, “… the son of Barachias.” A simple
search shows only one, and that is the Zechariah from the Minor Prophets, the second to the last book in
our Old Testament. As the old saying goes, if you hear hoof beats, think horses before zebras. This is the
direct and simplest direction, considering Jesus made the effort to specify which Zechariah he was speaking
of.
2 This Zechariah prophesied to encourage the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian destruction of
Solomon’s Temple (see 2Chronicles 36:19-23). Jesus’ comments referred to the temple. Although there
have been a few killed in the temple area, to suppose Zechariah the son of Jehoida is the one Jesus
mentioned (simply because of his name, which was not uncommon) ignores the possibility that there were
others.
3 This Zechariah prophesied in the second year of Darius (Zechariah 1:1). According to Ezra 6:14, 15; the
temple was rebuilt in the 6th year of Darius. It is very likely Zechariah the son of Berechiah prophesied in
the temple, especially considering his ministry was centered on the rebuilding of the temple.
4 Reading 2Chronicles 36:19-23, you see that Zechariah – although not mentioned by name – was likely part
of the “Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.”
This still fulfills the point that Jesus was including the blood of prophets from the Abel (the first in the first
book) to the prophet in the last book (actually, the last chapter of the last book). The son of Jehoida was
killed in 2Chronicles 23, 300 years before the son of Berechiah, probably among those mentioned in
2Chronicles 36. This is even a better fulfillment of Jesus’ mention of the complete Old Testament.
5 Lastly, and though not totally scriptural, the Targum version of Lamentations adds to Jeremiah’s writing a
mention of Zechariah. Here is the Old Testament reading of Jeremiah 2:20:
Behold, O LORD, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their
fruit, and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary
of the Lord?
Here is the Targum reading:
See, O LORD, and observe from heaven against whom have you turned. Thus is it right
for the Daughters of Israel to eat the fruit of their wombs due to starvation, lovely
children wrapped in fine linen? The Attribute of Justice replied, and said, Is it right to kill
priest and prophet in the Temple of the LORD, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo,
the High Priest and faithful prophet in the Temple of the LORD on the Day of Atonement
because he told you not to do evil before the LORD?
Although I am not saying that the Targum readings are inspired * – they were Aramaic renderings added to
the Old Testament by the Jews in dispersion to help them understand and teach the sacred books – I am
saying the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking in Matthew 25 did know the Targum. They were Aramaicspeaking
Jews. Since Jesus mentioned that the son of Barachias was slain “between the temple and the
altar,” this is added inspired revelation from the mouth of our Saviour. Similar to the revelation that the
two who withstood Moses were Jannes and Jambres, which we know as a result of Paul’s writings to
Timothy (2Timothy 3:8).
With the above-listed reasons, we still maintain the context of what Jesus was communicating; do not add to or take
away from his words, but take them at face-value; and we span the prophets from Abel (Genesis 4) to Zechariah
(2Chronicles 36; Zechariah 1:1); or, from the beginning of mankind (Abel) to the end of the Babylonian captivity
(Zechariah).
I hope this is a help to the readers.
* Lamentations was written by Jeremiah shortly after 586 BC. The prophet Zechariah the son of Berechiah died over 70 years later. The Targum
reading is obviously an addition made long after Jeremiah wrote it.
NSD 12/1/10



The age of peace will arrive at the Second Coming, as far as present strife, we still have freewill, and many will misuse it, as IMHO you do.



Not at all. To quote one commentary, "The violent deaths of both men, who were considered righteous before the Lord, is what testifies to Christ and His Crucifixion. It is because they were both slain and the latter in such a very sacriligeous manner (ie in the Temple) that there murders were so horrifying to Jews. To put it simply, the murder of Abel brought this sin into the world for the first time. The murder of Zechariah (I argue that of 2 Chronicles) in the Holy Temple was believed to be a defilement of God's Holy Place and brought about the destruction of the First Temple."


As usual, I ask YOU for a response and you copy/paste/quote a "commentary"

As I already pointed out, in Luke it's obvious he is speaking of prophets. In any case, since it was Cain and not the Jews who killed Abel, how can he lay that to their charge? How can Abel"s murder have been "horrifying to Jews?" there were no Jews at that time.
I also stated: Shem is the father of the peoples from whom the Jews came. Shem wasn't even born during Cain's murdering of Abel.
Yet you still just keep ignoring it and going around in circles.

While I am not going to waste a lot of time arguing point by point your excessive copy/paste job, it is interesting to note that ( assuming you even read it before you posted it) he himself erroneously describes Abel as a prophet
From your article: From the context where Jesus was speaking, Jesus is requiring the blood of the righteous prophets from Abel to a
specific Zechariah. Abel is the first righteous blood shed in the Old Testament. As Jesus was (I suppose) giving a
complete range of the Old Testament prophets, he ended with a prophet from 2Chronicles. 2Chronicles is the last
book on the Hebrew Old Testamen

And concludes with: With the above-listed reasons, we still maintain the context of what Jesus was communicating; do not add to or take
away from his words, but take them at face-value; and we span the prophets from Abel (Genesis 4) to Zechariah
(2Chronicles 36; Zechariah 1:1);

In the beginning of his article, he states: Irresponsible and unreasonable options are that Jesus made a mistake or a scribe
mistakenly changed Jehoida to Berechiah when copying the Book of Matthew. We will not consider these two
options.

Notice he doesn't provide any proof nor go into why these people who disagree with him arrive at their conclusions, but simply labels them as "Unreasonable and Irresponsible" Further, since of course there opinion is different than his, his way of dealing with it is simply to "not consider them"
Wow, how every open minded.
The fact that this "Expert" Listed Abel as a prophet alone kind of takes away hos credibility. Perhaps you should go back and read my response again

particularly when I said: Abel wasn't a prophet, knowledge of the name of G-d only returned with Shem, which is why several of Shem's descendants had knowledge of G-d while Cain's descendants perished in the Flood

See, you are kind of like this person you quote. When you don't like what someone is saying you do what he does, you simply don't consider it. Must be hard to learn something when you think your are right all the time without the slightest consideration we may just know are scriptures just a little bit better than you.


The age of peace will arrive at the Second Coming, as far as present strife, we still have freewill, and many will misuse it, as IMHO you do

Ignoring your parting shot. I am still waiting for your proof from our Prophets of this "second coming"


If Jesus really is God and He calls Abel a prophet, who are you to argue?


If jsus was "really G-d" he wouldn't have.
It's funny because in an earlier post you claimed:


Now you're just making stuff up. If you're referring to Matt. 23, Jesus didn't call Abel a 'prophet'.

wow, talk about your flip flop

Paul7
08-15-2011, 19:38
Not at all. To quote one commentary, "The violent deaths of both men, who were considered righteous before the Lord, is what testifies to Christ and His Crucifixion. It is because they were both slain and the latter in such a very sacriligeous manner (ie in the Temple) that there murders were so horrifying to Jews. To put it simply, the murder of Abel brought this sin into the world for the first time. The murder of Zechariah (I argue that of 2 Chronicles) in the Holy Temple was believed to be a defilement of God's Holy Place and brought about the destruction of the First Temple."


As usual, I ask YOU for a response and you copy/paste/quote a "commentary"

So what? Why reinvent the wheel, especially for one not knows for his openmindedness?

As I already pointed out, in Luke it's obvious he is speaking of prophets. In any case, since it was Cain and not the Jews who killed Abel, how can he lay that to their charge? How can Abel"s murder have been "horrifying to Jews?" there were no Jews at that time.

Would it not be considered a great crime to the Jews of Jesus' day?

Yet you still just keep ignoring it and going around in circles.

Like you do with the OT prophecies of Jesus?

While I am not going to waste a lot of time arguing point by point your excessive copy/paste job, it is interesting to note that ( assuming you even read it before you posted it) he himself erroneously describes Abel as a prophet

No kidding, we already discussed Luke passage that did also. Only non-Christian Jews can call someone a prophet? Remember, we don't even think you recognized the Messiah, let alone an obsure prophet.

