BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: Fenris on December 14, 2021, 05:51:53 PM
-
So here's my thought.
We all agree that God Himself spoke to the children of Israel at Sinai.
So why should one listen to any person who claims to amend or otherwise alter said covenant? I don't care if that person is Jesus, Paul, or any of you fine people here.
-
So here's my thought.
We all agree that God Himself spoke to the children of Israel at Sinai.
So why should one listen to any person who claims to amend or otherwise alter said covenant? I don't care if that person is Jesus, Paul, or any of you fine people here.
The followers of the Messiah don't amend or alter the covenant at Sinai. We simply understand it correctly becauseof him,
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: 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 Jer.31:31-32
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Heb.8:8
-
[The followers of the Messiah don't amend or alter the covenant at Sinai. We simply understand it correctly
To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.
"You know those laws we've been following since Sinai? It turns out that God doesn't want us to follow them at all".
Why should I do that? Because you said so? Because some guy named Paul or Jesus said so? Well, so what? God said otherwise.
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: 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 Jer.31:31-32
Yes, and so what? It says God will make a new covenant. Not a person, no matter what claims they made. And why am I hearing about this "new covenant" from a person and not God?
-
So here's my thought.
We all agree that God Himself spoke to the children of Israel at Sinai.
So why should one listen to any person who claims to amend or otherwise alter said covenant? I don't care if that person is Jesus, Paul, or any of you fine people here.
You shouldn't, since it's God's covenant, and only God can amend or otherwise alter it. I suppose that leads into a discussion about the person of Jesus and so on.
-
So many Jews have also recognized Christ as fulfillment of the Law.
"And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!" Jn 1:29
-
To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.
Only if someone is wrong, but the Messiah is right.
"You know those laws we've been following since Sinai? It turns out that God doesn't want us to follow them at all".
Why should I do that? Because you said so? Because some guy named Paul or Jesus said so? Well, so what? God said otherwise.
Where did Jesus, Paul, or I say that?
Yes, and so what? It says God will make a new covenant. Not a person, no matter what claims they made. And why am I hearing about this "new covenant" from a person and not God?
I told you the law hasn't changed, only our understanding of it and God uses people to spread his message.
-
You shouldn't, since it's God's covenant, and only God can amend or otherwise alter it. I suppose that leads into a discussion about the person of Jesus and so on.
It certainly does.
-
So many Jews have also recognized Christ as fulfillment of the Law.
"And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!" Jn 1:29
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my original post. Why should I take the word of a person over God? Any person.
-
Only if someone is wrong, but the Messiah is right.
Why is he "right"? Because you like what he said? I mean, that's fine and all but he's still a human being contradicting God. Given that dynamic, why should I believe the human being over God?
Where did Jesus, Paul, or I say that?
C'mon, let's not get started on this again. If you don't understand the difference between Judaism and Christianity vis a vis the bible's laws, I'm not going to explain it to you.
I told you the law hasn't changed, only our understanding of it and God uses people to spread his message.
See above.
-
Which raises the entire issue of "faith," regardless of one's religion.
Abraham had faith in God, as Abraham understood faith.
Fenris has faith in God, as Fenris understands faith.
I have faith in God, as I understand faith.
At the end of the day, each of us believes God based on our understanding of history, of the history of faith, and on documents that we believe reveal God's interaction with mankind.
Christians claim faith that includes assurance as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
However, at the end of the day, the most basic or the most sophisticated explanations all end up back at faith. None of us have personal first had physical evidence other than our personal subjective interpretation of our perceived relationship with God.
Fenris has never talked to Moses. Check.
Fenris has never talked to God at the burning bush. Check.
I did not talk to Jesus at the Transfiguration. Check.
I was not present at Pentecost. Check.
So each of us, regardless of our faith, have that faith and exercise that faith based on our trust in historical records and traditions of our fathers. Past that, it is all metaphysical.
Which is fine, but which does not permit us to condemn. We can say what our faith teaches us, and why that is important to us, and even why we think it should be important to others.
But at the end of the day, each of us answers to God like Job, naked and alone.
-
So here's my thought.
We all agree that God Himself spoke to the children of Israel at Sinai.
So why should one listen to any person who claims to amend or otherwise alter said covenant? I don't care if that person is Jesus, Paul, or any of you fine people here.
You shouldn't, since it's God's covenant, and only God can amend or otherwise alter it. I suppose that leads into a discussion about the person of Jesus and so on.
I think it would be instructive for us Christians for Fenris to help us understand an orthodox Jewish interpretation of Jeremiah 33, because I can promise you that the Christian perspective on "new covenant" is understandably strongly influenced by the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Understanding begins with listening. We don't have to agree. For pity sake, Fenris has authorized me to eat all of his allotment of non-kosher bacon, but then, I've authorized him to eat all of my allotment of gefillte fish, nu?
-
Which raises the entire issue of "faith," regardless of one's religion.
Yes that's very true, but it doesn't really address my point. How does a person, any person, get to override God? Here's the set of rules that have been in effect since Sinai, but because a person said they're no applicable anymore I am somehow free to ignore them? I don't care who that person is or who they claim to be.
-
I think it would be instructive for us Christians for Fenris to help us understand an orthodox Jewish interpretation of Jeremiah 33
I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion at hand, but for clarity and politeness I'll address the point.
First, the understanding that Jeremiah 31 contains more than verse 31. Some Chrisitians have this interesting habit of using a verse as "proof" of something while ignoring the surrounding verses, I don't know, as if the verse is in it's own chapter. (Or a chapter as if it is it's own book; There's apparently a book called "Isaiah 53" which has a mysterious unnamed "suffering servant" who is actually identified by name something like 9 times between Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 52; but that's apparently a different book and so it doesn't count for most Christians).
What's the topic of Jeremiah 31? The ESV gives the chapter the following heading: "The Lord Will Turn Mourning to Joy". Why? Well, let's see some verses. Verse 1: "At that time, declares the Lord, I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they shall be my people.”
Verse 3: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.
Verses 7-9 For thus says the Lord: “Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob, and raise shouts for the chief of the nations; proclaim, give praise, and say, ‘O Lord, save your people, the remnant of Israel.’ Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and she who is in labor, together; a great company, they shall return here. With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
The beautiful and perfect verse 10: “Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands far away; say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.’
Verses 15-17: Thus says the Lord: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”
Thus says the Lord: “Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, declares the Lord, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,
declares the Lord, and your children shall come back to their own country.
I think that's enough to prove the point: This chapter is about the ingathering of the Jewish exiles in the messianic era. (If you think it means something else then you're ignoring the plain text and that's a different discussion).
In the context of the messianic era, we will now look at verse 31. "“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."
Let's read that again. “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah"
The house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not the whole world, who was not part of either the Abrahamic covenant or the one at Sinai. Not the gentiles. Just the Jews.
And what does this new covenant look like?
"...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers..."
Ah, it's different. And in what was is it different?
"...For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. ...
God will put His law within us.
It's not a "new law" (or "no law at all") It's the same law as we obey now. The difference is, it will be "written on our hearts". It will be our nature to keep the bible's laws. The Sabbath and the dietary laws and everything else.
Understanding begins with listening. We don't have to agree. For pity sake, Fenris has authorized me to eat all of his allotment of non-kosher bacon, but then, I've authorized him to eat all of my allotment of gefillte fish, nu?
You're missing out, my wife's gefilte fish is outstanding. Perhaps you'll be around to try it someday. :)
-
Which raises the entire issue of "faith," regardless of one's religion.
Yes that's very true, but it doesn't really address my point. How does a person, any person, get to override God? Here's the set of rules that have been in effect since Sinai, but because a person said they're no applicable anymore I am somehow free to ignore them? I don't care who that person is or who they claim to be.
I agree that humans do not have the power to override God, but then, to be fair, Christians believe that they have heard from God, in the person of Jesus, who has the power to revise or renew or replace or fulfill or whatever you want to call it the original covenant; of course, all that being very simplified and contingent on whether the person claiming the power to change is God Himself.
That's all I was getting at, is that Christians obviously believe they have heard from God just as much as Moses heard from God or Abraham heard from God.
So no Christian, of course, claims that a human can override God.
-
You're missing out, my wife's gefilte fish is outstanding. Perhaps you'll be around to try it someday. :)
If I ever wander back into a blue state! I think right now I would probably be detained at the border on general principles!
:)
-
I agree that humans do not have the power to override God, but then, to be fair, Christians believe that they have heard from God, in the person of Jesus,
Right. And I'm saying, why should this be convincing for someone under the Sinai covenant? They heard from God directly. Now a human being is saying that doesn't matter anymore.
That's all I was getting at, is that Christians obviously believe they have heard from God just as much as Moses heard from God or Abraham heard from God.
But for someone Jewish, we don't believe because of something a conversation that Abraham had, or something that Moses said or did. Not even the plagues or splitting the Red Sea. It's because our ancestors heard God Himself at Sinai. Why should a person be able to upend that?
-
If I ever wander back into a blue state! I think right now I would probably be detained at the border on general principles!
:)
If you're ever in the neighborhood...
-
Why is he "right"? Because you like what he said? I mean, that's fine and all
He's right because he explained the OT to us about God. It has nothing to do with what I like, although I think the world of the Messiah.
but he's still a human being contradicting God. Given that dynamic, why should I believe the human being over God?
You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.
C'mon, let's not get started on this again.
On what again?
If you don't understand the difference between Judaism and Christianity vis a vis the bible's laws, I'm not going to explain it to you.
There is no difference, so I don't know what you're talking about.
-
I think it would be instructive for us Christians for Fenris to help us understand an orthodox Jewish interpretation of Jeremiah 33
I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion at hand, but for clarity and politeness I'll address the point.
First, the understanding that Jeremiah 31 contains more than verse 31. Some Chrisitians have this interesting habit of using a verse as "proof" of something while ignoring the surrounding verses, I don't know, as if the verse is in it's own chapter. (Or a chapter as if it is it's own book; There's apparently a book called "Isaiah 53" which has a mysterious unnamed "suffering servant" who is actually identified by name something like 9 times between Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 52; but that's apparently a different book and so it doesn't count for most Christians).
What's the topic of Jeremiah 31? The ESV gives the chapter the following heading: "The Lord Will Turn Mourning to Joy". Why? Well, let's see some verses. Verse 1: "At that time, declares the Lord, I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they shall be my people.”
Verse 3: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.
Verses 7-9 For thus says the Lord: “Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob, and raise shouts for the chief of the nations; proclaim, give praise, and say, ‘O Lord, save your people, the remnant of Israel.’ Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and she who is in labor, together; a great company, they shall return here. With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
The beautiful and perfect verse 10: “Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands far away; say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.’
Verses 15-17: Thus says the Lord: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”
Thus says the Lord: “Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, declares the Lord, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,
declares the Lord, and your children shall come back to their own country.
I think that's enough to prove the point: This chapter is about the ingathering of the Jewish exiles in the messianic era. (If you think it means something else then you're ignoring the plain text and that's a different discussion).
In the context of the messianic era, we will now look at verse 31. "“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."
Let's read that again. “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah"
The house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not the whole world, who was not part of either the Abrahamic covenant or the one at Sinai. Not the gentiles. Just the Jews.
And what does this new covenant look like?
"...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers..."
Ah, it's different. And in what was is it different?
"...For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. ...
God will put His law within us.
It's not a "new law" (or "no law at all") It's the same law as we obey now. The difference is, it will be "written on our hearts". It will be our nature to keep the bible's laws. The Sabbath and the dietary laws and everything else.
Understanding begins with listening. We don't have to agree. For pity sake, Fenris has authorized me to eat all of his allotment of non-kosher bacon, but then, I've authorized him to eat all of my allotment of gefillte fish, nu?
You're missing out, my wife's gefilte fish is outstanding. Perhaps you'll be around to try it someday. :)
Fact of the matter is, you deny Jesus Christ is Messiah/Moshiach, all covenants and promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled in him who you reject
Smoked Ham Is On Sale, Just A Prayer And Thanks Giving And God Has Made It Kosher!
I plan on having smoked ham and eggs in the morning, it beats gefeltie fish for breakfast, all things are clean through prayer and thanksgiving
Galatians 3:16KJV
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Acts 10:11-16KJV
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
1 Timothy 4:4-5KJV
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
-
Fact of the matter is, you deny Jesus Christ is Messiah/Moshiach, all covenants and promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled in him who you reject
Smoked Ham Is On Sale, Just A Prayer And Thanks Giving And God Has Made It Kosher!
I plan on having smoked ham and eggs in the morning, it beats gefeltie fish for breakfast, all things are clean through prayer and thanksgiving
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you've wandered into an exchange between two people who are fairly well acquainted.
But:
1. What does this have to do with Fenris' discussion of Jeremiah 31?
2. Why did you think it was appropriate to pick ham, of all foods, to make whatever point you're trying to make?
3. We're all aware that Fenris is Jewish. He's very welcome here.
-
You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.
Jesus not contradicting God (which we'll assume for the sake of argument) isn't substantive proof that He's the Messiah, which you and I both assume -- I do like my capital 'H'. You'll have to do better than assert that Jesus is the Messiah because X, and be nice about it. Controversial is a great place for heated discussion, but it's not a place to start writing without civility.
-
Fenris and I do have a long online friendship, so to some degree, we each understand -- to the degree that online communications permit -- the spirit and heart behind our words. I try to write without the reader needing "inside baseball" knowledge, but sometimes it is tough.
I think that Fenris and I would agree to the following:
1. Fenris was not personally at Mt. Sinai with the congregation of Israel and did not personally hear God speak audibly.
2. I was not personally present at any time in which Jesus spoke audibly.
3. All Fenris knows of God objectively is that which was recorded and passed on to him through his faith tradition from his ancestors.
4. All that I know of Jesus is that which was recorded and passed on to me through my faith tradition from my ancestors.
5. As such, each of us relies on faith -- just as Abraham did -- in our understanding of God, although our faith traditions teach of different things about God. We each subjectively place our faith in God as we understand God based on the objective information we have each received from eyewitnesses, and we each then have subjective decisions and influences in regard to our response to that information.
It is difficult for Christians, particularly evangelicals, to understand that even though "witnessing" is an important part of our faith, we have often pressed witnessing to the point of proselytizing, coercing, shaming, degrading, and attacking the faith of others in our desire to "win souls for Jesus." I fear that we have been sold a bill of goods that "we" are the one's doing the saving, that we are "selling" something and have to close the deal.
If we would read our own New Testaments, we would learn that "it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance," not our accusations, attacks, or condescension.
I am called to be a witness of the goodness of God, and of how that goodness has called me to Him.
I don't have a say in how God takes that witness and what He does with it in relation to Fenris, Athanasius, or any Joe standing on the street corner. We can discuss our faith without demeaning the other person, who, after all, was made in the imago Dei, and if you believe the New Testament, is loved by God just as much as any Christian.
Perhaps if we spent as much time dealing with our own telephone poles in our eyes we would spend less time worrying about the specks of dust in the eyes of others.
"Witness" does not mean "condemn," and whoever taught anyone that is an idiot.
-
Smoked Ham Is On Sale, Just A Prayer And Thanks Giving And God Has Made It Kosher!
to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom.14:14-15
-
Jesus not contradicting God (which we'll assume for the sake of argument) isn't substantive proof that He's the Messiah.....
According to Maimonides it's one of them.
You'll have to do better than assert that Jesus is the Messiah because X, and be nice about it. Controversial is a great place for heated discussion, but it's not a place to start writing without civility.
I am being nice. Being nice doesn't include always ignoring false accusations.
-
I am being nice. Being nice doesn't include always ignoring false accusations.
As I said, go at it. But while you do, bear in mind Paul's advice to Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 12:
...set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.
-
Jesus not contradicting God (which we'll assume for the sake of argument) isn't substantive proof that He's the Messiah.....
According to Maimonides it's one of them.
You'll have to do better than assert that Jesus is the Messiah because X, and be nice about it. Controversial is a great place for heated discussion, but it's not a place to start writing without civility.
I am being nice. Being nice doesn't include always ignoring false accusations.
A statement of belief with which you disagree is not an accusation.
A statement of someone's character in which the target is denigrated or ridiculed or declared "less than" is an accusation.
-
As I said, go at it. But while you do, bear in mind Paul's advice to Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 12:
...set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.
I bear in mind Pauls' advice 99% of the time. The other 1% I'm ashamed to speak of. I'm praying our Savior won't speak of it either. If that doesn't humble me, nothing will. He's the One who didn't deserve mocking, the false witnesses and the whatever else I was and to 1% still am. God had mercy on all of us.
-
You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.
Christians don't follow the vast majority of the bible's laws. Who abrogated them?
-
all covenants and promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled in him who you reject
Right, I totally get that Christians believe this.
I plan on having smoked ham and eggs in the morning
That's great, a hearty breakfast is the perfect start to the day!
Acts 10:11-16KJV
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
1 Timothy 4:4-5KJV
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Thanks, these are great examples for my original post. These are changes to the law, who authorized them?
-
According to Maimonides it's one of them.
Do tell.
-
Do tell.
Stop stalling and back up your claim.
-
So here's my thought.
