Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jews Rejected God's Offer
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 219 (162191)
11-22-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Thugpreacha
11-21-2004 10:47 PM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
I am not talking only to Jews here, so I will not limit my references to the Tanach.

well, i'm not talking to only christians here, so i will not limit my references to the new testament. here's some from the qu'ran that pretty clearly says that you're a devil worshipper.

quote:
4:48 Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin.

quote:
4:116 Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto Him. He pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah hath wandered far astray.

quote:
4:60 Hast thou not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which is revealed unto thee and that which was revealed before thee, how they would go for judgment (in their disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to abjure them ? Satan would mislead them far astray.

now, do you believe any of this? do you even care? giving jewish people christians texts is just SILLY. most of them so full of distortions of the judaic faith that it's plainly apparent how full of bs it all is.

the jews are waiting for a messiah. he is to be a man from the family of david (ben'david) not just any son of man (ben'adam) and not a son of god (ben'eloyhim). he will sit on the throne of a unified KINGDOM of israel and judah, and he will rebuild the temple of solomon and reinstitute sacrifices.

they've been waiting for this messiah for more than 2000 years, and jesus did not fit the bill. it's plainly clear that christian gospel aimed at jews (matthew) misunderstood most of the jewish texts it references, picking invalid messianic prophesies, exchanging family names for places, using the wrong names, misunderstanding parrellisms in jewish poetry, etc.

the jewish people have a covenant... a legally binding contract with god. they are the chosen people, and their promise from god has been fulfilled. there was no offer of any kind, they are bound to the law because god rescued them from the hands of the egyptians. and they were chosen for some reason that god only knows.

did god change his mind? you can't claim to believe the bible, and not believe these things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-21-2004 10:47 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ApologistSpecialists, posted 11-22-2004 2:51 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 219 (162228)
11-22-2004 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ApologistSpecialists
11-22-2004 2:51 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
the jews are waiting for a messiah. he is to be a man from the family of david (ben'david) not just any son of man (ben'adam)

Like Jesus was.

jesus called himself the son of man, which generally meant prophet, but held messianic connotations. however, the messiah must be descended from david, on the father's side. if jesus is literally the son of god, then he is not literally the son of david. you can't have both, and the messiah has to be a literal KING in house of david.

and not a son of god (ben'eloyhim).

Not true. "And His name shall be Emmanuel (translated 'God with us')."

but jesus's name was yehoshua, not immanuel. immanuel does mean "god is with us" but it's not implication that the man called immanuel IS god. it's not uncommon to have a hebrew name that says something about god in the bible.

the immanuel prophesy was indeed messianic, but did jesus liberate israel from the assyrians? no, he was several hundred years after that. the prophesy is not talking about him.

he will sit on the throne of a unified KINGDOM of israel and judah

And He will.

but this is a requirement the jews are looking for in a messiah. jesus was not a king, he never sat on a throne. rather, he was a lowly carpenter, and religious reformist. he's more inline with say, amos, than david.

and he will rebuild the temple of solomon and reinstitute sacrifices.

Now you're refrencing the Talmud, which is not true Jewish scripture (and, yes, I know that a Jew would disagree, but history is not with him).

well, yes. if you've read the new testament you know that the (second) temple existed in jesus's day. applying this standard to him is a little unfair, but he did promise to destroy it and rebuild it in a day. he was most likely speaking metaphorically.

the temple was destroyed again in ad 70, and has not succesfully been rebuilt to this day. it extends beyond the talmud, it's in the dialy prayers of every orthodox jew. it's something the coming messiah will do.

they've been waiting for this messiah for more than 2000 years, and jesus did not fit the bill. it's plainly clear that christian gospel aimed at jews (matthew) misunderstood most of the jewish texts it references, picking invalid messianic prophesies, exchanging family names for places, using the wrong names, misunderstanding parrellisms in jewish poetry, etc.