See, you are kind of like this person you quote. When you don't like what someone is saying you do what he does, you simply don't consider it. Must be hard to learn something when you think your are right all the time without the slightest consideration we may just know are scriptures just a little bit better than you.

I'm sure you think so, so did the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Does that mean you'll quit quoting the NT?

Ignoring your parting shot. I am still waiting for your proof from our Prophets of this "second coming"

Why bother, you don't even acknowledge the plain references to Jesus in Is. 53.

If jsus was "really G-d" he wouldn't have.

Jesus had no problem in confronting the Pharisees with their errors, they were not the authority. John MacArthur puts it:

"The Pharisees had overlaid the truth of the OT with their own elaborate system of human traditions, manmade rules, and useless ceremonies. They were convinced sinners needed to do good works to help atone for their own sins. They had even enshrined their own intricate system of finely detailed traditions as the chief means by which they thought it possible to acquire the kind of merit they believed would balance out the guilt of sin. That is why they were obsessed with ostentatious works, religious rituals, spiritual stunts, ceremonial displays of righteousness, and other external and cosmetic achievements. And they clung doggedly to that system, even though most of their rituals were nothing more than their own inventions, designed to paper over sin and make them appear righteous."

It's funny because in an earlier post you claimed:


Now you're just making stuff up. If you're referring to Matt. 23, Jesus didn't call Abel a 'prophet'.

wow, talk about your flip flop

He didn't in Matt., which was what you were referring to.

Just curious, do you deny a dominent theme of the OT is that of an innocent substitute whose blood was shed on behalf of the sinner?

FifthFreedom
08-15-2011, 21:08
So what? Why reinvent the wheel, especially for one not knows for his openmindedness?



Would it not be considered a great crime to the Jews of Jesus' day?



Like you do with the OT prophecies of Jesus?



No kidding, we already discussed Luke passage that did also. Only non-Christian Jews can call someone a prophet? Remember, we don't even think you recognized the Messiah, let alone an obsure prophet.



I'm sure you think so, so did the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Does that mean you'll quit quoting the NT?



Why bother, you don't even acknowledge the plain references to Jesus in Is. 53.



Jesus had no problem in confronting the Pharisees with their errors, they were not the authority. John MacArthur puts it:

"The Pharisees had overlaid the truth of the OT with their own elaborate system of human traditions, manmade rules, and useless ceremonies. They were convinced sinners needed to do good works to help atone for their own sins. They had even enshrined their own intricate system of finely detailed traditions as the chief means by which they thought it possible to acquire the kind of merit they believed would balance out the guilt of sin. That is why they were obsessed with ostentatious works, religious rituals, spiritual stunts, ceremonial displays of righteousness, and other external and cosmetic achievements. And they clung doggedly to that system, even though most of their rituals were nothing more than their own inventions, designed to paper over sin and make them appear righteous."



He didn't in Matt., which was what you were referring to.

Just curious, do you deny a dominent theme of the OT is that of an innocent substitute whose blood was shed on behalf of the sinner?


No he didn't in Matt, but he did in Luke thats what happens when you have "Inspired" words of the gospels that constantly contradict one another and are never consistant.

Is that what you truly think the main Theme of the "OT" is? If so, I really don't think you are worth talking to at this point.


Would it not be considered a great crime to the Jews of Jesus' day?


That is not the main point and you know it. You're just trying to blur the subject/object.


Like you do with the OT prophecies of Jesus?


The closest you came to was Isaiah 53 which I responded to clearly in an earlier post and you ignored. When confront with facts, you always disappear and then re appear again just to bring up the same tired old "proof text" BTW if you pastor is so good at Hebrew, why doesn't he know the words "almah" doesn't mean virgin?

When I get back tomorrow. I will decimate this Macaurthur guy

Paul7
08-15-2011, 21:41
No he didn't in Matt, but he did in Luke thats what happens when you have "Inspired" words of the gospels that constantly contradict one another and are never consistant.

No contradiction, Luke added a detail Matthew didn't. Hey, if I listened to Muslims, the OT is full of contradictions:

http://www.usislam.org/52contra.htm

Is that what you truly think the main Theme of the "OT" is? If so, I really don't think you are worth talking to at this point.

The feeling is mutual.


Would it not be considered a great crime to the Jews of Jesus' day?


That is not the main point and you know it. You're just trying to blur the subject/object.

Nonsense.

The closest you came to was Isaiah 53 which I responded to clearly in an earlier post and you ignored. When confront with facts, you always disappear and then re appear again just to bring up the same tired old "proof text" BTW if you pastor is so good at Hebrew, why doesn't he know the words "almah" doesn't mean virgin?

I'll let Jews for Jesus explain it to you:

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah#

When I get back tomorrow. I will decimate this Macaurthur guy

LOL, I won't hold my breath for that.

FifthFreedom
08-16-2011, 08:41
http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah#



LOL, I won't hold my breath for that.


LOL Yeah "Jews" for jsus I am well aware of their Distortions. I have clearly showed who this "servant" was in an earlier post. I'll let the other readers decide for themselves if they agree or not.

Just some thoughts I have about their "source"

* The "LXX" is generally used in reference to the Greek translation of the "Old Testament", i.e., non-Jewish translation. The original translation of the Torah, made in the mid-3rd century BCE at the request of Ptolemy II of Alexandria, is generally referred to as the "Septuagint". Given the problem of the confusion between the "LXX" and the "Septuagint", I personally prefer to use the phrase "Original Septuagint" in reference to the translation of the Torah by the 72 Jewish bi-lingual scholars. Unfortunately, there are no extant copies of the "Original Septuagint", all of which may have been consumed in the fire that destroyed the ancient library of Alexandria in 48 BCE (according to the writings of Plutarch).
* The "Original Septuagint" was written in Koine Greek, whereas the "LXX" is written in a more modern dialect of Greek.
* The "LXX" refers to Dinah as "parthenos" in Genesis 34:3, right after she was raped by Sh'chem and was no longer a virgin. Consequently, the use by the "LXX" of "parthenos" at Isaiah 7:14 may not necessarily be wrong. What is wrong is the deception by the author of GMatt, claiming that the young woman, who was already pregnant, is "the virgin" who "shall conceive".
* Since Paul's Epistles, which are dated to the 6th decade CE, and GMark, which is dated to the 7th decade CE, do not mention anything about a "virgin birth", this idea clearly came in at a later date. This would suggest the dating of GMatt & GLuke to the 8th decade CE at the earliest.

Difference between you and me is I don;t have a smorgasboard of "Online Scholars" telling me what to think. I can study for myself.

FifthFreedom
08-16-2011, 08:54
Jesus had no problem in confronting the Pharisees with their errors, they were not the authority. John MacArthur puts it:

"The Pharisees had overlaid the truth of the OT with their own elaborate system of human traditions, manmade rules, and useless ceremonies. They were convinced sinners needed to do good works to help atone for their own sins. They had even enshrined their own intricate system of finely detailed traditions as the chief means by which they thought it possible to acquire the kind of merit they believed would balance out the guilt of sin. That is why they were obsessed with ostentatious works, religious rituals, spiritual stunts, ceremonial displays of righteousness, and other external and cosmetic achievements. And they clung doggedly to that system, even though most of their rituals were nothing more than their own inventions, designed to paper over sin and make them appear righteous."






First off, this guy is full of accusations and not one example. He must think he can go back in time and read their minds. Not to mention I highly doubt he is familiar enough with our religion to base his assumptions on any more than wishful thinking.

While we are on the subject of the "lowly" Pharisees let see how much the authors of the NT borrowed from them:

Talmud, Aboth 5:14

...hard to anger and easily reconciled is a kindly man.

Matthew 5:24

...leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.



Talmud, Kallah, Chapter 1

He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.

Matthew 5:28

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Talmud, Gittin 90a

The school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."

Matthew 5:32

But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....

Talmud, Baba Mezia 49

Rabbi Judah said: "...your `yes' shall be true, and your `no' shall be true."

Matthew 5:37

Let what you say be simply "Yes" or "No"....

Talmud, Shabbath 133b

Abba Saul said: "Be like Him...just as He is gracious and compassionate, so you be gracious and compassionate."

Matthew 5:48

You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



Talmud, Baba Bathra 9b

Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."