We all agree that God Himself spoke to the children of Israel at Sinai.
So why should one listen to any person who claims to amend or otherwise alter said covenant? I don't care if that person is Jesus, Paul, or any of you fine people here.
Hey Fenris, I happened to read your op the other day and this comes to mind.
Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Just want to point out the last part where the Lord informs Abram that "in him" (Abram), that all families of the earth shall be blessed. What is "in" Abram that will someday, bless all families of the earth?
-
Christians don't follow the vast majority of the bible's laws. Who abrogated them?
Not the Messiah,
Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? Jn.8:46
-
A statement of belief with which you disagree is not an accusation.
It is when God is the speaker.
-
A statement of belief with which you disagree is not an accusation.
It is when God is the speaker.
No, not even when God is the speaker. And you, are not God. Now cut it out or I'll cut you out.
-
No, not even when God is the speaker. And you, are not God. Now cut it out or I'll cut you out.
I'm aware of my need of God's mercy and my comments haven't been inappropriate. I'm perplexed by your caution to silence me.
-
You keep speaking as if you are the ultimate authority over interpretation
It gets tedious
-
You keep speaking as if you are the ultimate authority over interpretation
It gets tedious
I'm no authority over interpretation, except where God has made it plain. What's tedious is having a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah but, believes Jesus contradicted God....and then have a believer in Jesus ask where an instance like that might be, and getting some sort of wonder why the believer is being unkind. Or threatened with detainment.
-
“plain,” like beauty, is in the eye of the interpreter
-
“plain,” like beauty, is in the eye of the interpreter
Actually neither are. They're in the eyes of God.
-
I'm compelled and would like to say that I'm grateful Jesus didn't decide to turn his tormentors into ash with a flamethrower that could engulf the earth. Is there any consensus with delight in this?
-
Sure.
I'm aware of my need of God's mercy and my comments haven't been inappropriate. I'm perplexed by your caution to silence me.
Fenris is engaging genuinely in this conversation. What you've written appears equally genuine, until we look closer.
The followers of the Messiah don't amend or alter the covenant at Sinai. We simply understand it correctly because of him...
This is a good point in itself: who says that Jesus, Paul, etc., are amending or altering the covenant, rather than bringing us to a better - or you say, correct - understanding of said covenant?
Fenris points out that Jesus, Paul, etc., aren't just bringing us to a better understanding of the covenant. That new covenant they offer abrogates the old covenant, even if not wholly.
To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.
"You know those laws we've been following since Sinai? It turns out that God doesn't want us to follow them at all".
Why should I do that? Because you said so? Because some guy named Paul or Jesus said so? Well, so what? God said otherwise...
...why am I hearing about this "new covenant" from a person and not God?
And then we read this:
To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.
Only if someone is wrong, but the Messiah is right.
So, no argument then? No substantial reply to Fenris' point? To your credit you do say:
I told you the law hasn't changed, only our understanding of it and God uses people to spread his message.
But I agree with Fenris: the law as understood in Christianity is not the law as understood in Judaism. They might look the same on paper, but the practical application is not.
Fenris then makes the following point:
Why is he "right"? Because you like what he said? I mean, that's fine and all but he's still a human being contradicting God. Given that dynamic, why should I believe the human being over God?
By 'contradicting God' He means the abrogation of the Mosaic law, which, let's face it, is something Jesus was about in the Gospels and John. The religious Jews of His day weren't getting riled up for nothing, or just because He was claimed to be God. He claimed to be God and then acted as such with respect to the application of the law.
You then reply to me, and Fenris replies to you:
According to Maimonides it's one of them.
Do tell.
Which is met with:
Stop stalling and back up your claim.
Earlier you had written:
You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.
That you're begging the question is neither here nor there at this point.
What we have throughout, as RK mentioned, is an exchange where you aren't engaging with Fenris as a peer, but as someone who knows better than he does. You write as if what you say is the truth, rather than argue for it. You have the understanding of Scripture.
The claim about Maimonides is unsubstantiated. Even if it was, it's well known that Jesus didn't adhere to the law as his contemporaries did. The law was made for humanity, and all the rest. There's an opportunity for fine lines of argument, and what we get is "cut the crap".
And then we have this:
I'm no authority over interpretation, except where God has made it plain. What's tedious is having a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah but, believes Jesus contradicted God....and then have a believer in Jesus ask where an instance like that might be, and getting some sort of wonder why the believer is being unkind. Or threatened with detainment.
You're not an authority over interpretation even where "God has made it plain". You've chosen to engage in a discussion with Fenris, who you knew going in is Jewish. You've stalled in demonstrating that Jesus didn't contradict God, but our understanding (the point you originally made). And so yes, I've asked you to be nice and warned you.
Oh, and that's to say nothing of the historically reported posts in your previous exchanges with other board members.
-
Stop stalling and back up your claim.
You made some comment about Maimonides. What are you referring to?
-
Hey Fenris, I happened to read your op the other day and this comes to mind.
Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Just want to point out the last part where the Lord informs Abram that "in him" (Abram), that all families of the earth shall be blessed. What is "in" Abram that will someday, bless all families of the earth?
First, it seems to me that it's common knowledge that many American Evangelicals invoke Genesis 12:3 when talking about Jews generally and the state of Israel specifically. So the verse can certainly be understood as referring to modern day Jews.
So far as the world being blessed through this people, this is actually an historical verifiable fact. Jews are a marvelously productive people. Jews make up less than 0.2% of the world's population, less than 2 people out of every 1,000. And yet they've changed the world in amazing ways. One simple metric: about 25% of all Nobel prizes ever awarded have gone to Jews. That's a crazy statistic. Think of what it means: That this tiny people have made so many award winning advances in medicine, making people's health better, in physics and chemistry, giving us the wonders of the modern world, in economics, giving us the wealth to subsist in this world, in literature, to edify our minds... This isn't trivial, it's incredible. And it's the literal fulfillment of the fact that in Abraham, through his descendants, the whole world has been blessed. In an actual and quantifiable way.
You may agree with this sentiment or you may not, but it is at least a logical way to look at it.
-
Sure.
Fenris is engaging genuinely in this conversation. What you've written appears equally genuine, until we look closer.
This is a good point in itself: who says that Jesus, Paul, etc., are amending or altering the covenant, rather than bringing us to a better - or you say, correct - understanding of said covenant?
Fenris points out that Jesus, Paul, etc., aren't just bringing us to a better understanding of the covenant. That new covenant they offer abrogates the old covenant, even if not wholly.
No it doesn't abrogate the old covenant. It agrees with it 100%,
for this is the law and the prophets. Mt.7:12
To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.
"You know those laws we've been following since Sinai? It turns out that God doesn't want us to follow them at all".
Why should I do that? Because you said so? Because some guy named Paul or Jesus said so? Well, so what? God said otherwise...
...why am I hearing about this "new covenant" from a person and not God?
And then we read this:
To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.
Only if someone is wrong, but the Messiah is right.
So, no argument then? No substantial reply to Fenris' point? To your credit you do say:
I told you the law hasn't changed, only our understanding of it and God uses people to spread his message.
My point is, our Savior fulfilled the law, not annulled it.
But I agree with Fenris: the law as understood in Christianity is not the law as understood in Judaism. They might look the same on paper, but the practical application is not.
Fenris then makes the following point:
Why is he "right"? Because you like what he said? I mean, that's fine and all but he's still a human being contradicting God. Given that dynamic, why should I believe the human being over God?
By 'contradicting God' He means the abrogation of the Mosaic law, which, let's face it, is something Jesus was about in the Gospels and John. The religious Jews of His day weren't getting riled up for nothing, or just because He was claimed to be God. He claimed to be God and then acted as such with respect to the application of the law.
And who is making the claim that the Messiah abrogated the law? What passage are you referring to?
You then reply to me, and Fenris replies to you:
According to Maimonides it's one of them.
Do tell.
Which is met with:
Stop stalling and back up your claim.
Earlier you had written:
You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.
That you're begging the question is neither here nor there at this point.
What we have throughout, as RK mentioned, is an exchange where you aren't engaging with Fenris as a peer, but as someone who knows better than he does. You write as if what you say is the truth, rather than argue for it. You have the understanding of Scripture.
No, what we have here is Fenris saying Jesus contradicted his Father and me asking where? Then, Fenris inquiring about another statement I made, without citing any example where Jesus contradicted the old covenant.
The claim about Maimonides is unsubstantiated. Even if it was, it's well known that Jesus didn't adhere to the law as his contemporaries did. The law was made for humanity, and all the rest. There's an opportunity for fine lines of argument, and what we get is "cut the crap".
I have every intention of citing Maimonides belief, but any conflict between the Messiah and his contemporaries isn't the result of Jesus abrogating the law. Jesus did go against "tradition", but that's not the law.
And then we have this:
I'm no authority over interpretation, except where God has made it plain. What's tedious is having a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah but, believes Jesus contradicted God....and then have a believer in Jesus ask where an instance like that might be, and getting some sort of wonder why the believer is being unkind. Or threatened with detainment.
You're not an authority over interpretation even where "God has made it plain". You've chosen to engage in a discussion with Fenris, who you knew going in is Jewish. You've stalled in demonstrating that Jesus didn't contradict God, but our understanding (the point you originally made). And so yes, I've asked you to be nice and warned you.
I don't know what passage of the NT Fenris is referring to. How can I defend my disagreement without knowing what he's referring to? Do you have any examples?
Oh, and that's to say nothing of the historically reported posts in your previous exchanges with other board members.
I don't know what you're referring to, but this subject ihas become convoluted enough.
-
You made some comment about Maimonides. What are you referring to?
Maimonidea said,
"If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach." Halacha 4
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/maimonides-laws-pertaining-messiah/
I suspect our disagreement has nothing to do with what Moses wrote, but with the oral law, although I don't know what's in the Talmud. I do know there can be no conflict between Moses and the Messiah.
Where did Jesus abrogate what Moses wrote?
-
No it doesn't abrogate the old covenant. It agrees with it 100%,
You have to take this up with your fellow Christians, not me. Because according to you, either the bible's laws were never in effect; or else they remain in effect. In either case there is no need for a "new covenant".
This is going to sound like a bizarre and crazy thing, but I think I understand Christian theology better than you do.
-
You made some comment about Maimonides. What are you referring to?
Maimonidea said,
"If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach." Halacha 4
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/maimonides-laws-pertaining-messiah/
You're quoting for Maimonides "laws of kings", a 12 chapter work. Only the last two chapters are of interest to this discussion, as they pertain to the messiah (who will, after all, be a king).
Some observations
You're being disingenuous here. You can't accept one concept that Maimonides rules on without accepting them all. For example, chapter 11 begins with "In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel." You obviously don't accept this because after Jesus the exact opposite happened: the temple was destroyed and the Jews were exiled. He continues "Then, in his days, the observance of all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars as described by the Torah." Christians don't believe there will be sacrifices in the messianic era, as Jesus made them superfluous.
The paragraph you're quoting in full
If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.
Maimonides then continues-
If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.
Which clearly has not happened. As I pointed out above, the opposite occurred.
skipping a paragraph, we have
If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah.
Maimonides then makes observations about Jesus-
Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.
Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts, our thoughts. Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach's coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'
How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.'
When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.
You can't quote from Maimonides if you're not willing to accept everything that he says.
I suspect our disagreement has nothing to do with what Moses wrote
What God said. Not "what Moses wrote". The law comes from God, not Moses. And yes, we have disagreement. The bible says in many places that the law is eternal, and we are not to either add or subtract from it.
-
No it doesn't abrogate the old covenant. It agrees with it 100%...
You asked why I wrote what I wrote, and the post you're replying to is me telling you why; that post is not my attempt to debate the subject with you.
Rather than appeal to Maimonides, it seems more fruitful to point out the... double standard? special pleading? in Fenris' own position vis-a-vis his phrasing and interaction with some of the replies received (with particular respect to hearing from God directly). I don't care to get into it though, because I don't see this discussion going anywhere it hasn't gone before.
-
You have to take this up with your fellow Christians, not me. Because according to you, either the bible's laws were never in effect; or else they remain in effect. In either case there is no need for a "new covenant".
I took it up with the person I made that comment to,
Athanasius, a fellow Christian. And your comment of needing no new covenant is senseless, since God said there will be a new one.
This is going to sound like a bizarre and crazy thing, but I think I understand Christian theology better than you do.
Others here may agree with you about that. So while we're on the subject, do you know why God wanted a new covenant?
-
Some observations
You're being disingenuous here. You can't accept one concept that Maimonides rules on without accepting them all.
I can't agree on any point with anyone.....unless I agree with everything they say? What's disingenuous about that?
For example, chapter 11 begins with "In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel." You obviously don't accept this because after Jesus the exact opposite happened: the temple was destroyed and the Jews were exiled.
I accept it. I just understand it the correct way, because I understand real power isn't always to destroy your enemies when it's in your power to do it.
He continues "Then, in his days, the observance of all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars as described by the Torah." Christians don't believe there will be sacrifices in the messianic era, as Jesus made them superfluous.
And I asked you where Jesus didn't observe the law, or tell anyone not to?
And I don't agree with many Christians.Torah observance occurs as a result of faith in what the Messiah taught.
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Rom.13:10
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. Mt.22:40
The paragraph you're quoting in full
If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.
Maimonides then continues-
If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.
Which clearly has not happened. As I pointed out above, the opposite occurred.
The Messiah is gathering his people together, which began with the Jewish Apostles and many others.
skipping a paragraph, we have
If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah.
Maimonides then makes observations about Jesus-
Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.
Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts, our thoughts. Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach's coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'
How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.'
When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.
Well, I told you Rambam equated the oral law with the written law. I do wonder what he'd do, or say, if someone who didn't like his religious beliefs punched him in the face. I know what the Messiah did, thank God.
You can't quote from Maimonides if you're not willing to accept everything that he says.
You sound like a man who never agrees with anybody.
What God said. Not "what Moses wrote". The law comes from God, not Moses.
Moses was Gods mediator and the only reason you have what God said, is for what Moses wrote. Which brings up a statement you made about why you shouldn't listen to a man, but only God. How does God speak to you? Seriously.
And yes, we have disagreement. The bible says in many places that the law is eternal, and we are not to either add or subtract from it.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mt.5:18
-
You asked why I wrote what I wrote, and the post you're replying to is me telling you why; that post is not my attempt to debate the subject with you.
Rather than appeal to Maimonides, it seems more fruitful to point out the... double standard? special pleading? in Fenris' own position vis-a-vis his phrasing and interaction with some of the replies received (with particular respect to hearing from God directly). I don't care to get into it though, because I don't see this discussion going anywhere it hasn't gone before.
That's a possibility. I'm not a betting man.
-
I took it up with the person I made that comment to,
Athanasius, a fellow Christian.
Your disagreement isn't with Athanasius. It's with all Christians.
And your comment of needing no new covenant is senseless, since God said there will be a new one.
Yet nothing changed, according to you.
Others here may agree with you about that. So while we're on the subject, do you know why God wanted a new covenant?
Bible says nothing about God "wanting" a new covenant. He simply describes it. First, being with Israel and Judah, not the world at large. And secondly, that the law will be written on our hearts.
-
I can't agree on any point with anyone.....unless I agree with everything they say? What's disingenuous about that?
You can't cite one thing that Maimonides says and ignore everything else, especially when the everything else is exactly the opposite of what you believe. Maimonides output of intellectual and Jewish works is massive. He wrote the first comprehensive codification of Jewish law. He wrote a text on logic. He espoused on Judaism and philosophy. He wrote a medical treatise (he was the Sultan's physician.) Oh, and he wrote a single paragraph that someone on the internet who calls himself "journeyman" cited.
You don't get to pick one idea from the thousands of pages he wrote and ignore everything else.
I accept it. I just understand it the correct way, because I understand real power isn't always to destroy your enemies when it's in your power to do it.
"Real power" has nothing to do with it. It's actually irrelevant. The bible lays out a set of prophecies about the messiah. Either the person in question fulfilled them, or he didn't. And that's it. "Real power" isn't a messianic prophecy. It's something you shoehorned in because you like it. And the bible specifically says "don't add to this word" yet you do it whenever you wish.
And I asked you where Jesus didn't observe the law, or tell anyone not to?
And I don't agree with many Christians.Torah observance occurs as a result of faith in what the Messiah taught.
Round and round we go. Do you observe the Sabbath or Kashrut? No? Why not?
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Rom.13:10
"Love thy neighbor" is just one command out of 613. Where are the other 612?
The Messiah is gathering his people together
Aaaand you're ignoring everything else that Maimonides says in this paragraph.
The people have not been gathered (although right now a larger percentage of the world's Jews live in Israel than at any other time since the first temple era. Maybe Herzl or Ben Gurion are the messiah? At least they are fulfilling that prophecy!) The Jews have not returned to complete observance of the law (Although Rabbi Schneerson the "Lubavitcher rebbe" sent messengers all over the world to return Jews to observance. Also he was a descendant of king David. He took part in fulfilling that prophecy at least). Unfortunately, the temple remains unbuilt so it seems we aren't in the messianic era yet.
Well, I told you Rambam equated the oral law with the written law.