No, it was the traditional interpretation that was flawed, just like the traditional interpretation of many Christian doctrines today is flawed. You can't just say "no, that's wrong, because the majority disagrees with it"

uh, no. that's not what i said.

here's one i used in another thread.

quote:
Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;
Raise a shout Fair Jerusalem!
Lo, your king is coming to you
He is victorius, triumphant,
Yet humble, riding on an ass,
On a donkey foaled by a she-ass.


now, this doesn't pair off perfectly like traditional jewish poetry, but look at it for a second. rejoice greatly = raise a shout. fair zion = fair jerusalem. this is a pattern easily observed in many, many passages in the bible. it's called parellelism. and so when zechariah says "riding on an ass, on a donkey" he doesn't mean two animals. he's just repeating himself, poetically.

but the author of matthew aimed the gospel at jews, and based as much as he could on jewish texts. but he CLEARLY did not understand the texts, because he read it as two different animals. indeed, in matthew, christ rides into jerusalem on two animals.

quote:
Matthew 21:2-7

Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose [them], and bring [them] unto me. And if any [man] say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon.


wanna explain that one to me, apologist? how did jesus ride into jerusalem on two animals at once? isn't it more likely that author misunderstood poetry.

here's the next verse of the prophesy

quote:
Zechariah 9:10

He shall banish chariots from Ephraim
And horses from Jerusalem;
The warrior's bow shall be banished.
He shall call on the nations to surrender,
And his rule shall extend from sea to sea
And from ocean to ocean.


notice the continuation of the parallelisms. but did jesus do those things? did he sit on a throne that rules the entire earth? is there still war under his rule?

this not a majority disagrees problem. i've read a good section of the bible and understand it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ApologistSpecialists, posted 11-22-2004 2:51 AM ApologistSpecialists has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 4:37 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 20 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-22-2004 10:13 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 219 (162255)
11-22-2004 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JasonChin
11-22-2004 4:37 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
Christ is of David's blood line. He is a son of David. To suggest that it makes a difference whether he's descended from his mother or father's line seems odd.

because the line of kings is patriarchal. it's through the father. this is the reason matthew has a line of kings for jesus's lineage, but luke does not. the jews are looking for a KING.

Of course, they weren't speaking about literal name......

yes. they were. it says a young girl still in her father's house will concieve a child and name him immanuel, and that this child will become a messiah against the assyrians. the focus of the verse is not the virginity of the mother (indeed, the hebrew word only strongly implies virginity, not specifically states it), but the name of the child.

your logic is strange. it seems to say that ANYONE called god IS god according to this prophesy. alright, fine. adminnosy is god with us. is he the messiah? since i just called him by that name, he's been called that more times than jesus ever was in the bible. even the verse in matthew says that they called him jesus, and the name is never mentioned again.

it's matthew nodding to isaiah, and reading the verse wrong, just as you are. for some reasons the literalists seems to read isaiah metaphorically.

I've also been led to believe differently. Please supply proof for this claim.

But not "Immanuel".......that is the name of God incarnate and God incarnate alone.

my bible says "with us is God." it's just what the name means. lots of biblical names have god in it: israel, elijah, etc. joshua even contains the proper name of god. these are all names that describe qualities or actions of god, not

to think that because it contains the a name for god means that bearer IS god is silly.

I don't understand what the physical liberation from the Assyrians has to do with anything.

because isaiah chapters 7-12 is one long rant and prophesy against the assyrians. after that, it's the babylonians. these are people who LITERALLY oppressed the judeans and the israelites. the child that would be a harbinger of their downfall would be LITERAL.

But, again, He will.

that's nice, but during his life, he was never king of israel and judah. he's not now. maybe he will be at one point. buth currently, he's not the messiah the jews are looking for.

Three days, if I remember.......and he did. He was speaking of his own ressurection.

sort of, yes. he was speaking of tearing down the organization. he was of the mindset that we shouldn't need a church to come between us and our god.