Matthew 6:3--4

But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....

Talmud, Berakoth 61a

Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Meir: "A man's words should always be few in addressing G--d...."

Matthew 6:7

And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 17a

Whose sin does He forgive? Him who forgives transgression....

Matthew 6:14--15

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Talmud, Baba Bathra 11a

After King Monbas' family rebuked him for giving away all the family's treasures, he answered: "My ancestors stored treasures here below, and I store treasures in heaven....My ancestors stored treasures in a place that could be reached by human hands, but I have stored [them] in a place that can be reached by no human hand...."

Matthew 6:19--20

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal

Talmud, Sotah 48b

Rabbi Eliezer said: "He who has only a morsel of bread in his basket, and asks: `What shall I eat tomorrow?' is a man of little faith."

Matthew 6:34

Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself....



Talmud, Berakoth 9b

Moses said to G--d: "L--rd of the universe, sufficient is the evil in its time!"

Matthew 6:34

...let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

Talmud, Shabbath 127b

Our Rabbis taught: "He who judges his neighbor favorably is himself judged favorably."

Talmud, Sotah 8b

Rabbi Meir said: "The way one measures others will be meted out for him."

Matthew 7:1--2

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.



Talmud, Arakin 16b

Rabbi Tarfon said: "...for if one says to him: `Remove the speck from between your eyes,' he would answer: `Remove the beam from between your eyes!' "

Matthew 7:3--5

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother: "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.



Talmud, Shabbath 31a

Rabbi Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Law; the rest is its commentary. Go and learn it!"

Matthew 7:12

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.


Once again, the "pious fraud" of the authors of the New Testament is evident: even as they were depicting the Rabbis as lowly degenerates, the pearls of wisdom uttered by these very Rabbis were being attributed to Jsus!

FifthFreedom
08-16-2011, 09:32
No contradiction, Luke added a detail Matthew didn't. Hey, if I listened to Muslims, the OT is full of contradictions:

http://www.usislam.org/52contra.htm





No you said "Nobody said Abel was a Prophet". Now you are backing up and even trying to throw Muslims up as a Shield. If you wanna debate Islam, start another thread.

Paul7
08-16-2011, 17:48
No you said "Nobody said Abel was a Prophet".

In the passage you quoted.

Now you are backing up and even trying to throw Muslims up as a Shield. If you wanna debate Islam, start another thread.

When I need your opinion on what to include, I'll ask you.

Paul7
08-16-2011, 17:51
LOL Yeah "Jews" for jsus I am well aware of their Distortions. I have clearly showed who this "servant" was in an earlier post. I'll let the other readers decide for themselves if they agree or not.

Just some thoughts I have about their "source"

* The "LXX" is generally used in reference to the Greek translation of the "Old Testament", i.e., non-Jewish translation. The original translation of the Torah, made in the mid-3rd century BCE at the request of Ptolemy II of Alexandria, is generally referred to as the "Septuagint". Given the problem of the confusion between the "LXX" and the "Septuagint", I personally prefer to use the phrase "Original Septuagint" in reference to the translation of the Torah by the 72 Jewish bi-lingual scholars. Unfortunately, there are no extant copies of the "Original Septuagint", all of which may have been consumed in the fire that destroyed the ancient library of Alexandria in 48 BCE (according to the writings of Plutarch).
* The "Original Septuagint" was written in Koine Greek, whereas the "LXX" is written in a more modern dialect of Greek.
* The "LXX" refers to Dinah as "parthenos" in Genesis 34:3, right after she was raped by Sh'chem and was no longer a virgin. Consequently, the use by the "LXX" of "parthenos" at Isaiah 7:14 may not necessarily be wrong. What is wrong is the deception by the author of GMatt, claiming that the young woman, who was already pregnant, is "the virgin" who "shall conceive".

Only if your mind is made up that there are no Jesus prophecies in the OT.

* Since Paul's Epistles, which are dated to the 6th decade CE, and GMark, which is dated to the 7th decade CE, do not mention anything about a "virgin birth", this idea clearly came in at a later date.

Or maybe in the first decade, when the events happened. They were written down later, so what?

Difference between you and me is I don;t have a smorgasboard of "Online Scholars" telling me what to think. I can study for myself.

Bully for your ego, but truth is truth no matter the source.

Paul7
08-16-2011, 17:57
First off, this guy is full of accusations and not one example. He must think he can go back in time and read their minds. Not to mention I highly doubt he is familiar enough with our religion to base his assumptions on any more than wishful thinking.

Wrong, he has authored or edited 150 books, and knows quite a bit about the OT.

While we are on the subject of the "lowly" Pharisees let see how much the authors of the NT borrowed from them:

Talmud, Aboth 5:14

...hard to anger and easily reconciled is a kindly man.

Matthew 5:24

...leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.



Talmud, Kallah, Chapter 1

He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.

Matthew 5:28

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Talmud, Gittin 90a

The school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."

Matthew 5:32

But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....

Talmud, Baba Mezia 49

Rabbi Judah said: "...your `yes' shall be true, and your `no' shall be true."

Matthew 5:37

Let what you say be simply "Yes" or "No"....

Talmud, Shabbath 133b

Abba Saul said: "Be like Him...just as He is gracious and compassionate, so you be gracious and compassionate."

Matthew 5:48

You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



Talmud, Baba Bathra 9b

Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."

Matthew 6:3--4

But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....

Talmud, Berakoth 61a

Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Meir: "A man's words should always be few in addressing G--d...."

Matthew 6:7

And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 17a

Whose sin does He forgive? Him who forgives transgression....

Matthew 6:14--15

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Talmud, Baba Bathra 11a

After King Monbas' family rebuked him for giving away all the family's treasures, he answered: "My ancestors stored treasures here below, and I store treasures in heaven....My ancestors stored treasures in a place that could be reached by human hands, but I have stored [them] in a place that can be reached by no human hand...."

Matthew 6:19--20

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal

Talmud, Sotah 48b

Rabbi Eliezer said: "He who has only a morsel of bread in his basket, and asks: `What shall I eat tomorrow?' is a man of little faith."

Matthew 6:34

Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself....



Talmud, Berakoth 9b

Moses said to G--d: "L--rd of the universe, sufficient is the evil in its time!"

Matthew 6:34

...let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

Talmud, Shabbath 127b

Our Rabbis taught: "He who judges his neighbor favorably is himself judged favorably."

Talmud, Sotah 8b

Rabbi Meir said: "The way one measures others will be meted out for him."

Matthew 7:1--2

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.



Talmud, Arakin 16b

Rabbi Tarfon said: "...for if one says to him: `Remove the speck from between your eyes,' he would answer: `Remove the beam from between your eyes!' "

Matthew 7:3--5

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother: "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.



Talmud, Shabbath 31a

Rabbi Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Law; the rest is its commentary. Go and learn it!"

Matthew 7:12

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Which is it? First you say Jesus made up a new religion, then you say it aligns with Jewish thought. I say it aligns with Jewish thought, which the Pharisees had gotten away from. They followed the letter of the law, but their hearts were far from God. Hosea says, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Funny how you admit the Jews could screw up to the point of having the Babylonian exile happen, but NT age Jews were infallible, apparently.


]Once again, the "pious fraud"

Like Maimonides? Back to your name-calling & insults, I see.

of the authors of the New Testament is evident: even as they were depicting the Rabbis as lowly degenerates, the pearls of wisdom uttered by these very Rabbis were being attributed to Jsus! [/B]

More nonsense.

FifthFreedom
08-17-2011, 06:53
Wrong, he has authored or edited 150 books, and knows quite a bit about the OT.



Which is it? First you say Jesus made up a new religion, then you say it aligns with Jewish thought. I say it aligns with Jewish thought, which the Pharisees had gotten away from. They followed the letter of the law, but their hearts were far from God. Hosea says, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Funny how you admit the Jews could screw up to the point of having the Babylonian exile happen, but NT age Jews were infallible, apparently.




Like Maimonides? Back to your name-calling & insults, I see.



More nonsense.



Wrong, he has authored or edited 150 books, and knows quite a bit about the OT.