And you know this because of your extensive research and years of study Maimonides works? Or is it just a talking point to score points?
I do wonder what he'd do, or say, if someone who didn't like his religious beliefs punched him in the face. I know what the Messiah did, thank God.
We Jews are well versed in people punching us in the face, or worse, because they don't like our beliefs. A well versed student of history such as yourself has certainly heard of the Crusades? Or the Inquisition?
You sound like a man who never agrees with anybody.
I agree with more people on these very forums than you do. One point for me!
Moses was Gods mediator and the only reason you have what God said, is for what Moses wrote. Which brings up a statement you made about why you shouldn't listen to a man, but only God. How does God speak to you? Seriously.
God spoke to my ancestors at Sinai. That is why we believe. Not because of anything that Moses said or did.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mt.5:18
And yet you do not observe the Sabbath. Why?
-
Your disagreement isn't with Athanasius. It's with all Christians.
You don't know all Christians and people disagree one or some, but never all at once.
Yet nothing changed, according to you.
Not according to me. According to me, believers in Jesus turned the world upside down.
Bible says nothing about God "wanting" a new covenant. He simply describes it.
No Fenris. The Bible says God wanted the new covenant for this reason,
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. 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. 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. Jer.31:30-32
God wanted a covenant whereby his laws would be heartfelt. Now, who displayed that more than the Messiah?
First, being with Israel and Judah, not the world at large. And secondly, that the law will be written on our hearts.
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mt.10:5-6
And if neither Jews or gentiles can regret what was done to Gods' greatest messenger, his King no less, then read on,
In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Jer.30:29-30
So much for the congregational theory.
-
You don't know all Christians and people disagree one or some, but never all at once.
You are disagreeing on basic Christian doctrine. Enjoy your new religion, come up with a name for it yet?
Not according to me. According to me, believers in Jesus turned the world upside down.
And yet you say they changed nothing. How peculiar.
No Fenris. The Bible says God wanted the new covenant for this reason,
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. 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. 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. Jer.31:30-32
God wanted a covenant whereby his laws would be heartfelt. Now, who displayed that more than the Messiah?
And yet you don't follow those laws. So, urp?
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mt.10:5-6
"From now on I will go to the Gentiles" Acts, 18.
In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Jer.30:29-30
It's Jeremiah 31, you didn't even get the chapter right. And you seemingly ignore the rest of the chapter, which is a shame, because it is glorious.
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.
“Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.
They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “When I bring them back from captivity, the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: ‘The Lord bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain.’ People will live together in Judah and all its towns—farmers and those who move about with their flocks. I will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint.”
and then comes your verse
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
It's talking about the redemption of Zion and the Jews being restored to the land of Israel. Has no application to gentiles whatsoever.
-
You can't cite one thing that Maimonides says and ignore everything else, especially when the everything else is exactly the opposite of what you believe. Maimonides output of intellectual and Jewish works is massive. He wrote the first comprehensive codification of Jewish law. He wrote a text on logic. He espoused on Judaism and philosophy. He wrote a medical treatise (he was the Sultan's physician.) Oh, and he wrote a single paragraph that someone on the internet who calls himself "journeyman" cited.
You don't get to pick one idea from the thousands of pages he wrote and ignore everything else.
I've heard you say that what Jesus taught wasn't new. How the rabbis said things that Jesus is said to have quoted. So Jesus agreed in ways with other teachers. And hypocrisy is when someone thinks it's ok to believe part of what others say about the New Testament, but it's not ok to believe part of what others say about the Old Testament.
Just to be clear, you believe certain things written in the New Testament are true, but other things are untrue, right? So please, stop it already.
"Real power" has nothing to do with it. It's actually irrelevant. The bible lays out a set of prophecies about the messiah. Either the person in question fulfilled them, or he didn't. And that's it. "Real power" isn't a messianic prophecy. It's something you shoehorned in because you like it. And the bible specifically says "don't add to this word" yet you do it whenever you wish.
I don't mean to insult you, but when you think about it, the Messiah wouldn't be able to fulfill any prophecy, unless he had some real power. Knowing this has nothing to do with me wanting to shoehorn my asnine thinking into a text. It's just common sense.
Round and round we go. Do you observe the Sabbath or Kashrut? No? Why not?
I understand the Sabbath to be Gods' day of rest, which rest is entered through the Messiah. I celebrate the Sabbath every day and work on any day God wants me to do something. For now, that includes the seventh day.
Under the new covenant, we may eat what we wish, but if anyone has a special diet, no problem. :)
"Love thy neighbor" is just one command out of 613. Where are the other 612?
They're hanging on the first two.
Aaaand you're ignoring everything else that Maimonides says in this paragraph.
I told you that Rabbi thought Jesus was powerless against mankind. He thought wrong.
The people have not been gathered (although right now a larger percentage of the world's Jews live in Israel than at any other time since the first temple era. Maybe Herzl or Ben Gurion are the messiah? At least they are fulfilling that prophecy!) The Jews have not returned to complete observance of the law (Although Rabbi Schneerson the "Lubavitcher rebbe" sent messengers all over the world to return Jews to observance. Also he was a descendant of king David. He took part in fulfilling that prophecy at least).
God wasn't speaking of returning his people to a physical location, but of returning his people to himself.
Unfortunately, the temple remains unbuilt so it seems we aren't in the messianic era yet.
The temple where God resides is within the individual.
And you know this because of your extensive research and years of study Maimonides works? Or is it just a talking point to score points?
It's a matter of reading the paragraph I cited, where Maimonides equated the oral with the written. I'm not illiterate.
We Jews are well versed in people punching us in the face, or worse, because they don't like our beliefs. A well versed student of history such as yourself has certainly heard of the Crusades? Or the Inquisition?
I certainly have.That's one reason why I understand your inability to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. You think messiah will slays his enemies without first putting up with all their crap, but Jesus is as his Father is, because God puts up with a lot of crap before dropping the hammer. The great King is full of mercy.
I agree with more people on these very forums than you do. One point for me!
Well, since your philosophy is not to quote anyone, unless you quote everything they say, don't cite any examples.
God spoke to my ancestors at Sinai. That is why we believe. Not because of anything that Moses said or did.
People know God spoke to your ancestors because,
Moses wrote this Torah, and gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. Deut.31:9
And yet you do not observe the Sabbath. Why?
Tedious.
-
You are disagreeing on basic Christian doctrine.
Listen carefully. The Jews religion disagrees with basic all other human doctrine and is the real reason they have been persecuted like no other.
Enjoy your new religion, come up with a name for it yet?
Listen very carefully. It's not a new religion. Believers in Jesus have been persecuted like no other. You don't accept the reason.
And yet you say they changed nothing. How peculiar.
Don't know who you'll be citing on this, but it won't be me.
And yet you don't follow those laws. So, urp?
Answered already.
"From now on I will go to the Gentiles" Acts, 18.
"From now on", means "I went to the Jews first, like Jesus and all his believing Jews did, which he commanded them,
he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt.15:24
It's Jeremiah 31, you didn't even get the chapter right.
Thanks fir the correction. I was tired when I miscopied that, as I am now.
And you seemingly ignore the rest of the chapter, which is a shame, because it is glorious.
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.
And what love is more everlasting than loving someone, even an enemy enough to die for them?
“Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.
They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord
I'm doing that now, along with other gentiles and Jews, in honor of the one who drew us with unfailing kindness.
I've told you numerous times now. You think he was too weak, or couldn't find a reason. You're wrong on either count.
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
And what could do this, more than knowing there really is life after death? Being assured our loved ones will see a better life? Please tell me Fenris if you know of any reason better to restrain from tears of sorrow.
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. Lk.14:14
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven Mt.5:19
and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
Mt.10:5-6
he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt.15:24
It's Jeremiah 31, you didn't even get the chapter right.
Thanks fir the correction. I was tired when I miscopied that, as I am now.
And you seemingly ignore the rest of the chapter, which is a shame, because it is glorious.
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.
And what love is more everlasting than loving someone, even an enemy enough to die for them?
“Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.
They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord
I'm doing that now, along with other gentiles and Jews, in honor of the one who drew us with unfailing kindness.
I've told you numerous times now. You think he was too weak, or couldn't find a reason. You're wrong on either count.
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
And what could do this, more than knowing there really is life after death? Being assured our loved ones will see a better life? Please tell me Fenris if you know of any reason better to restrain from tears of sorrow.
for your work will be rewarded,”
Lk.14:14
declares the Lord.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mt.5:19
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
The land of the enemy is anywhere people are ignorant of God. Believers return to him from there.
So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.
That's where God is.
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “When I bring them back from captivity, the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: ‘The Lord bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain.’ People will live together in Judah and all its towns—farmers and those who move about with their flocks. I will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint.”
It's sin that brings people into captivity and there they stay, until they learn how forgiving God was,
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Lk.23:34
I must tell you Fenris, had it been me, I would have slaughtered them. How bout you? Just read it with no preconceived notions.
and then comes your verse
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
It's talking about the redemption of Zion and the Jews being restored to the land of Israel. Has no application to gentiles whatsoever.
It's talking about those who say, The fathers ate sour grapes, but their children were affected .....and those who learn not to say that, which includes both Jews and gentiles.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
The land of the enemy is anywhere people are ignorant of God. Believers return to him from there.
So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.
That's where God is.
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “When I bring them back from captivity, the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: ‘The Lord bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain.’ People will live together in Judah and all its towns—farmers and those who move about with their flocks. I will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint.”
It's sin that brings people into captivity and there they stay, until they learn how forgiving God was,
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Lk.23:34
I must tell you Fenris, had it been me, I would have slaughtered them. How bout you? Just read it with no preconceived notions.
and then comes your verse
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
It's talking about the redemption of Zion and the Jews being restored to the land of Israel. Has no application to gentiles whatsoever.
It's talking about those who say, The fathers ate sour grapes, but their children were affected .....and those who learn not to say that, which includes both Jews and gentiles.
-
I'm worn out
-
I've heard you say that what Jesus taught wasn't new. How the rabbis said things that Jesus is said to have quoted. So Jesus agreed in ways with other teachers. And hypocrisy is when someone thinks it's ok to believe part of what others say about the New Testament, but it's not ok to believe part of what others say about the Old Testament.
I don't agree with some things Jesus said because they're in the NT. I agree with some of the things he said because they're either already in my bible, or other rabbis had already said them first. So no, it's not hypocritical at all.
I don't mean to insult you, but when you think about it, the Messiah wouldn't be able to fulfill any prophecy, unless he had some real power.
Like what, for example? Please illuminate me.
I understand the Sabbath to be Gods' day of rest, which rest is entered through the Messiah.
Actually the bible says that it is to be our day of rest, too.
Exodus 20: Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns...
Words, they mean things.
Under the new covenant, we may eat what we wish
But under the covenant at Sinai, there are things we are not permitted to eat. Leviticus 11
‘Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground. I am the Lord, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.
“‘These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves about in the water and every creature that moves along the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’”
This is the plain text.
They're hanging on the first two.
But God specifically gave hundreds of others. I listed two, above. When did they stop being God's will? As I started this topic, if God said we must do these things, how can a person come and say we don't have to?
Aaaand you're ignoring everything else that Maimonides says in this paragraph.
I told you that Rabbi thought Jesus was powerless against mankind. He thought wrong.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment.
God wasn't speaking of returning his people to a physical location, but of returning his people to himself.
Again, not what the text says. Ezekeil 37: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. and They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. Jeremiah 29 I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore you from captivity and gather you from all the nations and places to which I have banished you, declares the LORD. I will restore you to the place from which I sent you into exile." Ezekeil 36 For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of all the countries, and I will bring you back into your own land. Amos 9 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the LORD your God. Jeremiah 3 In those days the house of Judah will walk with the house of Israel, and they will come together from the land of the north to the land that I gave to your fathers as an inheritance. Jeremiah 23 Instead they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought and led the descendants of the house of Israel up out of the land of the north and all the other lands to which He had banished them.' Then they will dwell once more in their own land." Jeremiah 32 I will surely gather My people from all the lands to which I have banished them in My furious anger and great wrath, and I will return them to this place and make them dwell in safety. etc etc are we even reading the same bible here?
The temple where God resides is within the individual.
It's fine if you believe that, but it isn't in my bible anywhere. Ezekeil from chapter 40 and on goes into exhaustive detail about a rebuilt temple, with a detailed floor plan and the specific sacrifices that will be brought. Why dwell on it if it's just something "in the individual"?
It's a matter of reading the paragraph I cited, where Maimonides equated the oral with the written.
I'm sorry, where does he do that?
We Jews are well versed in people punching us in the face, or worse, because they don't like our beliefs. A well versed student of history such as yourself has certainly heard of the Crusades? Or the Inquisition?
I certainly have.That's one reason why I understand your inability to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. You think messiah will slays his enemies without first putting up with all their crap
No, uh, actually, I believe that the messiah will you know, fulfill messianic prophecies. gather Jewish exiles back to the holy land, rebuilt temple, universal peace and knowledge of God, and so on. As Jesus didn't do these things, and in fact the opposite happened after his death, we're still waiting.
people know God spoke to your ancestors because,
Moses wrote this Torah, and gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. Deut.31:9
People know that God spoke to my ancestors because (Exodus 20) And God spoke all these words: “I am the Lord your God..."
And yet you do not observe the Sabbath. Why?
Tedious.
It's ok to ignore God's word because it's tedious? Weird flex but ok.
-
Listen carefully. The Jews religion disagrees with basic all other human doctrine and is the real reason they have been persecuted like no other.
Listen carefully. It's not ok to persecute people just because they disagree with your theology.
And I'd like to hear your rationale for how Judaism "disagrees with basic all other human doctrine".
Listen very carefully. It's not a new religion. Believers in Jesus have been persecuted like no other.
This is really funny. So in your world, Jews have been "persecuted like no other" because they're wrong, and Christians have been "persecuted like no other" because they're right.
Answered already.
No, you haven't.
"From now on", means "I went to the Jews first, like Jesus and all his believing Jews did,
The messiah is sent to redeem the Jews, not the world at large. The covenant in Jeremiah is between God and Judah/Israel, not the whole world.
I've told you numerous times now. You think he was too weak, or couldn't find a reason. You're wrong on either count.
Numerous times you have outright ignored the plain text of the bible. I cite a verse, or a paragraph, and you pretend it's not there.
And what could do this, more than knowing there really is life after death? Being assured our loved ones will see a better life? Please tell me Fenris if you know of any reason better to restrain from tears of sorrow.
Um, try reading the next few verses because it explains.
This is what the Lord says:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
This is what the Lord says:
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.
It's not about life after death, it's about Rachel's descendants returning to their land. You're going to ignore this because you don't like it, as you always do.
And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. Lk.14:14
Has nothing to do with the verse in question.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven Mt.5:19
And yet you don't keep the Sabbath or kashrut.
And what love is more everlasting than loving someone, even an enemy enough to die for them?
This is your belief, but it isn't in the bible.
“Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.
They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord
I'm doing that now, along with other gentiles and Jews, in honor of the one who drew us with unfailing kindness.
And yet you ignore the text, as usual.
It's sin that brings people into captivity
The captivity was an actual exile, as the bible plainly states.
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Lk.23:34
I must tell you Fenris, had it been me, I would have slaughtered them. How bout you?
Slaughtered who for what? Disagreeing?
It's talking about those who say, The fathers ate sour grapes, but their children were affected .....and those who learn not to say that, which includes both Jews and gentiles.
You're ignoring the rest of the verses. By what right?
The land of the enemy is anywhere people are ignorant of God. Believers return to him from there.
You just made that up. Brilliant.
It's sin that brings people into captivity and there they stay, until they learn how forgiving God was,
You made that up too. Does nothing in the bible mean what it says?
-
I'm worn out
-
I’m your Huckleberry.
-
I’m your Huckleberry.
My favorite scene, because it's so profound.
-
Listen carefully. It's not ok to persecute people just because they disagree with your theology.
Only God has the right to punish for that reason. He may choose to refrain from it though.
And I'd like to hear your rationale for how Judaism "disagrees with basic all other human doctrine".
There's only one true God, so it's self explanatory.
This is really funny. So in your world, Jews have been "persecuted like no other" because they're wrong, and Christians have been "persecuted like no other" because they're right.
Don't know how you twisted my meaning, but my point was they're exactly alike.
The messiah is sent to redeem the Jews, not the world at large. The covenant in Jeremiah is between God and Judah/Israel, not the whole world.
Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
[/quote]Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock. vs.9
The reason for publishing to the gentiles, Gods' goodness to Israel, is so that gentiles would come to honor God. You agree with your rabbis that Jesus is still dead, but if
that was true, there would be no New Testament. The Jews who penned it weren't liars, or being decieved. Gamaliel had this right,
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. Act.5:38-39
Numerous times you have outright ignored the plain text of the bible. I cite a verse, or a paragraph, and you pretend it's not there.
I've ignoted nothing you've said. I specifically answered every objection you've made.
Um, try reading the next few verses because it explains.
This is what the Lord says:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
This is what the Lord says:
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.
It's not about life after death, it's about Rachel's descendants returning to their land. You're going to ignore this because you don't like it, as you always do.