It's in the prayers of every orthodox Jew.......who are all influenced by the Talmud. This whole "Messiah will raise the temple" thing was really basically an excuse for not having to do this themselves........because the Romans would have annhilated them if they had tried.

actually, a roman emporer sponsered an attempt to rebuilt the temple around ad 300.

No......but, again, he will.

maybe the messiah the jews are looking for is the second coming of christ. but he sure wasn't the first. as it stands now, jesus is not that messiah.

Or he sat on one while the other was led........I don't see the relevance, either way.

it says he rode in on both, in order to fulfil prophesy. i think the evidence is pretty clear that matthew misunderstood the prophetic poetry. zechariah refers to one animal, twice. matthew refers to two animals, once.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 4:37 AM JasonChin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 6:56 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 219 (162262)
11-22-2004 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by JasonChin
11-22-2004 6:18 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
So, basically, Arach, your argument that only misinterpretation could lead to seeing Christ as Messiah is based on facts such as there being one donkey too many when he entered Jerusalem.......

no my argument is nothing. i'm trying to explain why the jews don't see jesus as a messiah.

i'm also arguing that matthew is grossly misinterpretting verses out of context from the tanakh.

for instance:

quote:
Matthew 2:15

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.


quote:
Hosea 11:1

I fell in love with Israel
When he was still a child;
And I have called [him] My son
Ever since Egypt.


now hosea IS speaking metaphorically. israel is not jacob or jesus, it's israel the nation. he's refering to the exodus, and then refers to the assyrian captivity a few verses later.

here's another doozie.

quote:
Matehew 12:17,18

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles."


quote:
Isaiah 42:1-3

This is My servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one, in whom i delight.
I have put My spirit upon him,
He shall teach the true way to the nations.
He shall not cry out or shout aloud,
Or make his voice heard in the streets.
[He shall not break even a bruised reed,
Or snuff out even a dim wick]
He shall bring forth the true way.
He shall not grow dim of be bruised
Till he has established the true way on earth;
And the coastlands shall await his teaching.


now, the part in can also be read "a bruised reed, he shall no be broken; / a dim wick, he shall not be snuffed out." is either talking about jesus? he was bruised, indeed BROKEN long before he ruled any kingdom, and long before his teaching covered the world. and "bring judgement to the gentiles?" that's a BAD thing for the gentiles. they're talking about ruling, literally.

if you want to discuss more, i suggest starting a new thread. some of the prophesies in matthew appear to be in books we don't have. and some are really bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 6:18 AM JasonChin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 7:15 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 219 (162267)
11-22-2004 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by JasonChin
11-22-2004 6:56 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
The Bible never states that Messiah would be the rightful heir to David's throne via heredity, just that he'd be of David's bloodline.

actually, the bible never states that the messiah will be of david's bloodline, if you want to be technical about it. so why do matthew and luke go through hoops to make david the ancestor of jesus?

because the jews at the time were looking for a messiah who would be an heir to throne of david. the new testament is evidence of this. if this wasn't the case, they'd totally ignore the bloodline, like mark and john do.

I doubt this, as there have been a number of though-to-be Messiahs over the course of Jewish history, and I don't recall them all being named Immanuel. After all, a mother would be accused of blasphemy simply by naming her child Immanuel and claiming that he was the Messiah (as Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming the same thing).

no, jesus was accused of blasphemy because he was called the son of god.

if immanuel existed, it was in the intertestamental period. as i said, he would have liberated israel from assyria. there's a period of several hundred years in which the writing of the bible is closed. in jewish circles, it still is closed. it is not blasphemy to name a child with a statement about god. lots of people do it today.