So with all these books, why no examples except to slander the Rabbis? Accusing them of all sorts of things but backing it up with.....nothing. So the guy wrote books. So? Does writing a book prove um...what? Richard Dawkins writes books, Anton LeVay wrote books. Howard Stern writes books. Hell, even Hitler wrote a book. I guess in your mind once someone writes a book, anything they say becomes "truth"


Which is it? First you say Jesus made up a new religion, then you say it aligns with Jewish thought. I say it aligns with Jewish thought, which the Pharisees had gotten away from. They followed the letter of the law, but their hearts were far from God. Hosea says, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Funny how you admit the Jews could screw up to the point of having the Babylonian exile happen, but NT age Jews were infallible, apparently.

How were their hearts "far from G-d?" Other than some anonymous author of the gospels "said so?"

What I was trying to show in my post is what I have said before. Anything good in the "NT" can already be found in the Torah/Talmud.
Paul started the religion of xtianity. BTW.
Please show me where I said Jews were "infallible" Again. you have to resort to untruth and putting words in my mouth in order to prolong your argument.
The main point of what I posted was. That the authors of the NT are consistently trying to paint an ugly picture of the Rabbis and yet, they seem to need to rely on their words and attribute them to jsus. Funny isn't it?

Like Maimonides? Back to your name-calling & insults, I see.


What name did I call you? You're making things up again. What i said was descriptive. Not like calling someone a "******"


More nonsense.

So then back up some facts to the contrary. So in other words, you deny these words in blue were from the Rabbis and the words in red weren't attributed to jsus?

FifthFreedom
08-17-2011, 06:56
Only if your mind is made up that there are no Jesus prophecies in the OT.




I am still waiting for you to answer my question.. You are every selective in which ones you will answer so I will ask again. Cite where in any of the prophets it is stated that the Messiah would die and then have a "second coming" Before you bother responding to anything else. I want you to be a man and answer that question.

Oh, and also to my question in post #129

I asked: So with all this, how in the world are you confused about who this "servant" is??

FifthFreedom
08-17-2011, 07:15
In the passage you quoted.



When I need your opinion on what to include, I'll ask you.


Did I actually give an actual passage?

Paul7
08-17-2011, 20:33
I am still waiting for you to answer my question.. You are every selective in which ones you will answer so I will ask again. Cite where in any of the prophets it is stated that the Messiah would die and then have a "second coming" Before you bother responding to anything else. I want you to be a man and answer that question.

Oh, and also to my question in post #129

I asked: So with all this, how in the world are you confused about who this "servant" is??


I'm not quite sure what verse you're referring to, but 'servant' is used several times in the OT in reference to the Messiah. For example, Is. 42:1 is quoted in part in Matt. 12:18-21 with reference to Christ. There are four 'servant songs' in Is. in which the servant is the Messiah: 42:1-4, 49:1-6 (the 'servant' in v. 3 here can't mean literal national Israel, since in v. 5 this servant has a mission to Israel. The Messianic servant is the ideal Israel through whom the Lord will be glorified. He will succeed where national Israel failed.), 50:4-9, and 52:13-53:12.

Paul7
08-17-2011, 20:46
So with all these books, why no examples except to slander the Rabbis? Accusing them of all sorts of things but backing it up with.....nothing. So the guy wrote books. So? Does writing a book prove um...what? Richard Dawkins writes books, Anton LeVay wrote books. Howard Stern writes books. Hell, even Hitler wrote a book. I guess in your mind once someone writes a book, anything they say becomes "truth"

You know nothing about MacArthur yet portray him as some kind of dope. Vintage FF.

How were their hearts "far from G-d?" Other than some anonymous author of the gospels "said so?"

Read the quote again, and they weren't anonymous anymore than Maimonodis was. Jesus said to do what the Pharisees said, not what they do, "for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Matt. 23.

What I was trying to show in my post is what I have said before. Anything good in the "NT" can already be found in the Torah/Talmud.

Which does not prove the Gospel writers copied it from them. Your point makes sense if Jesus Christ is really God, the good from the Torah/Talmud came from the same source. But then if your point was valid, why did the Pharisees want Him dead?

Paul started the religion of xtianity. BTW.

As dumb as saying Maimonides started Judaism.

Please show me where I said Jews were "infallible" Again.

They why do you react so strongly to criticisms of NT-era Pharisees? I'll be the first to admit their were many times whent he church acted badly. That's man's problem, not God's.

The main point of what I posted was. That the authors of the NT are consistently trying to paint an ugly picture of the Rabbis

Is that what Jeremiah was trying to do?

and yet, they seem to need to rely on their words and attribute them to jsus. Funny isn't it?

Nonsense, you have no evidence for that ridiculous theory.

What name did I call you?

Liar, a ways back. My reference was you calling Paul and the apostles names. Do the same to Maimonides and you go nuts.

So then back up some facts to the contrary. So in other words, you deny these words in blue were from the Rabbis and the words in red weren't attributed to jsus?

No. Now what? Is doesn't prove your silly theory.

FifthFreedom
08-18-2011, 07:14
I'm not quite sure what verse you're referring to, but 'servant' is used several times in the OT in reference to the Messiah. For example, Is. 42:1 is quoted in part in Matt. 12:18-21 with reference to Christ. There are four 'servant songs' in Is. in which the servant is the Messiah: 42:1-4, 49:1-6 (the 'servant' in v. 3 here can't mean literal national Israel, since in v. 5 this servant has a mission to Israel. The Messianic servant is the ideal Israel through whom the Lord will be glorified. He will succeed where national Israel failed.), 50:4-9, and 52:13-53:12.


Problem is, I asked you to show me where he dies, much less dies and comes back. I am still waiting. Isaiah 50:4-9 Isaiah is clearly speaking of himself. Despite all that he suffered, G-d inspired him anew with teachings and prophecies and he was speaking of his readiness to accept G-d's inspiration. Perhaps you may want to read it again.

49:1-6, likewise Isaiah speaking of his mission to prophecy. Did you even read these before you posted this or is this something you picked up somewhere? (honest question) In fact verse three states: " YOu are my servant Israel, in whom i take glory." How in the world to you get jsus from Israel?? You are just proving my point. 52 and 53 is in fact referring to Israel, perhaps you should start at 51 and read through 54, may help you, maybe not.

Interesting though if you read 54:9 and continue:
"For like the waters of Noah this shall be to Me, Just as I swore that the waters of Noah will never again pass over the earth, so I have sworn not be be wrathful with you nor rebuke you. For the mountains may be moved and the hills may falter, but My kindness shall not be removed from you and my Covenant of peace shall not falter says the One Who show you mercy, HaShem." This is that covenant that you seem to think has been "replaced" with a "new one"

This is clearly speaking of Israel, He even goes on through chapter 55 speaking of our redemption.

You are correct about 42:1 though. That is speaking of Messiah, which brings me back to my original question, Where does it state that he will die or die and then return at a later time for a "second coming?"
And also, since here is is speaking of Messiah as his "servant" where does it say this servant is or is equal to G-d?
I am patient. I can wait for your answer..hey anyone can answer. No point in your fellow xtians here leaving you here all by your lonesome.

FifthFreedom
08-18-2011, 07:26
You know nothing about MacArthur yet portray him as some kind of dope. Vintage FF.



Read the quote again, and they weren't anonymous anymore than Maimonodis was. Jesus said to do what the Pharisees said, not what they do, "for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Matt. 23.



Which does not prove the Gospel writers copied it from them. Your point makes sense if Jesus Christ is really God, the good from the Torah/Talmud came from the same source. But then if your point was valid, why did the Pharisees want Him dead?



As dumb as saying Maimonides started Judaism.



They why do you react so strongly to criticisms of NT-era Pharisees? I'll be the first to admit their were many times whent he church acted badly. That's man's problem, not God's.



Is that what Jeremiah was trying to do?



Nonsense, you have no evidence for that ridiculous theory.



Liar, a ways back. My reference was you calling Paul and the apostles names. Do the same to Maimonides and you go nuts.



No. Now what? Is doesn't prove your silly theory.


You know nothing about MacArthur yet portray him as some kind of dope. Vintage FF.