No. It's teaching about Rachels children who are no more returning. When all earthly hope seemed lost, her sorrow was turned to joy at the resurrection of Messiah.
Has nothing to do with the verse in question.
It has everything to do with it Fenris, because of Rachel, whose children were rewarded evil for good in this world. Gods' promise of reward to faithful Jews applies to the living and the dead.
And yet you don't keep the Sabbath or kashrut.
I've explained how we rest on the Sabbath and unclean animals are explained in Acts 10 as symbolic of gentiles.
This is your belief, but it isn't in the bible.
Sure it is. It's the means by which the nations have come to faith in the God of the Jews.
And yet you ignore the text, as usual.
I answered plainly. Why you don't like the answer is unreasonable.
The captivity was an actual exile, as the bible plainly states.
Yes I know. It's both.
Slaughtered who for what? Disagreeing?
No, but that's how it started. I was referring to the vile and vicious way the Innocent was treated.
You're ignoring the rest of the verses. By what right?
I'm not ignoring the rest of the verses. They're related to Jer.31:30, which is related to Eze.18, so the belief that all Jews are Gods' people isn't true.
You made that up too. Does nothing in the bible mean what it says?
It all means what it says. Believers know what caused their bondage.
-
There's only one true God, so it's self explanatory.
Nah, I'd like to read more about what you mean by this. Are you saying, for instance, that Jews and Christians are persecuted as much as they are because they hold views, values, and beliefs in contradistinction to "human doctrine", i.e., the views, values and beliefs of the "world"?
Jews have been far more persecuted than Christians; but by the way, it's not a competition.
-
Be not overly wicked, and be not a fool; why should you die before your time? Ecc.7:17
-
Nah, I'd like to read more about what you mean by this. Are you saying, for instance, that Jews and Christians are persecuted as much as they are because they hold views, values, and beliefs in contradistinction to "human doctrine", i.e., the views, values and beliefs of the "world"?
Jews have been far more persecuted than Christians; but by the way, it's not a competition.
I wasn't turning it into a competition. They're one body,
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.....for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Mt.5:11-12
But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. Jn.15:21
-
Nah, I'd like to read more about what you mean by this. Are you saying, for instance, that Jews and Christians are persecuted as much as they are because they hold views, values, and beliefs in contradistinction to "human doctrine", i.e., the views, values and beliefs of the "world"?
Jews have been far more persecuted than Christians; but by the way, it's not a competition.
I wasn't turning it into a competition. They're one body,
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.....for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Mt.5:11-12
But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. Jn.15:21
Okay, but now expanding on this thought with respect to Judaism, who aren't persecuted for the sake of believing in Christ?
-
Okay, but now expanding on this thought with respect to Judaism, who aren't persecuted for the sake of believing in Christ?
They're persecuted for their faith in God and the Messiah is one with his Father,
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Jn.6:45
They may not have even been aware of it, but it's pretty obvious now.
-
Only God has the right to punish for that reason.
And yet people do it.
And I'd like to hear your rationale for how Judaism "disagrees with basic all other human doctrine".
There's only one true God, so it's self explanatory.
This doesn't answer the question at all. Explain it to me like I'm 5. How does Judaism disagree with basic all other human doctrine?
Don't know how you twisted my meaning, but my point was they're exactly alike.
They're the opposite. Jews are persecuted because they're wrong but Christians are persecuted because they're right?
The reason for publishing to the gentiles, Gods' goodness to Israel, is so that gentiles would come to honor God.
But this is an as of yet unfulfilled messianic prophecy. How can you boast of God's goondess to Israel for an event that hasn't occurred?
You agree with your rabbis that Jesus is still dead, but if that was true, there would be no New Testament.
Why? The Koran exists, Islam is also based on Judaism. Does that mean that Mohammed was correct?
The Jews who penned it weren't liars, or being decieved.
We actually don't know who penned the NT. Or when. Or where.
Gamaliel had this right,
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. Act.5:38-39
Just because some movement is "of God" doesn't mean that it's correct or true. Assyria was the "rod of God's anger" even though they were idolatrous mass murderers.
I've ignoted nothing you've said. I specifically answered every objection you've made.
You have repeatedly said that things are "obvious" as though that is an answer to a question. It's not.
No. It's teaching about Rachels children who are no more returning.
Yes. They're returning to the land of Israel. It says that in the plain text. You don't get to say "I don't like this verse in the bible, so I'm pretending it isn't there".
I've explained how we rest on the Sabbath and unclean animals are explained in Acts 10 as symbolic of gentiles.
But the bible doesn't say it's symbolic. It says these are actual things that the people under the covenant are expected to do. You're can't simultaneously argue that there's a "new covenant" that abrogates the law and also that the covenant was never in effect anyway. Again, basic Christian doctrine.
This is your belief, but it isn't in the bible.
Sure it is. It's the means by which the nations have come to faith in the God of the Jews.
That's great, but it's not in the bible.
And yet you ignore the text, as usual.
I answered plainly. Why you don't like the answer is unreasonable.
Your "plain answer" is to ignore the plain text.
The captivity was an actual exile, as the bible plainly states.
Yes I know. It's both.
Again, not what the bible says.
Slaughtered who for what? Disagreeing?
No, but that's how it started. I was referring to the vile and vicious way the Innocent was treated.
Read some Jewish history. Innocent Jews were treated in vile and vicious ways. Oftentimes by Christians.
I'm not ignoring the rest of the verses. They're related to Jer.31:30, which is related to Eze.18, so the belief that all Jews are Gods' people isn't true.
All Jews are under the Sinai covenant. All that means is that God has higher expectations of us. Funny how you seem to think it means something else. Amos 3:2 “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”
It all means what it says. Believers know what caused their bondage.
Does nothing in the bible mean what it says?
-
Be not overly wicked, and be not a fool; why should you die before your time? Ecc.7:17
He will yet fill your mouth with laughter, and your lips with a shout of joy. Job 8
-
And yet people do it.
That was my point.
This doesn't answer the question at all. Explain it to me like I'm 5. How does Judaism disagree with basic all other human doctrine?
Other doctrine serves another god, or no god, but not the only God.
They're the opposite. Jews are persecuted because they're wrong but Christians are persecuted because they're right?
No, they're not the opposite. I asked you to cite an example where you believe Jesus contradicted the scriptures. Whoever said he did is mistaken.
But this is an as of yet unfulfilled messianic prophecy. How can you boast of God's goondess to Israel for an event that hasn't occurred?
It hasn't occured (and hasn't continued) to you because you don't recognize the new covenant as I do.
The scriptures are loaded with belief in life everlasting, as the Messiah taught...and proved.
Furthermore, after reading the OT I ask you, When hasn't Gods' goodness been extended to Israel? What is that you think God is going to do with gentiles in the future.....that he isn't doing with me now?
Why? The Koran exists, Islam is also based on Judaism. Does that mean that Mohammed was correct?
Islam isn't based on Judaism, because Mohammed contradicted the scriptures where God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son and contradicted the Jews who testified of Messiahs resurrection. As I've already said, the old and new testament writers weren't lying, or deceived.
We actually don't know who penned the NT. Or when. Or where.
I wasted some time in the past on that silly argument. We won't go there.
Just because some movement is "of God" doesn't mean that it's correct or true. Assyria was the "rod of God's anger" even though they were idolatrous mass murderers.
So you're equating King Messiahs' teachings with idolatry and mass murderers? Fyi, he taught the two great commandments, from which all others flow.
I have a habit of talking to strangers as if I've known then all my life, like family. I would never have a problem with telling one my siblings (regardless of age) to cut the crap. Just last week, I had a serious conversation with my older sister and at one point told her to get her head out of her rear end. She didn't agree, but wasn't offended by my remark, which was just an expression of exasperation.
You have repeatedly said that things are "obvious" as though that is an answer to a question. It's not.
And again, it's obvious to anyone who recognizes Gods' new covenant with Israel,
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.....For David speaketh concerning him.....Therefore let all the house of Israel know....For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.. Act.2:16,25,36,39
Yes. They're returning to the land of Israel. It says that in the plain text. You don't get to say "I don't like this verse in the bible, so I'm pretending it isn't there".
I didn't ignore it. You don't recognize what I'm saying to you. Rachels' sorroww because her children are no more.....can only be turned to joy by her dead children returning. I don't know why you oppose this point, or would delay agreeing with me about it if you find no problem with it.
But the bible doesn't say it's symbolic. It says these are actual things that the people under the covenant are expected to do. You're can't simultaneously argue that there's a "new covenant" that abrogates the law and also that the covenant was never in effect anyway. Again, basic Christian doctrine.
It's the way Peter came to understand what God said to him.
That's great, but it's not in the bible.
I'm here talking to you about a gentile telling a Jew how great his God is because of the long awaited Messiah, which all the gentiles first heard from the Jews. That's in the Bible. I wish you could see what's going on here.
Read some Jewish history. Innocent Jews were treated in vile and vicious ways. Oftentimes by Christians.
Why don't you read what the Messiah said and then, stop confusing those who believe what he said with those who don't.
All Jews are under the Sinai covenant. All that means is that God has higher expectations of us. Funny how you seem to think it means something else. Amos 3:2 “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”
I don't think it means something else. I just showed why Israel
is corrected for sin, not condemned.
-
He will yet fill your mouth with laughter, and your lips with a shout of joy. Job 8
I sure hope he'll fill Docs' mouth with laughter, because his prime didn't last long.
-
Other doctrine serves another god, or no god, but not the only God.
That makes no sense. How does having another faith disagree with "all other human doctrine"? You may not have noticed, but a majority of the human race is not Christian.
No, they're not the opposite.
Saying that Jews are persecuted because they're wrong but Christians are persecuted because they're right is the opposite. Maybe Christians are persecuted because they're wrong and Jew are persecuted because they're right. Isn't that also possible?
I asked you to cite an example where you believe Jesus contradicted the scriptures. Whoever said he did is mistaken.
I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about Christians. Christians do not follow the bible's laws, and Jews do. See?
But this is an as of yet unfulfilled messianic prophecy. How can you boast of God's goondess to Israel for an event that hasn't occurred?
It hasn't occured (and hasn't continued) to you because you don't recognize the new covenant as I do.
So then you actually can't boast of God's goodness t Israel, because it hasn't happened yet. Finally, a point we agree on. This is progress.
The scriptures are loaded with belief in life everlasting
The point is debatable.
, as the Messiah taught...and proved.
You mean by coming back from the dead, but only to his closest disciples?
Furthermore, after reading the OT I ask you, When hasn't Gods' goodness been extended to Israel? What is that you think God is going to do with gentiles in the future.....that he isn't doing with me now?
God's promises are primarily to Israel, not the nations of the world. Gathered exiles, rebuilt temple, and so on.
Islam isn't based on Judaism,
You really need to read more. It most certainly is.
because Mohammed contradicted the scriptures where God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son and contradicted the Jews who testified of Messiahs resurrection.
Jews also don't believe that Jesus was resurrected, I guess their religion also isn't based on Judaism. :o
As I've already said, the old and new testament writers weren't lying, or deceived.
That's a statement of faith, not fact.
We actually don't know who penned the NT. Or when. Or where.
I wasted some time in the past on that silly argument. We won't go there.
No, let's go there. Who wrote the NT? Seems important.
So you're equating King Messiahs' teachings with idolatry and mass murderers?
But worshipping a man is idolatry, for Jews at least. And some Christians carried out mass murder.
I have a habit of talking to strangers as if I've known then all my life, like family. I would never have a problem with telling one my siblings (regardless of age) to cut the crap. Just last week, I had a serious conversation with my older sister and at one point told her to get her head out of her rear end. She didn't agree, but wasn't offended by my remark, which was just an expression of exasperation.
It sounds like you need to work on your patience. And politeness.
You have repeatedly said that things are "obvious" as though that is an answer to a question. It's not.
And again, it's obvious to anyone who recognizes Gods' new covenant with Israel,
Amazing that Israel itself doesn't recognize this "new covenant". It's as if in the end of days the Jews will be proven wrong and the gentiles correct.
]I didn't ignore it. You don't recognize what I'm saying to you. Rachels' sorroww because her children are no more.....can only be turned to joy by her dead children returning. I don't know why you oppose this point, or would delay agreeing with me about it if you find no problem with it.
She's crying for the exiles. That's why God promises her "... your work will be rewarded...They will return from the land of the enemy." Words mean things.
But the bible doesn't say it's symbolic. It says these are actual things that the people under the covenant are expected to do. You're can't simultaneously argue that there's a "new covenant" that abrogates the law and also that the covenant was never in effect anyway. Again, basic Christian doctrine.
It's the way Peter came to understand what God said to him.
Where? Again, you can't simultaneously argue that there's a "new covenant" that abrogates the law and also that the covenant was never in effect anyway.
I'm here talking to you about a gentile telling a Jew how great his God is because of the long awaited Messiah, which all the gentiles first heard from the Jews. That's in the Bible. I wish you could see what's going on here.
If the long waited messiah has come, why have Jews been in exile the last 2000 years? Where's the rebuilt temple? Where the universal peace and knowledge of God? These are all things that the messiah was supposed to bring, yet they have not happened.
Read some Jewish history. Innocent Jews were treated in vile and vicious ways. Oftentimes by Christians.
Why don't you read what the Messiah said and then, stop confusing those who believe what he said with those who don't.
Again with this double standard. So when Jesus is treated in vile ways, it is significant, but when Jews are treated in vile ways, sometimes by the very followers of Jesus, you sweep it under the rug.
I don't think it means something else. I just showed why Israel is corrected for sin, not condemned.
How about everyone else? Also corrected for sin, or nah?
-
I sure hope he'll fill Docs' mouth with laughter, because his prime didn't last long.
I was hoping to fill your mouth with laughter, because you look like you could use a laugh.
-
That makes no sense. How does having another faith disagree with "all other human doctrine"? You may not have noticed, but a majority of the human race is not Christian.
I don't know what the fraction of those who actually follow the Messiahs' teachings are, but it seems that if a majority of the human race did, things would be much better for all. And.....they are.
Saying that Jews are persecuted because they're wrong.....
I never said this, or implied it, or the rest of your comment.
I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about Christians. Christians do not follow the bible's laws, and Jews do. See?
I see I'm not going back to look at your quote but a christian is a follower of the Messiah. I can't repeat this again.
So then you actually can't boast of God's goodness t Israel, because it hasn't happened yet. Finally, a point we agree on. This is progress.
The Apostles were Jews.....following behind Their King. For a long time, it never occurred to me that God was blessing Israel either. But that's what can happen, when you're a gentile, living in a gentile world.
The point is debatable.
You cited Job, so.....
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment. Jb.19:26
So no it isn't debatable, as you must agree with everything Job says. That's your standard. You live by it.
You mean by coming back from the dead, but only to his closest disciples?
Yes and to his closest disciples, all of Israel. Isn't that what you mean?
I'll have to finish the rest later.
-
I was hoping to fill your mouth with laughter, because you look like you could use a laugh.
My heart isn't filled with laughter at the thought of, "Doc Holiday is cool." Not unless at some point, he gave himself to God and even then, it would only be because he'd heard of God.....because of what the Messiah did. If that's not YIKES!, I don't know what is.
-
Yeah, you could definitely laugh a bit more.
-
A merry heart forth good like a medicine.
-
God's promises are primarily to Israel.....
You really need to read more.....
Jews also don't believe that Jesus was resurrected.....
The people who first believed in Jesus were Jews. They explained how God gathered them out of this sinful world to build his temple, which is the believers themselves collectively.
That's a statement of faith, not fact.
Of course it is. God has chosen the faithful,
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gen.15:6
No, let's go there. Who wrote the NT? Seems important.
It is, but I satisfied my curiosity about it years ago. Start a thread, since you're concerned about it.
But worshipping a man is idolatry, for Jews at least. And some Christians carried out mass murder.
Messiahs' disciples don't commit murder. The King of the Jews should be worshipped.
It sounds like you need to work on your patience. And politeness.
And then some.
Amazing that Israel itself doesn't recognize this "new covenant". It's as if in the end of days the Jews will be proven wrong and the gentiles correct.
You keep thinking "Israel" doesn't include Jesus (a Jew) and those who knew him (all Jews). What is it that you can't seem to understand? Is it that you believe the NT is a gentile conspiracy?
She's crying for the exiles. That's why God promises her "... your work will be rewarded...They will return from the land of the enemy." Words mean things.
Would you agree that Gods' promise includes her children that died in exile?
Where?.....
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Act.10:28
Peter is referring to the unclean animals God showed him.
If the long waited messiah has come, why have Jews been in exile the last 2000 years? Where's the rebuilt temple? Where the universal peace and knowledge of God? These are all things that the messiah was supposed to bring, yet they have not happened.
They are happening my friend. It's "universal" in the sense of availability. I'm not lying about the great peace I have been given by the knowledge of God through the Messiah.
Again with this double standard. So when Jesus is treated in vile ways, it is significant, but when Jews are treated in vile ways, sometimes by the very followers of Jesus, you sweep it under the rug.
Nothing is swept under the rug. When the Messiah returns, some will hear him say, "Depart from me. I never knew you."