My Bible says "God with us", and I've always been taught by every source that it was a name specifically suggesting the divinity of Messiah........I may have been taught incorrectly, but I'd need some proof of that.

look, even if the word "is" is not present, it still does not denote that the bearer is divine. it just means that god is with us again, and that we will prevail over the assyrians. the child is a symbol for the presence of god, yes. but the child is not god.

this is a traditional christian reading, and it's WRONG in every respect. the implication of divinity was a later addition, because it was said to denote christ. it cannot denote christ because christ existed AFTER the israelites were released from assyria.

if it does mean the bearer is god, than some other guy hundreds of years before jesus was god incarnate, and not jesus.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, there are other prophecies suggesting the divinity of Messiah.......such as that he'd live forever and his kingdom would never end.

human beings can be granted immortality. read genesis 3.

Revelations speaks of Jesus conquering Babylon........does that mean when Jesus returns, he's gonna literally conquer Iraq? Because I think Dubbya beat him to it........

maybe george w. bush is the second coming of christ? (the anti-christ, maybe...)

revelation is 100% symbolic. it's a code to the christian church in rome, when it was still quite illegal to oppose the roman emporer by being a christian. babylon = rome, because in both instances believers were forced to die for their beliefs.

That's because the Jews misinterpret scripture by being too literal......

uh, no, that award goes to the christians. most jews actually read most of the bible very liberally, allowing for errors, and allegory. it's just that most of the rest of the world is capable of reading things in context, and the context does not indicate what the christian churches say it does.

I don't know anything about this, but I'm pretty sure that was after large portions of the Talmud were already taken as Canon.

the talmud is not canon. the ketuvim (psalms, proverbs, etc) is barely considered canon. just because beliefs are commonly held and interpretations run rampant does not mean the text is canon. every christian thinks there was a war in heaven before creation, and lucifer/satan fell, where he tempted adam in the garden of eden. does that mean that milton's "paradise lost" is canon? this story is found there, not in the bible.

and it was after constantine's conversion.

If you admit this, then you admit that there is no obstacle in the OT to Jesus being the Messiah.

What you just seem to have a hard time understanding is that Jesus is the Christ NOW........Jesus was Christ before the creation of the world.........not all prophecy has been fulfilled, but Jesus is Christ, and God is God, always has been, is, and forever more He will be.

you're mistaking my argument for personal belief. i'm a christian. i'm arguing why jewish people don't agree.

and no, there is little to no indication of jesus in the old testament. i will happy to discuss ever verse that you think mentions him in another thread.

This is obviously impossible........do you think Matthew was too dim to understand this?

i hope not, but that's what it says. whether or not he actually sat on both, i don't care. the point is that matthew was too dim to understand that zechariah was refering to only one animal, with the standard poetic device of basically EVERY jewish poet at the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 6:56 AM JasonChin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by YesthisisTrue, posted 11-23-2004 4:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 219 (162270)
11-22-2004 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JasonChin
11-22-2004 7:15 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
For the sake of argument, let's say some of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled weren't really there to begin with.......

no, they were there. it's that they weren't refering to anything like jesus. something refering to liberation from the assyrians cannot apply to christ.

it can be symbolically linked, sure. jesus is yehoshua, or joshua. in the torah/nevi'im, it's joshua who brings the sons of israel into the promised land, over the jordan river. this is not prophesy, but the name of jesus is linked to this story. and that's a powerful connection.

but it's not fulfilling the words of the prophet moses when he said "Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee. "

understand what i mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 7:15 AM JasonChin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by lfen, posted 11-23-2004 11:37 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 219 (162475)
11-22-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Thugpreacha
11-22-2004 10:13 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
The type of liberation that Jesus did is a spiritual liberation. The Jewish people were looking for a natural concrete liberation from the oppression on earth, rather than a spiritual liberation from the unclean spirits which bound humanity since the Fall.

no jew is looking for spiritual liberation. they're not concerned with heaven or hell. the thought process is different. by blood, they are bound to law. some care, some don't. the messiahs they look for are not to save them from themselves, they're to save them from whoever is currently oppressing them.

they're looking for a very real kind of salvation. in immanuel's case, it was against the assyrians.