Those are your words, not mine. My point is writing books doesnt equal "correct"


They why do you react so strongly to criticisms of NT-era Pharisees? I'll be the first to admit their were many times whent he church acted badly. That's man's problem, not God's.

Nobody is beyond reproach. The problem is you are accusing them of things as are the people who wrote the NT but not a single example. While there are many examples of jsus acting badly. I don't read in the NT of Pharisees calling women "dogs" having women have women degrade themselves washing his feet with their hair. Or critisizing the gentiles or calling people vulgar names. jsus did that, so if you wanna point to one party, you better be ready to handle it when someone points back to you.


Liar, a ways back. My reference was you calling Paul and the apostles names. Do the same to Maimonides and you go nuts.

And I believe you asked that we stopped using that term and I accepted so why are you going back to that? bearing a grudge? I called the people who write the gospels "frauds" but since we can't even be sure of WHO actually wrote them....

In the meantime, i await your long awaited answer to the prophecy of the 2nd coming

FifthFreedom
08-20-2011, 20:17
Well while he is thinking it over.. Vic, since you stated in another thread that Jews are "under a perpetual curse from G-d"

Perhaps you can find something in the prophets that supports this.
After of course you help your buddy Paul answer the question that was put to him.

Vic Hays
08-20-2011, 22:14
Well while he is thinking it over.. Vic, since you stated in another thread that Jews are "under a perpetual curse from G-d"

Perhaps you can find something in the prophets that supports this.
After of course you help your buddy Paul answer the question that was put to him.

Your seventy weeks of years was up a long time ago.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therfore and understand That from the going forth of the commandment To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks, The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublous times. And after the sixty two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood. And till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wings of abominations shall be one who makes desolate. Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

FifthFreedom
08-21-2011, 08:57
Your seventy weeks of years was up a long time ago.


Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therfore and understand That from the going forth of the commandment To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks, The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublous times. And after the sixty two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood. And till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wings of abominations shall be one who makes desolate. Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

I don't remember ever mentioning "70" weeks. Another smoke screen of yours I guess, but since we are on the subject...
Falsifying scripture again.,....

The word Messiah does not appear anywhere in the text. Love the way you say you love G-d but constantly try to twist the scripture He gave us

As I explained long ago. 9:24

"70 weeks" refers to 70 times 7 years or 490 years. This refers to the 70 years of exile that have passed for the Destruction of the First Temple until this vision, and the entire period of the Second temple.

9:25 The prince of this Verse is Cyrus, who gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. (Perhaps wanna read Ezra again?) he ascended to the throne 52 years ( seven full septets plus 3 years) after the exile had begun. From then until the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem was 438 years or 62 septets and 4 years.

9:26 Refers to Agrippa, the last Jewish King, at the end of the 2nd Temple Era, After his death, the prince of this verse, the Roman Titus, would command the destruction of the Temple which will not be rebuilt until after the war of God and Magog in Messianic times.

9:27:
The Roman emperor would make a treaty with the Jewish nation for 7 years but for the second half of the term the Romans would violate the covenant amd impede in the Temple service. The "mute abomination i.e. temple of Idolatry was erected by Hadrian on the Temple mount.
This is all part of history my friend.

Daniel 9 speaks of TWO anointed ones, not one. Two "messiahs." It also speaks of two distinct time frames.

The Xians try to use a time line based on Artaxerxes to get them closer to the dates around Xianity -- but they ignore the Tanach when they do this. Any 490 year time line that does not include Cyrus and his edict is wrong.

Quote:Isaiah 44:28.
Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd, and all My desire he shall fulfill," and to say of Jerusalem, "It shall be built, and the Temple shall be founded."

Isaiah 45:1.
So said HaShem to His messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I held, to flatten nations before him, and the loins of kings I will loosen, to open portals before him, and gates shall not be closed.



Above, we see 2 things. In verse 44:28, Cyrus is clearly referenced as the person who is to deliver the edict to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. Also, in verse 45:1, Cyrus is clearly called G-d's annointed (Messiah).

Josephus from the 1st century CE wrote:

Quote:HOW CYRUS, KING OF THE PERSIANS, DELIVERED THE JEWS OUT OF BABYLON AND SUFFERED THEM TO RETURN TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND TO BUILD THEIR TEMPLE, FOR WHICH WORK HE GAVE THEM MONEY.

IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, G-d commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things G-d did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since G-d Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that G-d which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."



So we see irrefutable proof of Cyrus being G-d's annointed "Messiah" who gave an edict for Jews to go back to Jerusalem in order to rebuild the city and the Temple.

Cyrus' edict - by secular accounts - was issued in 537BCE, exactly 7 weeks (or 49 years) after Babylon's sack of Jerusalem. It's a perfect fit. However, 62 or 63 weeks (or 414-421 years) after Cyrus puts us into the years 116-123 BCE, about 150 years before Jsus.

See the problem?

So the Xians ignore Isaiah. They ignore Josephus. They can't accept Cyrus as the starting point even though it is IN the Tanach. It is just WAY too early to fit Jsus.

Try 538 BCE when King Cyrus (Ezra in 1:1-4 and Ezra 5:13-17) gave the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Then in 517 BCE Darius gave another decree to rebuild the temple (recorded in Ezra 6:6-12).

All of these dates are WAY too early for the 70 weeks to fit the Jsus idea, so Xians pick a much later date. So they pick Artaxerxes' decree in 445 BCE (Nehemiah 2:5-7).

483 years from the year 445 BCE would put us at 37 CE which (per Xians) is still wrong to fit Jsus as a messiah. (Of course Jsus was never an "anointed one" aka messiah but they ignore that minor detail as well).

So now that that is answered, let us get back to my original question:

Isaiah 42:1 Where does it state that he will die or die and then return at a later time for a "second coming?"
And also, since here is is speaking of Messiah as his "servant" where does it say this servant is or is equal to G-d?

Paul7
08-21-2011, 09:31
Problem is, I asked you to show me where he dies, much less dies and comes back. I am still waiting. Isaiah 50:4-9 Isaiah is clearly speaking of himself. Despite all that he suffered, G-d inspired him anew with teachings and prophecies and he was speaking of his readiness to accept G-d's inspiration. Perhaps you may want to read it again.

49:1-6, likewise Isaiah speaking of his mission to prophecy. Did you even read these before you posted this or is this something you picked up somewhere?

Can you please not ask stupid questions?

In fact verse three states: " YOu are my servant Israel, in whom i take glory." How in the world to you get jsus from Israel?? You are just proving my point. 52 and 53 is in fact referring to Israel, perhaps you should start at 51 and read through 54, may help you, maybe not.

Interesting though if you read 54:9 and continue:
"For like the waters of Noah this shall be to Me, Just as I swore that the waters of Noah will never again pass over the earth, so I have sworn not be be wrathful with you nor rebuke you. For the mountains may be moved and the hills may falter, but My kindness shall not be removed from you and my Covenant of peace shall not falter says the One Who show you mercy, HaShem." This is that covenant that you seem to think has been "replaced" with a "new one"

I notice you ignore Is. 53, "He was pierced for our trangressions, by his stripes we are healed, he took our iniquities upon him, etc." Is that speaking of Isaiah also?

You are correct about 42:1 though. That is speaking of Messiah, which brings me back to my original question, Where does it state that he will die or die and then return at a later time for a "second coming?"
And also, since here is is speaking of Messiah as his "servant" where does it say this servant is or is equal to G-d?
I am patient. I can wait for your answer..hey anyone can answer.

I would argue that two OT verses that point to the Second Coming are Daniel 2:44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever" and Daniel 7:13,14:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given power and authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

What this verse tells us is that the person being described is not God (the Father, 'Ancient of Days'), and yet men of every language will worship him. Who is that, if not Jesus Christ?

I believe through God's continuing revelation, God revealed things in the NT era that were not revealed as explicitly before. Matt. 13 says, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd......so was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ......"I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

The quotation is from Ps. 78, a psalm acribed to Asaph, who according to 2 Ch. 29:30 was a "seer" (prophet).

BTW, I have a life outside of this forum and often travel on business, if you feel I'm not answering a question feel free to PM me.

