Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
28 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 24 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
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 219 (162105)
11-21-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
11-21-2004 4:45 PM


May I also request that when pointing out these alleged offers from God, that the Tankah is referenced, not Christian scriptures. After all, the Jews do not accept Christian scriptures as being from God, but only written by man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2004 4:45 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2004 7:14 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 63 of 219 (162746)
11-23-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ApologistSpecialists
11-22-2004 2:51 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
Well, for Jesus to be the seed of david, he would have to be from the direct unbroken MALE line, decended from Solomon. Since Jesus was
not Joesphes son, that disqalifies him there. (see e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24))

Next, assuming he WAS Josephs son, he would STILL not qualify, since the two conflicting genologies were not of the proper Davidic line.

Second of all, the line 'He will be called Emanual' is a quote taken out of context, and is not anything to do with the Messiah. And, for that matter, Jesus was not called 'Emanual' in his lifetime.. strike two.

As for sitting on the throne of a unified Israel and Juddah, he hasn't. The Jewish messiah will be known by what he has DONE, not
by promises of what he will do.

Next, as far as can be determined, Jesus was not married, and did not have children (see Ezek 46:16-17). Thus he is disqualified that way too.

Also, the disporia has not ended. All the jews have not returned to
Israel (see (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).)


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 69 by dpardo, posted 11-23-2004 8:52 PM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 64 of 219 (162750)
11-23-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Thugpreacha
11-22-2004 10:13 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
But the point is that is not what the Jewish people are looking for. That is what the CHristans are TELLING the Jewish people they are looking for.

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

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 65 of 219 (162751)
11-23-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Thugpreacha
11-22-2004 10:34 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
What Romans says is irrelavent to the Jews. As for as the Jewish people are concerned, the book of Romans is a book written by a man, who wants to drive them away from the true way of worshipping god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-22-2004 10:34 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 66 of 219 (162753)
11-23-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Thugpreacha
11-22-2004 10:34 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
You do realise that there are certain things that Greenleaf was assuming that was proven NOT to be true. For one, the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, so it is all hersay to begin with.

Second of all, the gospels make extrodinary claims. Such claims would not meet the standard for evidence in more modern courtrooms.. particuarly since it is hearsay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-22-2004 10:34 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-24-2004 2:41 AM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 67 of 219 (162755)
11-23-2004 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dpardo
11-23-2004 1:49 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 message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dpardo, posted 11-23-2004 1:49 PM dpardo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 3:13 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 77 of 219 (162868)
11-24-2004 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by dpardo
11-23-2004 8:52 PM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
Doesn't matter. His name was not Immanual. Immanual is just a name. My grandfathers name was Immanual too, so what?

And, you are wrong. My references were what the JEWISH religion concsider messanic references.

As far as the reference to Immanual in Isaiah, that was not refering to someone who was to be born 600 years later. That particular passage was talking about Isaiah's own son. It wouldn't do King Ahaz much good for
for a sign to be fullfilled 600 years in the future. The sign was that before this baby was old enough to know right and wrong, the King
of Assyria would no longer be a threat to Ahaz. In other words, it was
the time period for a woman who WAS pregnant to have a child that was old enough to know what right and wrong was. Isaiah 8.4 shows how Isaiah made sure it would happen (He went to the prophetess and INSURED she conceived.. )It had nothing to do with some son of god born 700 years later.


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

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 78 of 219 (162869)
11-24-2004 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Thugpreacha
11-24-2004 2:41 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
You do realise that the Gospel of John was a psuedograhical work that was written between 80 and 125 C.E???

That makes it entirely hersay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-24-2004 2:41 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-24-2004 10:04 AM ramoss has responded
 Message 84 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-24-2004 4:36 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 81 of 219 (162973)
11-24-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Thugpreacha
11-24-2004 10:04 AM


Re: A matter of opinion and belief
Why, I am reading conservative Christian scholars on that. You know, people like Raymond Edward Brown, and the commentary in the ANchor Bible.

I would hardly classify them as atheists.

Why don't you read Raymond Edward Browns 'Introduction to the New Testament', or 'An Introduction to the Gospel of John', by Dr Brown
and Francis Molony?

These are not athiests. They are very mainstream conservative biblical scholars. They just so happen to go with the evidence, and not with wishful thinking like your sources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-24-2004 10:04 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 93 of 219 (163206)
11-25-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by dpardo
11-24-2004 2:57 PM


Re: Good Ole Jeremiah 31:31
You have to remember several things.

1) When was the book of Genesis written down? After the fact writing of
something of course is not a prophecy.
2) There is no archelogical evidence that there WAS an Exodus, although I am sure there were Cannanites in Egypt, and familar with Egypt.

This message has been edited by ramoss, 11-25-2004 11:54 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by dpardo, posted 11-24-2004 2:57 PM dpardo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by dpardo, posted 11-25-2004 1:10 PM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 95 of 219 (163238)
11-25-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dpardo
11-25-2004 1:10 PM


Re: Good Ole Jeremiah 31:31
However, people have been trying for over 100 years to find traces of it in the desert where it is claimed the Israeli's wandered. When you have searched enough, the absense of evidence IS indeed evidence of absense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dpardo, posted 11-25-2004 1:10 PM dpardo has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 101 of 219 (163289)
11-26-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by dpardo
11-25-2004 10:46 AM


Re: babylonian genesis
No.. hardly a conspiracy theory. Anytime there is two cultures that are sitting side by side, of COURSE they inflence each other. DOH...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dpardo, posted 11-25-2004 10:46 AM dpardo has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 113 of 219 (164000)
11-29-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
11-29-2004 10:02 AM


Re: Summary
And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one. So attempting to use the term 'salvation' in the tanakh to mean the same thing as what Christians refer to is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'.

The term just does not mean the same thing in the Tankah. It does not have the same connotations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2004 10:02 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by purpledawn, posted 11-30-2004 6:30 AM ramoss has not yet responded
 Message 117 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 11:37 AM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 123 of 219 (164231)
11-30-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by dpardo
11-30-2004 11:37 AM


Re: Summary
Salvation, actually, doesn't mean much in the Jewish religion, period.

The term as used just means in the Tanakh just means they were saved from that particular situation, or for a bad sitation.

You see, the term SALVATION implies a focus on the afterlife, and that just plain isn't important in Judaism. The concept of HELL as the Christians understand it does not exist either. You see, having the
reward and punishment concept for doing bad/good taints the concept that you should be good for it's own sake, rather than doing good for some selfish reason (you want to get to heaven.)

So, the question you have basically means nothing.

As for Elijah and enoch, the idea that they were taken to heaven alive
is not true. In other words, when they were 'taken', they died.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 11:37 AM dpardo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by arachnophilia, posted 12-01-2004 2:14 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 124 of 219 (164232)
11-30-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by dpardo
11-30-2004 7:11 PM


Re: Summary
As far as I am concerned, all of the new testament is just books written by man, not inspired by God at all. What is written in the so called 'New' testament is irrelavent to the jewish faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 7:11 PM dpardo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by dpardo, posted 12-01-2004 12:51 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