A matter of belief. Jesus sits on a throne today and always.

allow me to rephrase. is jesus the king of the united kingdoms of israel and judah? does he rule them and command their military? does he dictate the religious observances?

Do you as a serious student of the Bible disagree with Wycliffe?

yes. i do. usually on regular basis. he's not offering commentary or anything i couldn't have gathered just from reading the text. we all know that kings don't ride donkeys. they ride horses, and usually really nice ones.

i've offered explanation of jewish poetic style. wycliffe doesn't understand it, and neither did matthew. they're both simply WRONG.

john, by the way, records ONE animal, agreeing with my understanding of poetry.

quote:
John 12:14,15

And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, "Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt."



This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-22-2004 10:13 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 33 of 219 (162478)
11-22-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Amlodhi
11-22-2004 2:33 PM


One orthodox Jew talking to another orthodox Jew:
Jew #1 > "I don't understand it. I raise my son up in orthodox Judaism and then the first thing I know he's into this Christianity thing. Do you have any advice for me?"

Jew #2 > "Funny you should ask me. I had the same trouble with my son."

Jew #1 > "What did you do?"

Jew #2 > "I asked God for advice."

Jew #1 > "What did he say?"

Jew #2 > "He said, 'Funny you should ask me . . .

i'm a big fan of this joke...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Amlodhi, posted 11-22-2004 2:33 PM Amlodhi has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 219 (162479)
11-22-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Thugpreacha
11-21-2004 10:47 PM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
phatboy, you never answered my quotes from the quran about how christianity is sin, and you're being led astray by the devil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-21-2004 10:47 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 219 (162613)
11-23-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by YesthisisTrue
11-23-2004 4:49 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
I don't know if this is true or not, but if the OT doesn't require Messiah to be of David's bloodline, what's your point?

my point, if you can connect the dots a little, is that authors of the new testament felt a need for the messiah to be of david's royal lineage: ie, matthew believed this requirement was important enough to address. luke only care about actual relation. mark and john didn't care at all.

But,as I said, none of the thought-to-bes were named Immanuel.......so it's clearly not a requirement.

yes, neither was jesus. it doesn't apply, immanuel, if he existed, as a different messiah.

I don't know about Hebrew, but it certainly does in English.

notice in your king james that word "is" is in [brackets] a lot? it's a word that gets left out a lot.

Why do you keep bringing up the Assyrians? Clearly, in this day and age, even the Jews would admit that the prophecy doesn't LITERALLY speak of Jews being delivered from the Assyrians.......as they're currently free from the Assyrians, and yet they believe that Messiah has not yet come.

who is NOT immanuel. so you think prophesy can never be fulfilled? that's rather silly. the prophesy dealt with the messiah from the assyrians. the israelites are no longer under the control of the assyrians. how do you work this out in your mind to be "the passage is symbolic of something else?" it was as fulfilled as it was ever gonna get well before the birth of christ.

Not in THIS world, as was evidenced by the fact that the fella you speak of (I forget his name) was taken up to heaven......he wasn't granted fleshly immortality, he was just spared death.

eden was in this world (between the tigris and the euphrates). the tree of life was in eden. the tree of life granted immortality, according to god. human beings can become immortal, qed.

seriously, have you even read the bible? this isn't more than 3 chapters in...

Exactly........so were the old testament prophecies, largely, whether the Jews realized it or not.

uh, no. and if they're symbolic, why the rabid adherence to misreadings of them in nt? why does a virgin bear christ, when a) the prophesy can't relate to him and b) the verse doesn;t actually say virgin in hebrew?

matthew is not reading them as symbolic, he's reading them as literal. and doing a BAD job of it.