How about everyone else? Also corrected for sin, or nah?
For those who repented.
-
Yeah, you could definitely laugh a bit more.
I laugh when it's appropriate. I think the life Doc Holiday lived is pretty sad.
-
I laugh when it's appropriate. I think the life Doc Holiday lived is pretty sad.
It's a forum, you're allowed to laugh. Contextually, it's fine. You be you, though.
-
I don't know what the fraction of those who actually follow the Messiahs' teachings are
And you're meandering off topic again, without addressing what I said at all. Because of course you are.
I never said this, or implied it, or the rest of your comment.
You most certainly did. But you be you.
I see I'm not going back to look at your quote but a christian is a follower of the Messiah.
sigh. Again you aren't even bothering anymore.
The Apostles were Jews.....following behind Their King. For a long time, it never occurred to me that God was blessing Israel either. But that's what can happen, when you're a gentile, living in a gentile world.
Again, doesn't address my point at all. If you ignore what I say there isn't any point in having a discussion.
You cited Job, so.....
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment. Jb.19:26
So no it isn't debatable, as you must agree with everything Job says. That's your standard. You live by it.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, Job is talking about himself so what magical point you're trying to make here is lost on me.
Yes and to his closest disciples, all of Israel. Isn't that what you mean?
His closest disciples were all of Israel? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
-
God's promises are primarily to Israel.....
You really need to read more.....
Jews also don't believe that Jesus was resurrected.....
The people who first believed in Jesus were Jews.
This has nothing to do with what I said. At all. I make some statement and your answer is Jesus. And Jesus and Jesus and Jesus. It doesn't address what I said at all.
Of course it is. God has chosen the faithful,
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gen.15:6
I see this verse quoted all the time, and never with context. So let's give the verse context.
Genesis 15
After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.”
But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”
God is telling Abram that his reward will be very great, and Abram says so what? I have no kids to pass it on to.
The chapter continues
Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
God says, don't worry, I got this. You will have a son to inherit you, and, in fact, your descendants will be as numerous as the stars in the sky.
Then we come to verse .
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Now, it isn't clear from the English (or the original Hebrew, for that matter) who is crediting who with being righteous. I know it's standard Christian dogma that God is crediting Abram for believing Him, but it's just as grammatically correct to say that Abram was crediting God for being righteous in promising him a son. Anyway, even assuming that the Christian read is correct, all it says is that Abram trusted God in a specific promise. Not that he had faith in God's existence or whatever. I mean, who was he talking to? God.
It is, but I satisfied my curiosity about it years ago. Start a thread, since you're concerned about it.
I'm asking you about it now, but uh, yeah, you don't like to answer things I'm noticing.
Messiahs' disciples don't commit murder.
How does the song go? "Don't know much about history..."
There's an excellent take of this song in the film "Animal House" which I am not suggesting that you go watch since it has scenes that would be offensive to devout Christians. And Jews.
The King of the Jews should be worshipped.
No human being should be worshipped.
You keep thinking "Israel" doesn't include Jesus (a Jew) and those who knew him (all Jews). What is it that you can't seem to understand? Is it that you believe the NT is a gentile conspiracy?
This is not really addressing my point though. The prophets spoke of wonderful things happening to Israel in the messianic era. In your take, it actually applies to everyone but Israel. I don't know how you square this circle.
Would you agree that Gods' promise includes her children that died in exile?
No, it's talking about her children that live in exile. "They shall return from the land of the enemy."
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Act.10:28
Peter is referring to the unclean animals God showed him.
So ummm, first if all this wrong, Jews can and do "keep company" with people of other nations. I don't know where Paul gets this from. Second of all, it doesn't address animals at all. And even if it did, Leviticus is very explicit as I already posted, most animals may not be eaten under the Sinai covenant. If Paul is permitting non Kosher animals to be eaten, this brings us back to my first post. If God forbade something, how does a human being permit it?
If the long waited messiah has come, why have Jews been in exile the last 2000 years? Where's the rebuilt temple? Where the universal peace and knowledge of God? These are all things that the messiah was supposed to bring, yet they have not happened.
They are happening my friend. It's "universal" in the sense of availability. I'm not lying about the great peace I have been given by the knowledge of God through the Messiah.
I think it's wonderful that you personally have peace, but that isn't a messianic prophecy. World peace is. And universal knowledge of God. And a rebuilt temple. And Jewish exiles being returned to the land of Israel. You're hanging your hat on "the messiah came" for a "fulfillment" that isn't in the bible and ignoring all the unfulfilled prophecies that are in the bible.
Nothing is swept under the rug. When the Messiah returns, some will hear him say, "Depart from me. I never knew you."
Again ignoring what I said. Yawn.
How about everyone else? Also corrected for sin, or nah?
For those who repented.
Has nothing to do with what I said. Again.
-
This has nothing to do with what I said. At all. I make some statement and your answer is Jesus. And Jesus and Jesus and Jesus. It doesn't address what I said at all.
Sure it does, because your contention is Jews don't believe in Jesus, but his followers were Jews.
I see this verse quoted all the time, and never with context. So let's give the verse context.
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
I know it's standard Christian dogma that God is crediting Abram for believing Him...
Jews believe this also,
The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to Abram as a merit and as righteousness for the faith that he believed in Him (Targum Jonathan). (Rabbi Rashis' commentary)
I'm asking you about it now, but uh, yeah, you don't like to answer things I'm noticing.
waste your own time studying scholars who disagree with one another. The only way to determine the validity of scripture is,
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Jn.7:17
And,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. Pro.9:10
How does the song go? "Don't know much about history..."
God knows the history of every individuals heart and he will decide who and who didn't believe in him.
No human being should be worshipped.
I do not receive honor from men, but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Jn.5:41-44
This is not really addressing my point though. The prophets spoke of wonderful things happening to Israel in the messianic era. In your take, it actually applies to everyone but Israel. I don't know how you square this circle.
The Messiah did wonderful things to Israel and wonderful things happen to Jews and now gentiles by faith in God through the Messiah.
No, it's talking about her children that live in exile. "They shall return from the land of the enemy."
Jews who recognized the Messiah understood his expansion of the "land of the enemy" to include death.
So ummm, first if all this wrong, Jews can and do "keep company" with people of other nations. I don't know where Paul gets this from.
It was Peter who claimed the stigma. Apparently in 1st century Israel, it was unlawful for Jews to enter a pagans house.
Second of all, it doesn't address animals at all. And even if it did, Leviticus is very explicit as I already posted, most animals may not be eaten under the Sinai covenant. If Paul is permitting non Kosher animals to be eaten, this brings us back to my first post. If God forbade something, how does a human being permit it?
By knowing the reason behind it. If eating a certain food would defile someone, the Patriarchs would have been told.
I think it's wonderful that you personally have peace, but that isn't a messianic prophecy. World peace is. And universal knowledge of God. And a rebuilt temple. And Jewish exiles being returned to the land of Israel. You're hanging your hat on "the messiah came" for a "fulfillment" that isn't in the bible and ignoring all the unfulfilled prophecies that are in the bible.
You're assuming when Messiah came, everyone on earth would live in peace. You're confusing his return with his 1st appearing,
Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. Lk.12:51
Again ignoring what I said. Yawn.
I'm aware of your inability to understand. An adherent is someone who practices what the Messiah preached.
Has nothing to do with what I said. Again.
You don't seem to understand that some people choose death over repentance.
-
This has nothing to do with what I said. At all. I make some statement and your answer is Jesus. And Jesus and Jesus and Jesus. It doesn't address what I said at all.
Sure it does, because your contention is Jews don't believe in Jesus, but his followers were Jews.
Here we go again. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus! Not discussing what I said at all.
And just because some Jews believe something doesn't make it a Jewish belief. There are Jews that converted to Islam and Hinduism, using your logic those other faiths are actually Jewish.
The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to Abram as a merit and as righteousness for the faith that he believed in Him (Targum Jonathan). (Rabbi Rashis' commentary)
As I said, one can read it either way. Regardless (and again, because you never address what I actually said) this doesn't mean that Abram believed in God , he was already talking to God. It means Abram believed that God would fulfill a specific promise that He, God, had made. But of course you'll ignore me saying it now just like you ignored me saying it before.
waste your own time studying scholars who disagree with one another. The only way to determine the validity of scripture is,
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Jn.7:17
And,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. Pro.9:10
These verses also apply to everyone else here, including me. What makes you any more correct?
How does the song go? "Don't know much about history..."
God knows the history of every individuals heart and he will decide who and who didn't believe in him.
Don't know much about history.
Don't know much biology.
Don't know much about science book.
Don't know much about the French I took...
No human being should be worshipped.
I do not receive honor from men, but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Jn.5:41-44
Yeah quoting a book that isn't holy writ to me is sure to get me to agree with you!
Deuteronomy 4 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.
"You saw no form at Horeb, so don't worship anything that has a form" seems self explanatory to me.
This is not really addressing my point though. The prophets spoke of wonderful things happening to Israel in the messianic era. In your take, it actually applies to everyone but Israel. I don't know how you square this circle.
The Messiah did wonderful things to Israel and wonderful things happen to Jews and now gentiles by faith in God through the Messiah.
Again ignoring what I said. God promised wonderful things to Israel, none of which have yet occurred. Yet you're saying that it's actually the gentiles who are right, and not the Jews. This is the opposite of what the bible says.
No, it's talking about her children that live in exile. "They shall return from the land of the enemy."
Jews who recognized the Messiah understood his expansion of the "land of the enemy" to include death.
It isn't what the text says, and there's no evidence of your belief existing in Judaism, or that you didn't just invent it right now for that matter.
It was Peter who claimed the stigma. Apparently in 1st century Israel, it was unlawful for Jews to enter a pagans house.
"Apparently" according to who?
By knowing the reason behind it. If eating a certain food would defile someone, the Patriarchs would have been told.
The bible doesn't say that the Patriarchs were told anything. Jacob married two sisters, which is expressly forbidden in Lev 18. Why didn't God tell him? Obviously because the Sinai covenant added the laws, including the laws of forbidden foods. And God helpfully provides the reason in Lev 11-
"I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, because I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God; so you shall be holy, because I am holy.’”
By what right does any human being override what God says here?
You're assuming when Messiah came, everyone on earth would live in peace.
I'm "assuming" that the messiah would actually, you know, fulfill messianic prophecy. Which hasn't happened yet.
You're confusing his return with his 1st appearing,
Which isn't in my bible.
Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. Lk.12:51
This isn't in my bible. Quoting NT verses to me isn't authoritative, I thought you would know that by now.
I'm aware of your inability to understand.
I'm aware of your ability to ignore things I say. Hoo boy am I aware.
An adherent is someone who practices what the Messiah preached.
The messiah's mission isn't to "preach" anything. It's to fulfill messianic prophecy, which has yet to occur.
You don't seem to understand that some people choose death over repentance.
I have no idea what this means.
-
Here we go again. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus! Not discussing what I said at all.
And just because some Jews believe something doesn't make it a Jewish belief. There are Jews that converted to Islam and Hinduism, using your logic those other faiths are actually Jewish.
I explained this already. I didn't mean everything Jews believe is true. I meant whatever harmonizes with the OT is true and Jesus expounded on the OT. Jesus the Messiah is right.
As I said, one can read it either way. Regardless (and again, because you never address what I actually said)
What you "actually said" was,
I know it's standard Christian dogma that God is crediting Abram for believing Him...
Then, when I cite a Rabbi you respect that agrees with me, you divert the conversation toward false religions.
I'll finish the rest later God willing. Happy New Year 😊
-
These verses also apply to everyone else here, including me. What makes you any more correct?
I'm not more correct. They apply to anyone who does Gods' will. To anyone who respects the Lord. It's available to everyone on earth, but everyone on earth isn't going to avail himself of it.
Don't know much about history.
Don't know much biology.
Don't know much about science book.
Don't know much about the French I took...
God will decide if Paul Simon loved him.
Yeah quoting a book that isn't holy writ to me is sure to get me to agree with you!
I'm just thanking God that his Messiah conquered all of our enemies. Some don't believe it.
Deuteronomy 4 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.
"You saw no form at Horeb, so don't worship anything that has a form" seems self explanatory to me.
I also believe we should only worship our Creator.
...Yet you're saying that it's actually the gentiles who are right, and not the Jews...
I didn't write it. The Jews did lol.
It isn't what the text says, and there's no evidence of your belief existing in Judaism, or that you didn't just invent it right now for that matter.
The text says Rachels' children are no more, which really isn't true if they're still alive and being raised from death is a belief in Judaism. You seem unhappy about that good news.
"Apparently" according to who?
Apparently religious leaders of his day.
The bible doesn't say that the Patriarchs were told anything. Jacob married two sisters, which is expressly forbidden in Lev 18. Why didn't God tell him? Obviously because the Sinai covenant added the laws, including the laws of forbidden foods. And God helpfully provides the reason in Lev 11-
"I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, because I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God; so you shall be holy, because I am holy.’”
By what right does any human being override what God says here?
None, but my point was if eating certain food would make someone unclean, why wait to prohibit it?
I'm "assuming" that the messiah would actually, you know, fulfill messianic prophecy. Which hasn't happened yet.
Which isn't in my bible.
This isn't in my bible. Quoting NT verses to me isn't authoritative, I thought you would know that by now.
I'm aware of your ability to ignore things I say. Hoo boy am I aware.
The messiah's mission isn't to "preach" anything. It's to fulfill messianic prophecy, which has yet to occur.
I have no idea what this means.
It's time to agree to disagree.
-
I explained this already. I didn't mean everything Jews believe is true. I meant whatever harmonizes with the OT is true and Jesus expounded on the OT. Jesus the Messiah is right.
What you mean is "my beliefs are right". Judaism or any other religion for that matter is internally self-consistent.
Then, when I cite a Rabbi you respect that agrees with me
The rabbi isn't just agreeing with you. As I said, it's perfectly justified way to read the text. The problem is that it isn't the sweeping statement you make it out to be. Abram believed that God would fulfill a specific promise, namely that he would have children.
Happy New Year 😊
Happy new year!
-
I'm not more correct. They apply to anyone who does Gods' will.
I do God's will. Does it apply to me?
God will decide if Paul Simon loved him.
Sam Cooke, actually.
I'm just thanking God that his Messiah conquered all of our enemies. Some don't believe it.
That's because nothing visibly changed.
Deuteronomy 4 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.
"You saw no form at Horeb, so don't worship anything that has a form" seems self explanatory to me.
I also believe we should only worship our Creator.
But you worship something with a form also.
...Yet you're saying that it's actually the gentiles who are right, and not the Jews...
I didn't write it. The Jews did lol.
Not "The Jews". We actually don't know who wrote the NT (and you refuse to discuss this) but even if it was some Jewish person, so what? Jews are entitled to be just as wrong as anyone else. I still find it a bizarre idea that one can conclude that it will be the Jews who are wrong at the end of history, and everyone else right.
The text says Rachels' children are no more
And it concludes by saying that she shouldn't worry because they will return to the land. How you can conclude it means anything other than what it explicitly says is beyond me.
Apparently religious leaders of his day.Perhaps a source?
None, but my point was if eating certain food would make someone unclean, why wait to prohibit it?
If marrying two sisters is wrong, why wait to prohibit it?
It's time to agree to disagree.
Rather than answer my questions, want to conclude the discussion. As you wish.
-
I do God's will. Does it apply to me?
Absolutely. 😊
Sam Cooke, actually.
Lol...right. What a voice he had.
That's because nothing visibly changed.
Well, he changed me life along with many others over the last 2000 years.
But you worship something with a form also.
I do believe God once visited mankind in human form. I know you don't believe that could happen.
Not "The Jews". We actually don't know who wrote the NT (and you refuse to discuss this) but even if it was some Jewish person, so what? Jews are entitled to be just as wrong as anyone else. I still find it a bizarre idea that one can conclude that it will be the Jews who are wrong at the end of history, and everyone else right.
I just have a better way to verify the integrity of the scriptures, instead of citing scholars who disagree with other scholars. I believe the Jews who knew Jesus were right.
And it concludes by saying that she shouldn't worry because they will return to the land. How you can conclude it means anything other than what it explicitly says is beyond me.
I don't think it means something else. I believe it includes the faithful dead.
Perhaps a source?
My source is the NT, which you reject, so why bother?
If marrying two sisters is wrong, why wait to prohibit it?
Right. When Jacob married Leah and Rachel, it wasn't against the law.
Rather than answer my questions, want to conclude the discussion. As you wish.
Fenris, I haven't ignored any of your questions. We just have different views on what Jesus did.
-
Man I miss sentence by sentence quote responses. :P
I really resonate with Fenris' opening post. Back in my 30's when I hit the big old RESET button on my religious thinking, I went back and read the bible from start to finish. I was well into the new testament before it hit me: "wait, where is the OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE prophecies of Jesus". Sure when verses were precision extracted from all over and placed in one document, a convincing case could be made... but reading each book like its own book gave a distinctly different impression.
Now, I'm not a smart dude, but I ain't dumb either. The whole thing was confusing as a jello helmet.