Paul7
08-21-2011, 09:40
[B]
Those are your words, not mine. My point is writing books doesnt equal "correct"

Of course, but I assure you the man knows the OT very well.

Nobody is beyond reproach. The problem is you are accusing them of things as are the people who wrote the NT but not a single example. While there are many examples of jsus acting badly.

No, there aren't.

I don't read in the NT of Pharisees calling women "dogs"

That was a reference to gentiles, not women, and Jesus took pity on the woman and performed the miracle she requested, something the pharisees emphatically could not do.

having women have women degrade themselves washing his feet with their hair.

Not a bad response when someone recognizes the Son of God, rather than trying to get Him killed. The OT talks about men falling on their faces as if dead when before the presence of God, I believe.

And I believe you asked that we stopped using that term and I accepted so why are you going back to that? bearing a grudge? I called the people who write the gospels "frauds" but since we can't even be sure of WHO actually wrote them....

Wrong again. That's like me saying it wasn't Maimonides (hate to keep picking on him) who wrote that stuff, it was unknown people who just said it was written by him. Now prove me wrong.

FifthFreedom
08-21-2011, 10:01
Can you please not ask stupid questions?



I notice you ignore Is. 53, "He was pierced for our trangressions, by his stripes we are healed, he took our iniquities upon him, etc." Is that speaking of Isaiah also?



I would argue that two OT verses that point to the Second Coming are Daniel 2:44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever" and Daniel 7:13,14:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given power and authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

What this verse tells us is that the person being described is not God (the Father, 'Ancient of Days'), and yet men of every language will worship him. Who is that, if not Jesus Christ?

I believe through God's continuing revelation, God revealed things in the NT era that were not revealed as explicitly before. Matt. 13 says, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd......so was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ......"I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

The quotation is from Ps. 78, a psalm acribed to Asaph, who according to 2 Ch. 29:30 was a "seer" (prophet).

BTW, I have a life outside of this forum and often travel on business, if you feel I'm not answering a question feel free to PM me.




Can you please not ask stupid questions?

If it's such a "stupid question..it should be easy to answer, nu?


I notice you ignore Is. 53, "He was pierced for our trangressions, by his stripes we are healed, he took our iniquities upon him, etc." Is that speaking of Isaiah also?

I did not ignore .53 perhaps you ignored my response. this person is clearly identified as Jacob..


I would argue that two OT verses that point to the Second Coming are Daniel 2:44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever"

No mention here of a "second coming" nor a dead Messiah. Nor Messiah at all, why not back up and get the subject/object of what was being written there?


"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given power and authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Sorry to sound like a broken record here, but this is a bad mistranslation ( also it doesn't mention a death of anyone nor a second coming which is what I asked. For something that is such a stupid question, seems I am having a lot of trouble getting you "smarter" people to answer it)

In response to what you posted ( particularly what was highlighted in bold:

The word used in Daniel 7:14 and 7:27 is "yiflechun", (not 'pelach or p'lach). The root verb is "p'lach".

Yiflechun is a conjugated Aramaic verb that means "they will serve". It does not mean worship as in worship G-d.

Many missionaries love the King James (KJV) the KJV NEVER translates p'lach as "worship." Once it translates it as "minister" and 9 times as "serve" or "served."

NEVER worshiped.

Ezra 7:24 = ministers
Daniel 3:12 = serve
Daniel 3:14 = serve
Daniel 3:17 = serve
Daniel 3:18 = serve
Daniel 3:28 = serve

BTW, Daniel 3:18 and 3:28 do contain the word translated as "worship" and it is NOT pelach but rather nisgud.

Daniel 6:16 = servest
Daniel 6:20 = servest
Daniel 7:14 = serve
Daniel 7:24 = serve

P'lach (Peh Lamed Chet) is an Aramaic word similar to the the Hebrew word, 'avod.' It means to serve. It DOES NOT mean to worship.


חָזֵ֤ה הֲוֵית֙ בְּחֶזְוֵ֣י לֵֽילְיָ֔א וַֽאֲרוּ֙ עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁמַיָּ֔א כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ אָתֵ֣ה הֲוָ֑א וְעַד־עֲתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙ מְטָ֔ה וּקְדָמ֖וֹהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃ וְלֵ֨הּ יְהִ֤ב שָׁלְטָן֙ וִיקָ֣ר וּמַלְכ֔וּ וְכֹ֣ל עַֽמְמַיָּ֗א אֻמַּיָ֛א וְלִשָּֽׁנַיָּ֖א לֵ֣הּ יִפְלְח֑וּן שָׁלְטָנֵּ֞הּ שָׁלְטָ֤ן עָלַם֙ דִּי־לָ֣א יֶעְדֵּ֔ה וּמַלְכוּתֵ֖הּ דִּי־לָ֥א תִתְחַבַּֽל׃


3I was dreaming [lit., 'I was watching nocturnal visions'], and wow! [something] like a human being was coming with the clouds of the sky − he approached the One from the ancient years [lit., 'days'] and he was brought before Him. 14He gave him dominion, glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues will serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion which will not be removed, and his kingdom that will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)


1. Verse 14 does not say anything about anyone "worshipping" anybody; the word it actually uses is יִפְלְחוּן yifl'ḥun, "they will serve [in the sense of work for] him".

2. In any case, it didn't actually happen − it was just a dream!


I believe through God's continuing revelation, God revealed things in the NT era that were not revealed as explicitly before. Matt. 13 says, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd......so was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ......"I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

The quotation is from Ps. 78, a psalm acribed to Asaph, who according to 2 Ch. 29:30 was a "seer" (prophet).


There is a difference between a "seer" and a prophet just FYI.

This is another example of the authors of the NT proving beyond doubt they had no idea what they were talking about and why I reject the "gospels" as nothing more than letters written clearly by non-Jews who were totally ignorant of Jewish scripture. Regardless of whether or not Asaph was a "seer" This entire Psalm has Nothing whatsoever to do with the future nor about the Messiah not the Messanic age. Nothing.
The entire Psalm is about G-d's concern for Israel and it is ever-present, Failure to keep that memory alive is a major cause of sin, while remembering it brings solace in difficult time.. That is the main thrust of the entire Psalm.
verse 70 you can read more about in 1 Samuel 16:11.
There was no "prophecy to be fulfilled" here anywhere. I suggest you read the [I]entire Psalm in context.

FifthFreedom
08-21-2011, 10:08
Of course, but I assure you the man knows the OT very well.



No, there aren't.



That was a reference to gentiles, not women, and Jesus took pity on the woman and performed the miracle she requested, something the pharisees emphatically could not do.



Not a bad response when someone recognizes the Son of God, rather than trying to get Him killed. The OT talks about men falling on their faces as if dead when before the presence of God, I believe.



Wrong again. That's like me saying it wasn't Maimonides (hate to keep picking on him) who wrote that stuff, it was unknown people who just said it was written by him. Now prove me wrong.



Of course, but I assure you the man knows the OT very well.

Obviously not well enough.


No, there aren't.

Actually there are. you just choose to cover your eyes and pretend it isn't there.


That was a reference to gentiles, not women, and Jesus took pity on the woman and performed the miracle she requested, something the pharisees emphatically could not do.

Calling someone a dog is insulting and is a violation of the command to not vex the stranger and you shall love one another as yourself.


Not a bad response when someone recognizes the Son of God, rather than trying to get Him killed. The OT talks about men falling on their faces as if dead when before the presence of God, I believe.

Perhaps the "son of G-d should have acted less base. Someone prostrating themselves and someone humiliating themselves are two entirely different things.


Wrong again. That's like me saying it wasn't Maimonides (hate to keep picking on him) who wrote that stuff, it was unknown people who just said it was written by him. Now prove me wrong.

We know who RamBam was. I am sure you could get a complete biography of him including where he was born when he died, his upbringing, his parents, relatives, his main occupation, etc.. Sorryl, you cannot do that for Mark, Luke, John, etc....

Vic Hays
08-21-2011, 10:15
I don't remember ever mentioning "70" weeks. Another smoke screen of yours I guess, but since we are on the subject...
Falsifying scripture again.,....