Oh, ok, when CHRISTIANS say something's literal, they're wrong, and when Jews do it, they're right.......

they did, afterall, write the book. look, if i put on my psychic hat here, and say "tomorrow you will go to winn dixie and buy a loaf of bread," and next week, you go to krisky kream and eat a donut, was i right? is one symbolic of the other?

no, it just doesn't apply. it's the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong thing. it's not an issue of "well, my prediction wasn't literal" it's more of the "fulfillment" just doesn't apply.

Once again, you guys should really study up before making incorrect statements like this.

do a street poll for me. 9 out of 10 christians will say they believe that story, probably more.

All depends on how you define canon........if you believe that it's as holy as any other holy scripture (as the Jews do), then you consider it canon.

maybe you should study up.

the torah is the most holy, followed by the nevi'im, followed by the ketuvim which is just barely canon. everything after that (talmud, midrashim, etc) are the writings of man in response to the torah, and are NOT holy.

Let's do that.

purpledawn said do it here. so pick a verse.

Obviously, Matthew was working off of a flawed memory with the verses he quoted.......does that really make a difference?

yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by YesthisisTrue, posted 11-23-2004 4:49 AM YesthisisTrue has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 219 (162615)
11-23-2004 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by FlamingHomosexual
11-23-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Chin-sighting and Chinciting
Yes, it will promote the spread of free-thought and may even become fatally dangerous to your atheism......

you sir, are a flamingidiot. most of the people you're debatign with are christians. we're the ones demonstrating a little bit of thinking ability, you're passing the same crap we've heard in church all our lives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by FlamingHomosexual, posted 11-23-2004 8:45 AM FlamingHomosexual has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminNosy, posted 11-23-2004 11:02 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 219 (162695)
11-23-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by lfen
11-23-2004 11:37 AM


the name of jesus
I'm curious. In Hewbrew their names were spelled the same? If so do you know why they are not translated the same in English language Bibles then?

if i recall correctly, both are indeed the same of very similar. they are most certtainly both variants on the same root name, the name of god.

the reason they are different in english when they would be said the same in hebrew is because the new testament is not in hebrew; it's in greek.

and for some reason or another the greek rendering of yehoshua is iesous, or jesus in english. pronounced correctly in greek, it's "yeh-sue-wah" which is roughly equivalent to the hebrew pronounciation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by lfen, posted 11-23-2004 11:37 AM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by lfen, posted 11-23-2004 10:33 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 72 of 219 (162821)
11-24-2004 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Thugpreacha
11-24-2004 2:41 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
no reading comprehension, have we?

go re-read the very first few verses of luke. luke SAYS he wasn't there, and that there are many gospels floating around at the time, and that he seeks to find the truth of the matter even though he was not a party to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-24-2004 2:41 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 73 of 219 (162822)
11-24-2004 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by dpardo
11-23-2004 8:52 PM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
Where does it say that he had to be called Emmanuel in his lifetime? We call him that NOW.

pre-pre-hoc-propter-hoc. that's a new one.

first there was a prophesy written about a child named immanuel. then matthew, knowing this prophesy tries to fit jesus into it (even though it had nothing to do jesus). and now, we call jesus that because of the verse in matthew.

in reality, jesus and immanuel had nothing to do with each other, and if both lived, they lived several hundred years apart.

You state that he was not Joseph's biological son but neglect to mention his miraculous virgin birth?

also a nod to immanuel verse, baseless otherwise. but that of course might make him a seed of david... you can't have it both ways, either he's heir to david's throne or the actual son of god. of course, as a davidian king, he would have been the adopted son of god anyways...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by dpardo, posted 11-23-2004 8:52 PM dpardo has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 75 of 219 (162824)
11-24-2004 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ramoss
11-23-2004 7:00 PM


Re: Righteousness
Well, it looks like Paul made the claim that he spoke for God.

Which, of course, differnet than actually speaking for God.

this is a good rule of thumb. question things.

as i've said numerous times on this board: alright, i speak for god too. what makes paul different than me, other than that people like his dear abby advice column more than my posts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ramoss, posted 11-23-2004 7:00 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019