And the thing that kept bothering me in the years since. Just WTAF does God expect of us? I know I went to the bleeding edge of sanity and beyond trying to figure it out, and came up empty. And in most denominations of most formal religions, that means an eternity of torture.
-
Man I miss sentence by sentence quote responses. :P
Who wouldn't? :) As for journeyman, I don't think he's posted since that time I temporarily banned him for calling me deceived by Satan, and then I called him naive.
-
I was well into the new testament before it hit me: "wait, where is the OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE prophecies of Jesus".
I mean, there are reasons that the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah. Perhaps you see them now.
I've been here a long time and listened with interest to the proof texts, but did not find them convincing. And it's not, as some would say, because I'm "wicked" or perhaps "brainwashed by the rabbis." It's simply because the plain text does not support the contention.
That doesn't mean that Christians are bad (I love you guys!) and it doesn't even mean that Christianity was not sent by God; because Christianity has been a fantastic movement to civilize the world!
It just means that I don't think that it is the truth.
-
I really resonate with Fenris' opening post. Back in my 30's when I hit the big old RESET button on my religious thinking, I went back and read the bible from start to finish. I was well into the new testament before it hit me: "wait, where is the OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE prophecies of Jesus".
There is something to that perhaps. Some Christians, like myself, find loads of "proofs" for Jesus being the Messiah in the Bible. In fact, the NT Scriptures were written, in part, to prove this!
You can't read the Gospels without seeing that the Gospel authors cited the OT Scriptures as proof texts for Jesus being the Messiah! It was an attempt to convince the Jews that their own Scriptures supported the conclusion that Jesus had come to fulfill the prophecies of Messiah.
However, the prophecies are indeed delivered, for the Christian, in a subtle way. Often, the prophecies of Messiah were provided in typologies or foreshadowings, such as in the character of a patriarch, saintly king, or prophet. You had to sort of look through these old saints of God to see characteristics of the coming Messiah.
The greatest proof, according to Paul, was spiritual and a matter of discerning righteousness from God. If one could, as a Jew, discern righteousness in the Law, it should be equally recognized that Jesus operated in the same righteous spirit.
It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant." Otherwise, a change in the covenant would look like direct rebellion against God.
There were many prohibitions for the Jew against changing or even obscuring the laws of God as given under the Law. Any change had to be clear. And as I've said, the clarity with which one sees in Jesus God's righteousness is the degree to which he can, with certainty, accept a change into the New Testament.
As a Christian, though, faith is based on reason, and not on the obscurity of references to the Jewish Messiah. Jesus' works had to look both lawful and spiritual in order to accept his termination of the OT legal system.
-
It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant."
Yes. Or to put it more directly, the "proofs" are only "obvious" after once accepts the NT as holy writ. If one doesn't already believe that Jesus is the messiah, the proofs are not proofs at all.
Which is why, historically, Christianity was much more compelling to gentiles than to Jews. It's easier to sell Jesus as the messiah by introducing the NT first.
-
It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant."
Yes. Or to put it more directly, the "proofs" are only "obvious" after once accepts the NT as holy writ. If one doesn't already believe that Jesus is the messiah, the proofs are not proofs at all.
Which is why, historically, Christianity was much more compelling to gentiles than to Jews. It's easier to sell Jesus as the messiah by introducing the NT first.
Really? :)
The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself.
[Q] - why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep?
-
Really? :)
The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself.
Interesting that such an important and fundamental concept as eternal damnation wouldn't be introduced until a thousand years and more after Sinai.
[Q] - why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep?
The law can be kept. Observant Jews today follow the law.
-
Really? :)
The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself.
Interesting that such an important and fundamental concept as eternal damnation wouldn't be introduced until a thousand years and more after Sinai.
Well, I am not going to argue about God's timing of revelation.
Besides the concept of eternal damnation is also adapted by Rabbi's.
whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12446-purgatory
[Q] - why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep?
The law can be kept. Observant Jews today follow the law.
Willing to follow is not the same as never breaking the Law. No one ever lived was able to keep the Law, that was my point. So my question remains.
-
Well, I am not going to argue about God's timing of revelation.
I would, though. I mean, God makes this great covenant with an entire nation and fails to mentioned what seems to be a pretty important point for over a thousand years?
Besides the concept of eternal damnation is also adapted by Rabbi's.
whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).
Then why did you say this?
"The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself."
Willing to follow is not the same as never breaking the Law. No one ever lived was able to keep the Law, that was my point. So my question remains.
Oh. Well, that's a different point. So your new question becomes "Why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep perfectly?
So allow me to ask a question in return. [Q] Where does it say that God expected anyone to keep the law perfectly?
-
It is only *after* accepting that Jesus was legitimately righteous and of God that the Jew could accept a "new covenant."
Yes. Or to put it more directly, the "proofs" are only "obvious" after once accepts the NT as holy writ. If one doesn't already believe that Jesus is the messiah, the proofs are not proofs at all.
Which is why, historically, Christianity was much more compelling to gentiles than to Jews. It's easier to sell Jesus as the messiah by introducing the NT first.
I really don't care for the way you frame that, as if Jews are logically opposed to a false claim of Messiahship and non-Jews are gullible "believers" in something that has no valid evidence amid support for the Messianic claim. But I suppose that is the whole difference between our religions?
I probably am distasteful to you when I insinuate that your loyalty to your ethnicity is greater than any interest in "Christian logic?" ;)
I wouldn't at all say that you buy into something *before* any real evidence appeals to the conscience. To appeal to the conscience properly there must be reason.
So it isn't just holy writ that is "believed in," but more, holy writ that is both written in a reasonable way and then experienced as such, validating what is written with what is experienced and justified as authentic righteousness.
But before faith the NT must of course come first. And that's because unless there had been some kind of progressive development beyond the demise of Israel in Jesus' generation, there would be nothing to hope for with respect to the hope of Israel's final salvation.
In the time of the Babylonian Fall, Jeremiah was given the 70 years of hope for Israel's restoration. And in the time of Roman occupation we Christians believe that Israel was given the hope of Messianic salvation. We just differ from the Jews in believing that Jesus was that Messiah, and had to suffer first before coming back and judging the world.
A lot of Christians don't appear to realize it, but the eschatological judgment of the world was framed in the context of Israel's salvation from Gentile oppression. It is, however, expanded in the NT to include Christians among the nations who equally suffer the oppression of pagan systems.
-
I really don't care for the way you frame that,
I really don't care how you feel about it. This is the "Non Christian Perspective" part of the forum and I can say as I please.
as if Jews are logically opposed to a false claim of Messiahship and non-Jews are gullible "believers" in something that has no valid evidence amid support for the Messianic claim.
Yes. That's a good way of putting it.
I probably am distasteful to you when I insinuate that your loyalty to your ethnicity is greater than any interest in "Christian logic?"
I'm loyal to the bible and it's plain text. I don't find Christianity to be especially logical.
I wouldn't at all say that you buy into something *before* any real evidence appeals to the conscience. To appeal to the conscience properly there must be reason.
Sure, but a reason doesn't have to be logic. The reason could be emotional.
So it isn't just holy writ that is "believed in," but more, holy writ that is both written in a reasonable way and then experienced as such, validating what is written with what is experienced and justified as authentic righteousness.
I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.
But before faith the NT must of course come first. And that's because unless there had been some kind of progressive development beyond the demise of Israel in Jesus' generation, there would be nothing to hope for with respect to the hope of Israel's final salvation.
The bible says it's going to happen so...I believe God's word?
In the time of the Babylonian Fall, Jeremiah was given the 70 years of hope for Israel's restoration. And in the time of Roman occupation we Christians believe that Israel was given the hope of Messianic salvation.
The bible promised Israel would have messianic salvation long before Jesus. And nothing that Jesus did or experienced covered any of that.
We just differ from the Jews in believing that Jesus was that Messiah, and had to suffer first before coming back and judging the world.
Jews don't believe that because it isn't in our bible. It was introduced in the NT. Which is, again, why its easier to believe in Jesus if one reads the NT first.
A lot of Christians don't appear to realize it, but the eschatological judgment of the world was framed in the context of Israel's salvation from Gentile oppression. It is, however, expanded in the NT to include Christians among the nations who equally suffer the oppression of pagan systems.
Yes, it was expanded in the NT. But also not really. The bible promises world peace and universal knowledge of God in the messianic era. A world united under God's rule. This comes from my bible, not yours. From my perspective this really makes Jesus unnecessary.
-
I really don't care for the way you frame that,
I really don't care how you feel about it. This is the "Non Christian Perspective" part of the forum and I can say as I please.
Saying I don't care for the way you frame something is not the equivalent of denying you the right to respond! ;) I'm simply commenting on how I feel about the way you position the Christian position, in comparison with how you see the Jewish position. I'm disagreeing with how you describe the Christian position, and I'm trying to explain why.
as if Jews are logically opposed to a false claim of Messiahship and non-Jews are gullible "believers" in something that has no valid evidence amid support for the Messianic claim.
Yes. That's a good way of putting it.
Yes, that's why I disagree with how you describe the Christian position, as if Christians are "gullible," whereas Jews are not. The Messianic claims Jesus made are both relevant and valid inasmuch as you can see in the NT accounts that Jews considered him a possible Messianic candidate. And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews.
Furthermore, these believing Jews did not convert to a non-Jewish religion. They, as Jews, founded this religion, simply by accepting Jesus' claim of Messiahship. It was the claim that he actually was fulfilling Jewish prophecy. Usually the argument is made that he did not fulfill *all* of the Messianic prophecies, which of course is based on the assumption that he could not have risen from the dead to fulfill the rest of the prophecies.
I'm loyal to the bible and it's plain text. I don't find Christianity to be especially logical.
Obviously not. Jewish bias or independent judgment?
I wouldn't at all say that you buy into something *before* any real evidence appeals to the conscience. To appeal to the conscience properly there must be reason.
Sure, but a reason doesn't have to be logic. The reason could be emotional.
That's not the kind of "reason" I'm appealing to for Christian convictions. Emotionalism is sometimes the opposite of Reason.
So it isn't just holy writ that is "believed in," but more, holy writ that is both written in a reasonable way and then experienced as such, validating what is written with what is experienced and justified as authentic righteousness.
I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.
Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah, which must precede our acceptance, as Christians, of his messiah-hood. So we consider the NT claims that he fulfilled the role of Messiah. These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies.
Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King. We experience his purity of heart, his purity of thought, and the legitimacy of his arguments that things have to be dealt with in the very real conditions that existed, including Jewish prevalence to sin at the time. It was an existential reality that enabled these Jews to accept not just Jesus' claims, but also the reality of the conditions that he was addressing.
Jews don't believe that because it isn't in our bible. It was introduced in the NT. Which is, again, why its easier to believe in Jesus if one reads the NT first.
You have to read the history or hear about it if you're going to decide if you want to buy into it. Our NT Bible quotes the Jewish Bible and claims to reasonably explain it in a progressive way, just as the Jewish Bible itself looked forward to Messianic Salvation for the nation.
A lot of Christians don't appear to realize it, but the eschatological judgment of the world was framed in the context of Israel's salvation from Gentile oppression. It is, however, expanded in the NT to include Christians among the nations who equally suffer the oppression of pagan systems.
Yes, it was expanded in the NT. But also not really. The bible promises world peace and universal knowledge of God in the messianic era. A world united under God's rule. This comes from my bible, not yours. From my perspective this really makes Jesus unnecessary.
No, that doesn't adequately express the hope for world peace mentioned in the NT Scriptures. The only eschatological/apocalyptic book in the NT Bible is Revelation, which is a compilation of older Jewish prophetic allusions to fulfillment in the Messianic Kingdom. The "world peace" you speak of narrowly applies in the process of subjugating nations that are rebellious in nature. The blessing it bestows upon the world is not so much the absence of war as the experience of Messianic spirituality and favor.
-
Well, I am not going to argue about God's timing of revelation.
I would, though. I mean, God makes this great covenant with an entire nation and fails to mentioned what seems to be a pretty important point for over a thousand years?
But at the time of Jesus God had stopped sending prophets to Israel for how many centuries? Does that not ring an alarm bell?
Besides the concept of eternal damnation is also adapted by Rabbi's.
whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).
Then why did you say this?
"The NT speaks of hell, notable introduced (mentioned for the first time in Scripture) by Jesus Himself."
Because you said that Christianity was much more compelling ;)
Hell isn't very compelling.
Willing to follow is not the same as never breaking the Law. No one ever lived was able to keep the Law, that was my point. So my question remains.
Oh. Well, that's a different point. So your new question becomes "Why did God initiated the Law He foreknew nobody could keep perfectly?
And the answer is ?
So allow me to ask a question in return. [Q] Where does it say that God expected anyone to keep the law perfectly?
Leviticus 11:44 - For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 11:45 - For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.’”
Leviticus 19:2 - Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.
Leviticus 20:26 - Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.
Leviticus 20:7 - You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the Lord your God.
-
Saying I don't care for the way you frame something is not the equivalent of denying you the right to respond! ;) I'm simply commenting on how I feel about the way you position the Christian position, in comparison with how you see the Jewish position. I'm disagreeing with how you describe the Christian position, and I'm trying to explain why.
Yes. You believe in a different religion than I do. And I believe in a different religion than you do.
Yes, that's why I disagree with how you describe the Christian position, as if Christians are "gullible," whereas Jews are not.
I'm not saying that Christians are somehow intellectually inferior to Jews. I'm saying that by reading the NT first, and being told that Jesus is the Jewish messiah first, it makes you less capable of examining the claims of Jesus's messiahship from an objective position.
The Messianic claims Jesus made are both relevant and valid inasmuch as you can see in the NT accounts that Jews considered him a possible Messianic candidate.
They also considered Bar Kochba a possible messiah candidate. And several others, some even named in the NT. But when they didn't deliver the goods (Jewish exiles returned to the land, a rebuilt temple, world peace and universal knowledge of God) it was understood that they were not, in fact, the promised messiah.
And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews.
We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where.
Furthermore, these believing Jews did not convert to a non-Jewish religion. They, as Jews, founded this religion, simply by accepting Jesus' claim of Messiahship.
Indeed. But as mentioned above, once he didn't deliver, they dropped away. Furthermore, they didn't stop following the law. The tension between Paul and Peter(?) shows that the early church hadn't sorted out all of the dogma between the Jewish-Christians and the gentile-Christians. In fact, major theological points would not be decided on until Nicea, some 300 years later! So to say that early Jewish believers of Jesus were in fact "Christian" in the modern parlance is most certainly incorrect.
It was the claim that he actually was fulfilling Jewish prophecy. Usually the argument is made that he did not fulfill *all* of the Messianic prophecies, which of course is based on the assumption that he could not have risen from the dead to fulfill the rest of the prophecies.
I actually don't believed that he fulfilled *any* prophecies.
Obviously not. Jewish bias or independent judgment?
Plain text of the bible.
That's not the kind of "reason" I'm appealing to for Christian convictions. Emotionalism is sometimes the opposite of Reason.
Again, being told that Jesus is the promised messiah before even cracking the bible is not reason.
Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah,
He actually doesn't, at least not publicly. Anyway.
which must precede our acceptance, as Christians, of his messiah-hood. So we consider the NT claims that he fulfilled the role of Messiah.
No. You accept them. After he's already been accepted, you go into the Tanach and look for the proofs that you already believe to be true.
These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies.
No, we only have the NT's claim of this. Which again, was written by we don't know who.
Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King.
And people of other faiths don't have religious experiences? C'mon, man.
You have to read the history or hear about it if you're going to decide if you want to buy into it. Our NT Bible quotes the Jewish Bible and claims to reasonably explain it in a progressive way,
It quotes the Jewish bible after it is already accepted the Jesus is the messiah. It's like having a court trial in which the defendant's guilt or innocence is determined before the trial begins. And once the decision is made, the jury looks over the evidence to "prove" their already determined verdict.
It is neither reason nor logic. It is...faith. And that's fine. Just don't pretend it's anything but.
just as the Jewish Bible itself looked forward to Messianic Salvation for the nation.
Which hasn't happened yet. So Jesus wasn't the messiah. See?
No, that doesn't adequately express the hope for world peace mentioned in the NT Scriptures. The only eschatological/apocalyptic book in the NT Bible is Revelation, which is a compilation of older Jewish prophetic allusions to fulfillment in the Messianic Kingdom. The "world peace" you speak of narrowly applies in the process of subjugating nations that are rebellious in nature. The blessing it bestows upon the world is not so much the absence of war as the experience of Messianic spirituality and favor.
Well, none of these things have yet occurred, so much for Jesus's messiahship. But the Jewish bible's promises of the messianic era for the entire world seem adequate enough for me.
Isaiah 2 is a perfect example.
The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
-
But at the time of Jesus God had stopped sending prophets to Israel for how many centuries? Does that not ring an alarm bell?
I dunno, Christians haven't had prophets for 2000 years now. Muslims had a prophet more recent than that. Is the "newest revelation" automatically correct?
Hell isn't very compelling.
It's also really not mentioned in my bible because it isn't important to the topic.
And the answer is ?
And the answer is that God, having created us, knows that we are imperfect and doesn't expect us to follow the law perfectly. And that is why the concept of repentance and mercy exist.