The word Messiah does not appear anywhere in the text. Love the way you say you love G-d but constantly try to twist the scripture He gave us

As I explained long ago. 9:24

"70 weeks" refers to 70 times 7 years or 490 years. This refers to the 70 years of exile that have passed for the Destruction of the First Temple until this vision, and the entire period of the Second temple.

9:25 The prince of this Verse is Cyrus, who gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. (Perhaps wanna read Ezra again?) he ascended to the throne 52 years ( seven full septets plus 3 years) after the exile had begun. From then until the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem was 438 years or 62 septets and 4 years.

9:26 Refers to Agrippa, the last Jewish King, at the end of the 2nd Temple Era, After his death, the prince of this verse, the Roman Titus, would command the destruction of the Temple which will not be rebuilt until after the war of God and Magog in Messianic times.

9:27:
The Roman emperor would make a treaty with the Jewish nation for 7 years but for the second half of the term the Romans would violate the covenant amd impede in the Temple service. The "mute abomination i.e. temple of Idolatry was erected by Hadrian on the Temple mount.
This is all part of history my friend.

Daniel 9 speaks of TWO anointed ones, not one. Two "messiahs." It also speaks of two distinct time frames.

The Xians try to use a time line based on Artaxerxes to get them closer to the dates around Xianity -- but they ignore the Tanach when they do this. Any 490 year time line that does not include Cyrus and his edict is wrong.

Quote:Isaiah 44:28.
Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd, and all My desire he shall fulfill," and to say of Jerusalem, "It shall be built, and the Temple shall be founded."

Isaiah 45:1.
So said HaShem to His messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I held, to flatten nations before him, and the loins of kings I will loosen, to open portals before him, and gates shall not be closed.



Above, we see 2 things. In verse 44:28, Cyrus is clearly referenced as the person who is to deliver the edict to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. Also, in verse 45:1, Cyrus is clearly called G-d's annointed (Messiah).

Josephus from the 1st century CE wrote:

Quote:HOW CYRUS, KING OF THE PERSIANS, DELIVERED THE JEWS OUT OF BABYLON AND SUFFERED THEM TO RETURN TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND TO BUILD THEIR TEMPLE, FOR WHICH WORK HE GAVE THEM MONEY.

IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, G-d commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things G-d did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since G-d Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that G-d which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."



So we see irrefutable proof of Cyrus being G-d's annointed "Messiah" who gave an edict for Jews to go back to Jerusalem in order to rebuild the city and the Temple.

Cyrus' edict - by secular accounts - was issued in 537BCE, exactly 7 weeks (or 49 years) after Babylon's sack of Jerusalem. It's a perfect fit. However, 62 or 63 weeks (or 414-421 years) after Cyrus puts us into the years 116-123 BCE, about 150 years before Jsus.

See the problem?

So the Xians ignore Isaiah. They ignore Josephus. They can't accept Cyrus as the starting point even though it is IN the Tanach. It is just WAY too early to fit Jsus.

Try 538 BCE when King Cyrus (Ezra in 1:1-4 and Ezra 5:13-17) gave the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Then in 517 BCE Darius gave another decree to rebuild the temple (recorded in Ezra 6:6-12).

All of these dates are WAY too early for the 70 weeks to fit the Jsus idea, so Xians pick a much later date. So they pick Artaxerxes' decree in 445 BCE (Nehemiah 2:5-7).

483 years from the year 445 BCE would put us at 37 CE which (per Xians) is still wrong to fit Jsus as a messiah. (Of course Jsus was never an "anointed one" aka messiah but they ignore that minor detail as well).

So now that that is answered, let us get back to my original question:

Isaiah 42:1 Where does it state that he will die or die and then return at a later time for a "second coming?"
And also, since here is is speaking of Messiah as his "servant" where does it say this servant is or is equal to G-d?


Daniel earlier says that this 70 weeks was to finish the transgression.

Josiah knew what that transgression was.

2 Chronicles 34:24 "Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah. because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might provke Me to anger with all the works of their hands, "Therefore My wrath will be poured out on this place, and not be quenched."

God gave Israel a second chance and as a nation they rejected the Anointed one. The blessing went forth to all those who had faith in their savior, Jew and Gentile alike.

The transgression was finished. There is no third chance. God has driven Israel all over the world for His name sake. They are cursed with an unending curse. As long as they reject Him (Jesus), they are rejected. They brought all the curses from the Book of Moses upon themselves and their children.

FifthFreedom
08-21-2011, 10:22
Daniel earlier says that this 70 weeks was to finish the transgression.

Josiah knew what that transgression was.

2 Chronicles 34:24 "Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah. because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might provke Me to anger with all the works of their hands, "Therefore My wrath will be poured out on this place, and not be quenched."

God gave Israel a second chance and as a nation they rejected the Anointed one. The blessing went forth to all those who had faith in their savior, Jew and Gentile alike.

The transgression was finished. There is no third chance. God has driven Israel all over the world for His name sake. They are cursed with an unending curse. As long as they reject Him (Jesus), they are rejected. They brought all the curses from the Book of Moses upon themselves and their children.


Again, you call G-d a liar but I guess you can do that easily. Funny how the last two paragraphs you typed are YOUR OWN words and are not actually written in the text. The whole "rejecting Messiah thing" especially since Daniel never mentions any "rejection of Messiah" by the Jews. I knew it, I posted too many words for you lol. Or maybe you didn't take time to read, digest and contemplate what I was saying. What does the Bible say about someone who is hasty in his responses?
G-d promises we will never be rejected. Unlike your "god" our G-d doesn't lie. :tongueout:

Still waiting for this "second coming prophecy and where Messiah will die. Still...


BTW, what you quoted in 2 Chronicles were carried out in the days of Joash see 2 kings chapter 12.

Maybe too much of your "learning" from the guy that know "a lot of Old testament" LOL

FifthFreedom
08-21-2011, 10:28
The transgression was finished. There is no third chance. God has driven Israel all over the world for His name sake. They are cursed with an unending curse. As long as they reject Him (Jesus), they are rejected. They brought all the curses from the Book of Moses upon themselves and their children.

Read Deuteronomy 30 All your Jew-hatred won't hold up against the Torah. Give it up man.

Vic Hays
08-21-2011, 12:50
Read Deuteronomy 30 All your Jew-hatred won't hold up against the Torah. Give it up man.

I didn't curse the Jews, they did it themselves. They said, "His blood be upon us and our children."

I don't hate the Jews. I didn't destroy the temple. I didn't do any of that destruction. You are the one who has issues with Jesus. That is what this thread is about.

I have good Jewish friends who love Jesus. Your curse will be over personally when you accept Him.

Romans 10:11-13 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Paul7
08-21-2011, 16:08
Can you please not ask stupid questions?

If it's such a "stupid question..it should be easy to answer, nu?


I notice you ignore Is. 53, "He was pierced for our trangressions, by his stripes we are healed, he took our iniquities upon him, etc." Is that speaking of Isaiah also?

I did not ignore .53 perhaps you ignored my response. this person is clearly identified as Jacob..


I would argue that two OT verses that point to the Second Coming are Daniel 2:44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever"

No mention here of a "second coming" nor a dead Messiah. Nor Messiah at all, why not back up and get the subject/object of what was being written there?


"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given power and authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Sorry to sound like a broken record here, but this is a bad mistranslation ( also it doesn't mention a death of anyone nor a second coming which is what I asked. For something that is such a stupid question, seems I am having a lot of trouble getting you "smarter" people to answer it)

In response to what you posted ( particularly what was highlighted in bold:

The word used in Daniel 7:14 and 7:27 is "yiflechun", (not 'pelach or p'lach). The root verb is "p'lach".

Yiflechun is a conjugated Aramaic verb that means "they will serve". It does not mean worship as in worship G-d.

Many missionaries love the King James (KJV) the KJV NEVER translates p'lach as "worship." Once it translates it as "minister" and 9 times as "serve" or "served."

NEVER worshiped.