Leviticus 11:44 - For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 11:45 - For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.’”
Leviticus 19:2 - Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.
Leviticus 20:26 - Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.
Leviticus 20:7 - You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the Lord your God.
All this says is that God sanctifies Israel. It doesn't say anything about being perfect.
-
But at the time of Jesus God had stopped sending prophets to Israel for how many centuries? Does that not ring an alarm bell?
I dunno, Christians haven't had prophets for 2000 years now. Muslims had a prophet more recent than that. Is the "newest revelation" automatically correct?
The last prophet was Jesus. After centuries of absent God send Him to Israel. Among other things He also said - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
And the answer is that God, having created us, knows that we are imperfect and doesn't expect us to follow the law perfectly. And that is why the concept of repentance and mercy exist.
Or the answer is to learn that no one is (was) able to keep the Law (God's standard) except one, Jesus.
-
The last prophet was Jesus.
Jews say the last prophet was Malachi. Muslims say the last prophet was Mohammed. Why is your statement any more or less credible?
Or the answer is to learn that no one is (was) able to keep the Law (God's standard) except one, Jesus.
Again. No place does the bible say that God expects anyone to keep the law perfectly.
And Jesus couldn't have kept the law perfectly. No one person can. Because the entire law doesn't apply to any one person. Some laws are only for priests. And some for non priests. Some only apply to kings. Some only apply to farmers. Some only apply to women.
See?
-
I'm not saying that Christians are somehow intellectually inferior to Jews. I'm saying that by reading the NT first, and being told that Jesus is the Jewish messiah first, it makes you less capable of examining the claims of Jesus's messiahship from an objective position.
Yes, you're claiming Christians are driven by presumption, which is exactly how I'd categorize your own position, since you have a vested interest in the outcome of any examination. But as I was saying, it is not presumptuous to examine claims, which have to be made *before* examining them and then choosing to believe them.
And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews.
We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where.
I see... ;)
Furthermore, these believing Jews did not convert to a non-Jewish religion. They, as Jews, founded this religion, simply by accepting Jesus' claim of Messiahship.
Indeed. But as mentioned above, once he didn't deliver, they dropped away. Furthermore, they didn't stop following the law. The tension between Paul and Peter(?) shows that the early church hadn't sorted out all of the dogma between the Jewish-Christians and the gentile-Christians. In fact, major theological points would not be decided on until Nicea, some 300 years later! So to say that early Jewish believers of Jesus were in fact "Christian" in the modern parlance is most certainly incorrect.
There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later. What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today!
I actually don't believed that he fulfilled *any* prophecies.
Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?
Have you even read the NT Gospels? They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.
Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder?
Again, being told that Jesus is the promised messiah before even cracking the bible is not reason.
Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults.
Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves.
Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah,
He actually doesn't, at least not publicly. Anyway.
Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.
No. You accept them. After he's already been accepted, you go into the Tanach and look for the proofs that you already believe to be true.
No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying.
You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah?
These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies.
No, we only have the NT's claim of this. Which again, was written by we don't know who.
Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim.
Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King.
And people of other faiths don't have religious experiences? C'mon, man.
Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself! And the experience of God can be verified when we recognize the authentic marks of holiness, or righteousness. Love is a major element, as are characteristics like forgiveness, mercy, compassion, etc.
It quotes the Jewish bible after it is already accepted the Jesus is the messiah.
That just isn't true. Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively. There is often a sincere period of consideration of the claims of Jesus, with *lots* of skepticism and doubt, and the every present questions about the limits of human knowledge.
Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself.
Which hasn't happened yet. So Jesus wasn't the messiah. See?
From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see? For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world. The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries, which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.
-
The last prophet was Jesus.
Jews say the last prophet was Malachi. Muslims say the last prophet was Mohammed. Why is your statement any more or less credible?
Enough reasons.....
1. Jesus said - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Name one (so called) prophet who said that over himself and which came true. Secondly after all nations are reached (and Christianity is not far from that) the end will come and for that to happen the nation of Israel need to be on the map again as He (Jesus) will return in Jerusalem on mount Olivet.
2. God's timing sending Jesus. Around AD 30 Jesus predicted AD 70, the end of Israel as a nation.
3. The resurrection. All the apostles have seen the risen Jesus. They proclaimed the risen Jesus and died for that not willing to retract. Name one or two persons in history who died for a lie. There is a difference believing in a lie and knowing it is a lie. No one dies for a lie while knowing it is lie, only madman.
4. As you have said yourself, Judaism and Christianity (aside all their bad things) have changed the morals of the world, starting with the 10 commandments and Christian goodies. Except in tyrannies the courts in countries are based on justice and morals based on Jewish and Christian values. And even non-believers have embraced these values, the human-rights declaration of 1948 isn't a pure Christian thing.
Well, I could go on but you probably heard all the arguments a dozen of times. You are talking here with pretty intelligent people who are not easy to fool, have done their homework and have weighted the evidence. I mean, either Jesus resurrected else we are believing in a book full of lies.
Or the answer is to learn that no one is (was) able to keep the Law (God's standard) except one, Jesus.
Again. No place does the bible say that God expects anyone to keep the law perfectly.
And Jesus couldn't have kept the law perfectly. No one person can. Because the entire law doesn't apply to any one person. Some laws are only for priests. And some for non priests. Some only apply to kings. Some only apply to farmers. Some only apply to women.
See?
Jesus (in contradiction to us and as only one) lived a sinless life. The problem of Sin is such an issue we also disagree. Speaking for myself, In Eden A&E lived in the presence of the Lord, what happened as first thing when A&E sinned? They were expelled from the presence of the Lord for their own good as no sinner can see God and live, as Moses found out. So one act of disobedience / rebellion (by only 2 people we never met, we did not even take part in the disobedience / rebellion) caused this world we live in with all its horrors and finally we all will die at some point. That's pretty serious don't you think? Just one sin.
So as a Christian I take sin as the root of all problems. Without Genesis chapter 3 our Bible would be pretty thin. And what went wrong in Eden could be only restored by one person, the one able to lead a sinless life.
I know you don't believe in Jesus despite you have been reading the gospels, my compliments BTW. But as it is with unbelievers, those with some basic knowledge and an average IQ will never call themselves a 100% atheist, maybe 90% but never 100%, excluding a Creator (which is something else as a specific religion) for 100% is just stupidity. Applying this comparison do you believe you know for 100% sure the gospels and the message that came with it are untrue?
-
Yes, you're claiming Christians are driven by presumption,
No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.
which is exactly how I'd categorize your own position, since you have a vested interest in the outcome of any examination.
I don't have a "vested interest" in anything. I'm not trying to convince anyone to convert to Judaism, because it is unnecessary in my view. Being a devout Christian is good enough, and being Jewish is very difficult.
But as I was saying, it is not presumptuous to examine claims, which have to be made *before* examining them and then choosing to believe them.
You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."
I see...
This is not addressing my claim, which you have a habit of not doing. It isn't trivial. We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where. To claim that "it was written by Jews" and therefore I must accept it as evidence, when it is entire possible that it was written by gentiles seems like a major point. Your rebuttal? "I see".
There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later.
You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?
What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today!
Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.
Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?
That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.
But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?
Have you even read the NT Gospels?
I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. :)
They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.
None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.
Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder?
The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.
Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults.
Yes. And you were taught "Jesus was the messiah" at a young age, before reading the bible. The jury was tainted, as it were. You were told what to believe before the evidence was even presented.
Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves.
I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.
Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.
Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.
No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying.
So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!
I'm reminded of the tale of a man walking through the forest. He comes across many trees, with a bright bulls-eye painted on them, with an arrow in the exact center. "What an amazing archer this must be", he thinks. After a time he comes across a man carrying a bow. "Are you the archer who has been shooting at the trees?" he inquires. "Yes, I am", the man replies. "How do you always hit the exact center? You must be an amazing archer". "Not really," the man replies. "You see, I shoot an arrow into a tree, and then I paint a bulls-eye around it".
Jesus does something. His followers look into the bible, find something approximating that act, and presto! Messianic prophecy, fulfilled! Even if the original something isn't a prophecy at all.
You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah?
Jews also accepted Bar Kochba, and in far larger numbers than Jesus. Or Shabtei Tzvi for that matter. Jews can be as wrong as anyone else. The fact remains that one looks to the bible for the ingathered Jewish exiles, the rebuilt temple, the world peace an universal knowledge of God, all proper messianic prophecy, and see them unfulfilled.
Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim.
How does this rebut the fact that we don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where? Why should I accept claims from a book of unknown authorship? Because you say so?
Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself!
You say your experience is "right". I say my experience is "right". A Hindu would say his experience is "right". Ok, and so?
That just isn't true.
It just is.
Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively.
You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.
Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself.
And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?
From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see?
Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.
For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world.
Yes, and this point we can agree upon. That doesn't make it true however.
The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries,
And there are no prophecies that say the Jews will be wrong at the end times, and the gentiles right.
which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.
Which was always available to them. Jesus was not necessary for this.
-
Enough reasons.....
1. Jesus said - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Name one (so called) prophet who said that over himself and which came true.
So would this also apply?
See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”
The nations of the world will find Israel wise, because they follow the Law.
Or this?
...the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.
Secondly after all nations are reached (and Christianity is not far from that) the end will come
Let's talk about this after it happens. If it even happens.
2. God's timing sending Jesus. Around AD 30 Jesus predicted AD 70, the end of Israel as a nation.
Well... It's very likely that the NT was actually written after the year 70. So Jesus was "predicting" a past event. Not evidence.
3. The resurrection. All the apostles have seen the risen Jesus.
And the only proof we have of this is a book written decades later, in another country, in another language. A book whose sole purpose was to create new believers. Not evidence.
They proclaimed the risen Jesus and died for that not willing to retract. Name one or two persons in history who died for a lie. There is a difference believing in a lie and knowing it is a lie. No one dies for a lie while knowing it is lie, only madman.
People are willing to die for something they believe in strongly enough. How about all the Jews who refused to convert and were killed by Christians? Did they die for a lie? Were they madmen?
Every religion has martyrs. What makes Chrisian martyrs "special"?
4. As you have said yourself, Judaism and Christianity (aside all their bad things) have changed the morals of the world, starting with the 10 commandments and Christian goodies. Except in tyrannies the courts in countries are based on justice and morals based on Jewish and Christian values. And even non-believers have embraced these values, the human-rights declaration of 1948 isn't a pure Christian thing.
OK, and so? Judaism underpins large parts of western civ. It's as much evidence for Judaism being correct as Christianity.
Well, I could go on but you probably heard all the arguments a dozen of times. You are talking here with pretty intelligent people who are not easy to fool, have done their homework and have weighted the evidence. I mean, either Jesus resurrected else we are believing in a book full of lies.
"Lies" is harsh.
I prefer "a book with some good lessons written by people to spread beliefs".
Jesus (in contradiction to us and as only one) lived a sinless life.
No. We have the NT's contention that Jesus lived a sinless life.
The problem of Sin is such an issue we also disagree. Speaking for myself, In Eden A&E lived in the presence of the Lord, what happened as first thing when A&E sinned? They were expelled from the presence of the Lord for their own good as no sinner can see God and live, as Moses found out.
Uhh actually the bible says "No man can see me and live". Nothing about "sinner". Why are you adding words to the bible?
So one act of disobedience / rebellion (by only 2 people we never met, we did not even take part in the disobedience / rebellion) caused this world we live in with all its horrors and finally we all will die at some point. That's pretty serious don't you think? Just one sin.
So as a Christian I take sin as the root of all problems. Without Genesis chapter 3 our Bible would be pretty thin. And what went wrong in Eden could be only restored by one person, the one able to lead a sinless life.
The logic doesn't follow, and it isn't in my bible anywhere. No place does God say that He expects perfection. Read Deuteronomy 30. It's about making the choice to return to God. Not about some sinless being performing magic.
And what happened in the garden was in some ways a good thing. It gave humans free will, and this gives our lives meaning.
I know you don't believe in Jesus despite you have been reading the gospels, my compliments BTW. But as it is with unbelievers, those with some basic knowledge and an average IQ will never call themselves a 100% atheist, maybe 90% but never 100%, excluding a Creator (which is something else as a specific religion) for 100% is just stupidity. Applying this comparison do you believe you know for 100% sure the gospels and the message that came with it are untrue?
Is you belief in Jesus 100% ironclad?
-
No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.
If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly.
But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians.
I don't have a "vested interest" in anything.
Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing?
You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."
This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him. I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My person failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ.
You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not.
I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions.
We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where.
[/QUOTE
There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later.
You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?
What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today!
Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.
Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?
That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.
But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?
Have you even read the NT Gospels?
I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. :)
They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.
None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.
Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder?
The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.
Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults.
Yes. And you were taught "Jesus was the messiah" at a young age, before reading the bible. The jury was tainted, as it were. You were told what to believe before the evidence was even presented.
Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves.
I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.
Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.
Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.
No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying.
So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!
I'm reminded of the tale of a man walking through the forest. He comes across many trees, with a bright bulls-eye painted on them, with an arrow in the exact center. "What an amazing archer this must be", he thinks. After a time he comes across a man carrying a bow. "Are you the archer who has been shooting at the trees?" he inquires. "Yes, I am", the man replies. "How do you always hit the exact center? You must be an amazing archer". "Not really," the man replies. "You see, I shoot an arrow into a tree, and then I paint a bulls-eye around it".
Jesus does something. His followers look into the bible, find something approximating that act, and presto! Messianic prophecy, fulfilled! Even if the original something isn't a prophecy at all.
You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah?
Jews also accepted Bar Kochba, and in far larger numbers than Jesus. Or Shabtei Tzvi for that matter. Jews can be as wrong as anyone else. The fact remains that one looks to the bible for the ingathered Jewish exiles, the rebuilt temple, the world peace an universal knowledge of God, all proper messianic prophecy, and see them unfulfilled.
Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim.
How does this rebut the fact that we don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where? Why should I accept claims from a book of unknown authorship? Because you say so?
Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself!
You say your experience is "right". I say my experience is "right". A Hindu would say his experience is "right". Ok, and so?
That just isn't true.
It just is.
Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively.
You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.
Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself.
And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?
From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see?
Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.
For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world.
Yes, and this point we can agree upon. That doesn't make it true however.
The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries,
And there are no prophecies that say the Jews will be wrong at the end times, and the gentiles right.
which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.
Which was always available to them. Jesus was not necessary for this.
-
No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.
If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly.
But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians.
I don't have a "vested interest" in anything.
Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing?
You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."
This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him.
I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My personal failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ.
You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not.
I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions.
We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where.
I don't take this very seriously because if one looks at the systematic theology of the NT, one would know that only someone with extensive, personal knowledge of the Law could write these things, namely Jewish authors. Gentiles did not have easy access, and certainly not without conversion--otherwise, the knowledge of the Law would be very sketchy, and lack any deep thoughts about it.
So, you don't have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve either. And yet, the evidence of the Fall of Man is all around us.
There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later.
You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?
You have to know the relationship of the NT Scriptures to the historic creeds of the Christian Church, which are the standard fundamentals of Christian belief.
Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.
This just shows the poverty of your knowledge on the subject. The creeds were an explanation of apostolic doctrine in the Roman world, applying that same doctrine in a more diverse context. Same teaching, and expanded application, structured into creeds.
Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really?
That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.
You think because the Jews founded a religion that in future generations other ethnicities cannot read the same material and render better conclusions? Of course they can, in particular when the founding people turn against their own religion.
Have the Jews turned against their own religion? Yes. Many times.
But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?
That's the 1st thing I did on internet forums more than 20 years ago! I was asked to stop, even though the Usenet forum was titled alt.messianic! It was a discussion between Jews and Christians as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. I presented many, many proofs, which of course would always be rejected by Jews committed to Judaism and raised up in Jewish schools.
I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. :)
I'm glad you have. However, you don't seem to understand the NT Scriptures even if you've read them. You don't even recognize that they've been adhered to by those who formulated the creeds and by conventional Christianity ever since.
They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time.
None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.
How convenient! You deny Messianic prophecies are genuine Messianic prophecies when they point to Jesus death, burial, betrayal, resurrection, and rejection by the Jewish People. But you accept as legitimate Messianic prophecy only prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus! ;)
The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.
Like I said earlier, for you choosing a religion is like choosing a lottery number! One ticket is as good as the other, and it's all decided by chance, depending on where we were raised and what propaganda we were fed.
But for me religion is a conscientious decision based on our experience of God and the dictates of our conscience. It is a reasoned choice based on the design of our world and on the design of our own personal life. What works?
I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.
No, being raised up in a religion does not make one an independent thinker. When God proposes something to us, apart from all of the machinations of man, then we can render our own independent judgment on the matter. It really depends on if God is the one making the proposal, because only He can expose all of our ulterior motives.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.
Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.
Yes, for doctrinally-orthodox Christians, Jesus' divinity is equal to his claim to Messiah-hood. For example, in Dan 7 we read that the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on earth. We see that as God's divine heir inheriting God's earthly Kingdom in the form of a human being. He was made to be the "firstborn" among many brethren. Just like Joseph was a virtual "king" in Egypt over his Hebrew brothers.