Ezra 7:24 = ministers
Daniel 3:12 = serve
Daniel 3:14 = serve
Daniel 3:17 = serve
Daniel 3:18 = serve
Daniel 3:28 = serve

BTW, Daniel 3:18 and 3:28 do contain the word translated as "worship" and it is NOT pelach but rather nisgud.

Daniel 6:16 = servest
Daniel 6:20 = servest
Daniel 7:14 = serve
Daniel 7:24 = serve

P'lach (Peh Lamed Chet) is an Aramaic word similar to the the Hebrew word, 'avod.' It means to serve. It DOES NOT mean to worship.


חָזֵ֤ה הֲוֵית֙ בְּחֶזְוֵ֣י לֵֽילְיָ֔א וַֽאֲרוּ֙ עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁמַיָּ֔א כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ אָתֵ֣ה הֲוָ֑א וְעַד־עֲתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙ מְטָ֔ה וּקְדָמ֖וֹהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃ וְלֵ֨הּ יְהִ֤ב שָׁלְטָן֙ וִיקָ֣ר וּמַלְכ֔וּ וְכֹ֣ל עַֽמְמַיָּ֗א אֻמַּיָ֛א וְלִשָּֽׁנַיָּ֖א לֵ֣הּ יִפְלְח֑וּן שָׁלְטָנֵּ֞הּ שָׁלְטָ֤ן עָלַם֙ דִּי־לָ֣א יֶעְדֵּ֔ה וּמַלְכוּתֵ֖הּ דִּי־לָ֥א תִתְחַבַּֽל׃


3I was dreaming [lit., 'I was watching nocturnal visions'], and wow! [something] like a human being was coming with the clouds of the sky − he approached the One from the ancient years [lit., 'days'] and he was brought before Him. 14He gave him dominion, glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues will serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion which will not be removed, and his kingdom that will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)


1. Verse 14 does not say anything about anyone "worshipping" anybody; the word it actually uses is יִפְלְחוּן yifl'ḥun, "they will serve [in the sense of work for] him".

2. In any case, it didn't actually happen − it was just a dream!


I believe through God's continuing revelation, God revealed things in the NT era that were not revealed as explicitly before. Matt. 13 says, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd......so was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ......"I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

The quotation is from Ps. 78, a psalm acribed to Asaph, who according to 2 Ch. 29:30 was a "seer" (prophet).


There is a difference between a "seer" and a prophet just FYI.

This is another example of the authors of the NT proving beyond doubt they had no idea what they were talking about and why I reject the "gospels" as nothing more than letters written clearly by non-Jews who were totally ignorant of Jewish scripture. Regardless of whether or not Asaph was a "seer" This entire Psalm has Nothing whatsoever to do with the future nor about the Messiah not the Messanic age. Nothing.
The entire Psalm is about G-d's concern for Israel and it is ever-present, Failure to keep that memory alive is a major cause of sin, while remembering it brings solace in difficult time.. That is the main thrust of the entire Psalm.
verse 70 you can read more about in 1 Samuel 16:11.
There was no "prophecy to be fulfilled" here anywhere. I suggest you read the [I]entire Psalm in context.


Let's put aside the worship/serve debate for a minute, who do you think this man is?


Also, a while back you made the ridiculous statement that Paul invented Christianity. What doctrine did Paul believe that Jesus didn't?

Paul7
08-21-2011, 16:16
Calling someone a dog is insulting and is a violation of the command to not vex the stranger and you shall love one another as yourself.

So I guess the Pharisees were guilty when they called Jesus a fraud and an agent of Satan, right?

Here's what one commentator says about the silly 'dog' objection:


Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Any honest student of the Bible must admit certain biblical episodes seem to be problematic when encountered for the first time. Upon further investigation, however, the apparent difficulties in the text vanish and the meanings become increasingly clear. One episode in the life of Jesus that historically has been misunderstood by some Bible believers and misrepresented by the skeptic is Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. Mark records the episode as follows:

For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).

Based on a cursory reading of the text, one may be startled that Jesus referred to this Gentile woman as a “little dog.”

Jesus’ statement in this context certainly has not escaped the notice of the skeptical community. The prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 421 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2006).

Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, racially slurred, and offensive. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we would not be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4), which would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

To the Jews First and Also to the Greeks
In order for one to understand Jesus’ statement, he or she must recognize the primary purpose of the comment. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the church at Rome, stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

How Far Can an Animal Illustration Be Taken?
To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal.... It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews.... Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).


Yet another 'contradiction' that isn't.

Perhaps the "son of G-d should have acted less base. Someone prostrating themselves and someone humiliating themselves are two entirely different things.

It is only your biased opinion that calls what the woman did humiliating herself. Didn't people do that in the OT when they dressed in sackcloth and ashes?

We know who RamBam was. I am sure you could get a complete biography of him including where he was born when he died, his upbringing, his parents, relatives, his main occupation, etc.

That information is only coming from biased proponents of the Maimonides-myth. There is no evidence from objective people who are not proponents of this myth.

See how that works?

FifthFreedom
08-22-2011, 06:46
So I guess the Pharisees were guilty when they called Jesus a fraud and an agent of Satan, right?

Here's what one commentator says about the silly 'dog' objection:


Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Any honest student of the Bible must admit certain biblical episodes seem to be problematic when encountered for the first time. Upon further investigation, however, the apparent difficulties in the text vanish and the meanings become increasingly clear. One episode in the life of Jesus that historically has been misunderstood by some Bible believers and misrepresented by the skeptic is Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. Mark records the episode as follows:

For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).

Based on a cursory reading of the text, one may be startled that Jesus referred to this Gentile woman as a “little dog.”

Jesus’ statement in this context certainly has not escaped the notice of the skeptical community. The prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 421 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2006).

Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, racially slurred, and offensive. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we would not be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4), which would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

To the Jews First and Also to the Greeks
In order for one to understand Jesus’ statement, he or she must recognize the primary purpose of the comment. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the church at Rome, stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

How Far Can an Animal Illustration Be Taken?
To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal.... It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews.... Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).


Yet another 'contradiction' that isn't.



It is only your biased opinion that calls what the woman did humiliating herself. Didn't people do that in the OT when they dressed in sackcloth and ashes?



That information is only coming from biased proponents of the Maimonides-myth. There is no evidence from objective people who are not proponents of this myth.

See how that works?

Sorry but your "commentator's" article on jsus calling seomeone a dog is total BS. Another attempt by an apologist to explain away this guy's nasty behavior. Go call a woman today a "little dog" there are also more modern terms for it BTW and see if she wont take it as offensive.


BTW.Still waiting Paul. Changing the subject is going to get you nowhere. I am waiting for you or any xtian on this board to give me proof in context where it states in our prophets that the Messiah will be killed and come back later to finally "get the job done"
That is what I would like to see from you, not your skills at copying/pasting missionary articles from people who think they know our scriptures better than we do
...and still I wait....

FifthFreedom
08-22-2011, 06:50
I didn't curse the Jews, they did it themselves. They said, "His blood be upon us and our children."

I don't hate the Jews. I didn't destroy the temple. I didn't do any of that destruction. You are the one who has issues with Jesus. That is what this thread is about.

I have good Jewish friends who love Jesus. Your curse will be over personally when you accept Him.

Romans 10:11-13 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."


And still not only do you refuse to answer my question, but also you ignore what is clearly written in the Torah and prophets and try to prop up your ignoring it by pointing to something "Paul" wrote. There is no eternal curse placed on the Jews. I asked you to point it out in the Tanach and all you did was point to a proof text which didn't even have anything to do with the subject. Which is often what you do when confonted with scriptural facts. You try to steer away from the subject.

Vic Hays
08-22-2011, 16:12
And still not only do you refuse to answer my question, but also you ignore what is clearly written in the Torah and prophets and try to prop up your ignoring it by pointing to something "Paul" wrote. There is no eternal curse placed on the Jews. I asked you to point it out in the Tanach and all you did was point to a proof text which didn't even have anything to do with the subject. Which is often what you do when confonted with scriptural facts. You try to steer away from the subject.

Did you answer my question on what it meant when the angel said to Daniel, "to finish the transghression"?

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined For myour people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression"..............................

Did you answer my question as to why Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed if this was not a curse?

Who is trying to steer away from the subject?