So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!
Yes, even Isaiah said that Israel could go blind along with the prophets, so that they would be unable to see clearly the word of God. The Gospel accounts indicate the Jews were very confused about Messianic details in the time of Jesus. They had a number of opinions on what various prophecies even meant.
Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively.
You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.
Every abusive political system has done things like that. Putin wants to put people in jail for 15 years if they don't portray his "military action" properly. I'm speaking of genuine conversions--not failed Christian kingdoms!
And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?
Yes, Jews and Muslims can be kind. But they can't produce the spirit of Christ along with their kindness. Christ produces in believers an enhanced kindness, if you will. That is, the knowledge of Christ is able to come through the act of kindness, acting as a testimony to what he is like.
Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.
My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!" ;) How inappropriate! A religion is always started by God, as any advocate would claim. To claim the Jewish People are responsible for a religion they despise is absurd!
I realize that you show more tolerance than usual, which I appreciate. But still, no--your people starting Christianity is not my argument. That is just to show that the arguments were made by dedicated Jews themselves, and not just by outsiders! The NT Scriptures are therefore *Jewish arguments!*
-
I will answer in parts to keep our conversation readable.
Enough reasons.....
1. Jesus said - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Name one (so called) prophet who said that over himself and which came true.
So would this also apply?
See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”
The nations of the world will find Israel wise, because they follow the Law.
Or this?
...the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.
Not happened yet, but I believe that will happen, was God's intention from the start when he called Moses, right?
Secondly after all nations are reached (and Christianity is not far from that) the end will come
Let's talk about this after it happens. If it even happens.
So far the prediction came true, even when you think it was rigged. Oh wait, you just said that.
2. God's timing sending Jesus. Around AD 30 Jesus predicted AD 70, the end of Israel as a nation.
Well... It's very likely that the NT was actually written after the year 70. So Jesus was "predicting" a past event. Not evidence.
Well, it's impossible that Jesus predicted a past event (as you say), He ascended to heaven around 30-33 AD, if you think it was rigged it was done by the gospel writers, one big cheat, yes? Speaking of Mark, evidence for an early gospel of Mark is pointing to the 60's, example: There is a high degree of scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s. [ link (https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-written/) ]
-
3. The resurrection. All the apostles have seen the risen Jesus.
And the only proof we have of this is a book written decades later, in another country, in another language. A book whose sole purpose was to create new believers. Not evidence.
So even more corruption by the 4 gospel writers? All 4 mention the resurrection.
They proclaimed the risen Jesus and died for that not willing to retract. Name one or two persons in history who died for a lie. There is a difference believing in a lie and knowing it is a lie. No one dies for a lie while knowing it is lie, only madman.
People are willing to die for something they believe in strongly enough. How about all the Jews who refused to convert and were killed by Christians? Did they die for a lie? Were they madmen?
Every religion has martyrs. What makes Chrisian martyrs "special"?
You missed my point, so I highlighted it in blue (me) and you (red). The gospels tell us that Jesus showed Himself alive to the apostles and those with them. So these people did not believe but knew that Jesus had risen and willing to give their life for it. What you are suggesting (actually saying) that the resurrection was a conspiracy by the 12 apostles and those others who have seen the risen Jesus.
Now imagine the hypothetical case you invent a story for dubious reasons of which people take great offense up to the point you get death threats, up to a point a guy put a gun to your head with the message, take back that lie, or else. Knowing you lied, will you die for that lie or do you retract and live? The apostles did not retract and many died.
-
Jesus (in contradiction to us and as only one) lived a sinless life.
No. We have the NT's contention that Jesus lived a sinless life.
You are missing the central message of the NT, what went wrong in Eden is recovered by Jesus sinless life enabling Him to defeat death and restore the broken relationship between God and mankind since the fall in the garden. The OT is unfinished, the NT is complete and Christianity is the most logic religion of all on a pure intellectual base. Ask yourself the question, why couldn't A&E not stay in the garden? Why this drastic measure by God?
The problem of Sin is such an issue we also disagree. Speaking for myself, In Eden A&E lived in the presence of the Lord, what happened as first thing when A&E sinned? They were expelled from the presence of the Lord for their own good as no sinner can see God and live, as Moses found out.
Uhh actually the bible says "No man can see me and live". Nothing about "sinner". Why are you adding words to the bible?
I am not adding, it's matter of understanding or you must believe that Moses was sinless, which you don't. So I don't understand the red.
And what happened in the garden was in some ways a good thing. It gave humans free will, and this gives our lives meaning.
A&E already had free will.
And you are implying the life of A&E in the garden had no meaning.
-
I know you don't believe in Jesus despite you have been reading the gospels, my compliments BTW. But as it is with unbelievers, those with some basic knowledge and an average IQ will never call themselves a 100% atheist, maybe 90% but never 100%, excluding a Creator (which is something else as a specific religion) for 100% is just stupidity. Applying this comparison do you believe you know for 100% sure the gospels and the message that came with it are untrue?
Is you belief in Jesus 100% ironclad?
I assume that the sum of both our percentages are above 100% ;D
-
If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly.
But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians.
Super bad analogy. One is verifiable scientific fact, the other is religious faith.
If one reads the NT first, and accepts is as holy writ, then obviously Jesus is the Messiah to that reader. Now they go back to the Tanach and find all these wondrous "proof texts". This is the typical gentile experience.
If one reads the Tanach first and hasn't heard of Jesus, and is then presented with the NT, they are capable of being more objective about the matter. "Did this man fulfill Messianic prophecies or not?" This is the typical Jewish experience- and not just modern Jews, but also first century Jews who encountered Jesus.
Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing?
And you're not defending your religious upbringing?
I'm interested in the truth. Perhaps you are too? I don't know.
This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him.
I don't know who you know. I'm assuming little kids in sunday school are learning that Jesus is the messiah and going with that.
I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My personal failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ.
You were raised Christian. End of story.
You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not.
And Jews don't face the same challenges? Or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists...
I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions.
That's awesome. I know Jews who had a similar experience.
I don't take this very seriously because if one looks at the systematic theology of the NT, one would know that only someone with extensive, personal knowledge of the Law could write these things, namely Jewish authors.
Their theology wasn't Jewish, so how is this evidence that the authors were Jewish?
You have to know the relationship of the NT Scriptures to the historic creeds of the Christian Church, which are the standard fundamentals of Christian belief.
Which wasn't decided policy until Nicea. Are you unaware that this happened or just don't care?
This just shows the poverty of your knowledge on the subject. The creeds were an explanation of apostolic doctrine in the Roman world, applying that same doctrine in a more diverse context. Same teaching, and expanded application, structured into creeds.
I don't even know what this means. Why don't you tell me what happened at Nicea?
You think because the Jews founded a religion that in future generations other ethnicities cannot read the same material and render better conclusions?
I...thought this was all decided doctrine in the first century. That's what you just said. Now you're saying it's not?
Have the Jews turned against their own religion? Yes. Many times.
When they worshipped idols, you mean? Are you comparing modern Judaism to idolatry?
That's the 1st thing I did on internet forums more than 20 years ago! I was asked to stop, even though the Usenet forum was titled alt.messianic! It was a discussion between Jews and Christians as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. I presented many, many proofs, which of course would always be rejected by Jews committed to Judaism and raised up in Jewish schools.
We're not on usenet. We're on bibleforums. I'm sure nobody here would object if you and I discussed messianic prophecies as seen by Jews vs Christians.
I'm glad you have. However, you don't seem to understand the NT Scriptures even if you've read them.
OK. And maybe you don't understand my bible, even though you've read it.
How convenient! You deny Messianic prophecies are genuine Messianic prophecies when they point to Jesus death, burial, betrayal, resurrection, and rejection by the Jewish People.
Umm. Yeah. Because I'm not aware of any messianic prophecies of those matters. Perhaps you could illuminate me?
But you accept as legitimate Messianic prophecy only prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus!
Oh, so you admit that there are unfulfilled messianic prophecies? This is real progress here!
Like I said earlier, for you choosing a religion is like choosing a lottery number! One ticket is as good as the other, and it's all decided by chance, depending on where we were raised and what propaganda we were fed.
I'm not buying lottery tickets. I'm searching for Truth. But when you present something as ephemeral as "personal experience" as proof that your beliefs are correct, I'm going to point out that every believer of every religion could use the same criteria, and be no more right or wrong than you are.
I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.
No, being raised up in a religion does not make one an independent thinker. When God proposes something to us, apart from all of the machinations of man, then we can render our own independent judgment on the matter. It really depends on if God is the one making the proposal, because only He can expose all of our ulterior motives.
You are ignoring what I said. I'm loyal to the beliefs I was raised in, so I'm not an "independent thinker." Meanwhile, you are loyal to the beliefs you were raised in, so you are an "independent thinker."
What?!
Yes, for doctrinally-orthodox Christians, Jesus' divinity is equal to his claim to Messiah-hood.
That's great. Doesn't work for Jews, though.
For example, in Dan 7 we read that the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on earth. We see that as God's divine heir inheriting God's earthly Kingdom in the form of a human being.
And we see it as a human king bringing in the messianic era.
Yes, even Isaiah said that Israel could go blind along with the prophets,
Chapter and verse, please.
so that they would be unable to see clearly the word of God. The Gospel accounts indicate the Jews were very confused about Messianic details in the time of Jesus. They had a number of opinions on what various prophecies even meant.
Examples would be nice.
Every abusive political system has done things like that. Putin wants to put people in jail for 15 years if they don't portray his "military action" properly. I'm speaking of genuine conversions--not failed Christian kingdoms!
Not addressing my point, as usual.
Yes, Jews and Muslims can be kind. But they can't produce the spirit of Christ along with their kindness. Christ produces in believers an enhanced kindness, if you will.
Enhanced kindness. Right-o.
My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!"
Yes it is, as you've said several times.
To claim the Jewish People are responsible for a religion they despise is absurd!
And yet, all the early Christians were in fact Jews. A point you like to use when telling my to accept it. But when I point it out to you it is somehow absurd.
I realize that you show more tolerance than usual, which I appreciate. But still, no--your people starting Christianity is not my argument. That is just to show that the arguments were made by dedicated Jews themselves, and not just by outsiders! The NT Scriptures are therefore *Jewish arguments!*
Yet you just said "My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!" LOL.
-
I will answer in parts to keep our conversation readable.
Appreciated.
Not happened yet, but I believe that will happen, was God's intention from the start when he called Moses, right?
So the nations will think that Israel is wise for following the bible's laws?
So far the prediction came true, even when you think it was rigged. Oh wait, you just said that.
That's what you're hanging your hat on?
Well, it's impossible that Jesus predicted a past event (as you say), He ascended to heaven around 30-33 AD, if you think it was rigged it was done by the gospel writers, one big cheat, yes? Speaking of Mark, evidence for an early gospel of Mark is pointing to the 60's, example: There is a high degree of scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s. [ link (https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-written/) ]
Let's say it was written in the 60s. 66 perhaps? That seems to be the earliest possible date. What was going on in the year 66? Oh. The Romans were waging war in Judea after the Jewish revolt.
And nobody really knows.
-
So even more corruption by the 4 gospel writers?
I'm not saying "corruption". I'm saying people decades after some events, that they did not personally witness, believers wrote an account. There's nothing wrong with believing it's true, but it's hardly strong evidence.
You missed my point, so I highlighted it in blue (me) and you (red). The gospels tell us that Jesus showed Himself alive to the apostles and those with them.
Again, written decades later by people who were not eyewitnesses.
Now imagine the hypothetical case you invent a story for dubious reasons of which people take great offense up to the point you get death threats, up to a point a guy put a gun to your head with the message, take back that lie, or else. Knowing you lied, will you die for that lie or do you retract and live? The apostles did not retract and many died.
True- but only if one believes the NT account.
Everything you say is obvious- but only if one accepts that the NT is holy writ.
-
You are missing the central message of the NT, what went wrong in Eden is recovered by Jesus sinless life enabling Him to defeat death and restore the broken relationship between God and mankind since the fall in the garden.
Right, that's the message of the NT. But it's not the central message of my bible, which has a different lesson. Man can overcome sin by himself, on a personal level. When the Jews do so on a national level, it ushers in the messianic era. The messiah is the reward at the end of the process, not part of that process.
The OT is unfinished
Says you. ;D
the NT is complete and Christianity is the most logic religion of all on a pure intellectual base.
I don't think Christianity is any more logical than any other religion. I mean, if God is all powerful, why can't he, you know, just forgive sin? That's what I believe. Why is a human/divine sacrifice even necessary? That's a point of faith, not fact.
Ask yourself the question, why couldn't A&E not stay in the garden? Why this drastic measure by God?
The bible tells us. Because they would eat from the tree of life.
I am not adding, it's matter of understanding or you must believe that Moses was sinless, which you don't.
God tells Moses that he can't see Him, not because Moses has sin, but because he is human.
A&E already had free will.
Yes and no. They could be tempted from outside, but not from within. They lacked an inner evil urge. The serpent and God both agree "you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
And you are implying the life of A&E in the garden had no meaning.
Less meaning. Living on God's dole and not making meaningful choices. It's hard to be good, and so gives out choices meaning.
-
I assume that the sum of both our percentages are above 100% ;D
I am sure that we both have 100% faith in what we believe to be correct. :)
-
Solly (as my youngest grandchild used to say) for late reply.
Not happened yet, but I believe that will happen, was God's intention from the start when he called Moses, right?
So the nations will think that Israel is wise for following the bible's laws?
Sure, in the Millennium age when the Messiah will rule the Earth.
So far the prediction came true, even when you think it was rigged. Oh wait, you just said that.
That's what you're hanging your hat on?
As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.
Well, it's impossible that Jesus predicted a past event (as you say), He ascended to heaven around 30-33 AD, if you think it was rigged it was done by the gospel writers, one big cheat, yes? Speaking of Mark, evidence for an early gospel of Mark is pointing to the 60's, example: There is a high degree of scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s. [ link (https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/when-was-the-gospel-of-mark-written/) ]
Let's say it was written in the 60s. 66 perhaps? That seems to be the earliest possible date. What was going on in the year 66? Oh. The Romans were waging war in Judea after the Jewish revolt.
And nobody really knows.
Well, if Mark was written in 66-67 then not only Jesus but maybe also Daniel spoke about AD 70?
-
Solly (as my youngest grandchild used to say) for late reply.
Real life happens. No apology is necessary.
Sure, in the Millennium age when the Messiah will rule the Earth.
Deuteronomy mentions nothing about that. Regardless, wouldn't that mean that the bible's laws remain in effect?
As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.
I don't know what this means. Moses was the lawgiver. He made no extraordinary claims that were not witnessed by everyone else. Nobody is required to "believe in" Moses.
Well, if Mark was written in 66-67 then not only Jesus but maybe also Daniel spoke about AD 70?
Well... the book of Daniel is another can of worms. You see, nobody knows when that was written either. If it was written in the 2nd century BC, which is possible, (it contains heavy use of Aramaic, among other internal signs) then the devastation isn't prophecy, it's a past event about Antiochus Epiphanies IV sacking Jerusalem.
So comparing it to Mark is apt.
Regardless, Daniel is biblical canon to me and Mark is not.
If Mark was written during the Jewish revolt against Rome, it doesn't take any sort of prophet to conclude that Rome would devastate Judea (as indeed many or most Pharisee Rabbis did). Of course, if Mark was written in 70 or later, which is certainly possible, then it isn't prophecy at all.
In any case this is not evidence of the sort that I would accept to throw aside my religious beliefs.
-
As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.
I don't know what this means. Moses was the lawgiver. He made no extraordinary claims that were not witnessed by everyone else. Nobody is required to "believe in" Moses.
I believe the context was: is that why you hang on Jesus? And so my answer: As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.
There is more evidence for the historic Jesus than the historic Moses and there are these pesky baby-in-the-basket stories of Sargon and Karna.
Well, if Mark was written in 66-67 then not only Jesus but maybe also Daniel spoke about AD 70?
Well... the book of Daniel is another can of worms. You see, nobody knows when that was written either. If it was written in the 2nd century BC, which is possible, (it contains heavy use of Aramaic, among other internal signs) then the devastation isn't prophecy, it's a past event about Antiochus Epiphanies IV sacking Jerusalem.
Well, Jesus Himself says: Daniel.
So where in your opinion in the OT is AD 70 mentioned?
In any case this is not evidence of the sort that I would accept to throw aside my religious beliefs.
I am not stupid :) and you did not say I was :)
Blessings.
-
I believe the context was: is that why you hang on Jesus? And so my answer: As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.
There is more evidence for the historic Jesus than the historic Moses
I never said that Jesus didn't exist. His existence doesn't imply that Christianity is true however.
Well, Jesus Himself says: Daniel.
Jesus says, or is attributed to say, a great many things. So what?
So where in your opinion in the OT is AD 70 mentioned?
It isn't. Lots of Jewish tragedies aren't mentioned. The Holocaust. The massacres of Jews by the Cossacks in 1648. The expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492. The expulsion of Jews from England in 1290. The massacres of Jews during the first crusade in 1096. And on and on.
I am not stupid :) and you did not say I was :)
:)