History Repeats Itself

[cheeto1]

The Jews didn’t want Jesus dead… Paul had to pick on someone among the thousands of Jews crucified…** He was just perfect for the plans of Paul.**

Are you saying that Paul decided to invent a Messiah that had already come, when
in fact, He hasn’t come? And further, are you saying that the times when Jesus or his
apostles said that Jesus was the Messiah, that those were additions to the Bible
by Paul? And one more, are you saying that 80% of the New Testament is made
up of these fabricated additions? Where do you think the body of Jesus is? Are
you expecting the Messiah to come?

There was another question you once had. That Jesus did something bad.
It seems like you don’t trust the intentions of Jesus. They are this: I have come
so that they may have life, and have it to the full. Is that line part of the 80%, or
part of the 20%?

Blessings on you sir…

 

[Ben_Masada]

So then you’re accusing the writers of the New Testament of lying? Other than your claim that “a learned Jew wouldn’t say that”, what evidence do you offer to prove this? I would also ask how you know what Judaism was like 2000 years ago in Palestine (are you assuming they taught then what is taught today?). Would you consider yourself a Pharasee or a Saducee?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Are you saying that Paul decided to invent a Messiah that had already come, when
in fact, He hasn’t come?

 

[Cachonga]

Well, Ben, I don’t think I can go on with this anymore. I have asked for evidence of your assertions other than “a learned Jew wouldn’t say/do that” You claim that Paul was the founder of Christianity, and (in effect) convinced the original apostles to bend to his will, even if it went against what they learned from Jesus, yet you offer no proof for this claim. You assert that Israel is the Messiah, yet you haven’t explained why a place is set for Elijah at the passover seder (Elijah is to come before Messiah, so where was Elijah prior to Israel becoming a nation again?). You haven’t answered the question from Daniel about Messiah being cut off in the middle of the week, but not for himself (Dan 9:26). Am I supposed to believe you because your Jewish? Am I supposed to accept what you believe about the New Testament simply because you “know” what a “learned Jew” would or wouldn’t say or do? Do you honestly expect me to believe that Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who was taught by Gamaliel, who assented to the stoning of Stephen, who persecuted the early church and was making a great name for himself among the religious leaders (how else could he get the letters from the High Priest before going to Damascus?), that, while on the road to Damascus decided he would rather “take over” the sect and mold it into his own image? Oi vey, such chutzpah! I tell you what, don’t bother responding to this unless you want to present real, documentable evidence for your assertions. I’ll be happy to look at your evidence and reply to that, but I won’t waste any more of my time on baseless assertions.

 

[cheeto1]

cheeto1;5240068:

No, the Messiah has come already. We are back in the Land of Israel, aren’t we? Now, we are only waiting for the right time to rebuild our Temple.

Are you in Israel? When will the right time be? Is there a heaven? Do you have
sacrifices? It seems only logical that the scriptures that relate to Jesus would
also relate to Israel…

 

[Spirithound]

**Jesus was aware of the Roman policy in all the provinces to arrest only the head of any private group with subversive suspictions, so that the disciples would disperse, which was exactly what happened to Jesus’ disciples. (Mark 14:50) He knew that the soldiers had come only for him. **

So Ben Masada, if you knew that Jesus knew the soldiers had only come for him, and you knew that Jesus arranged his disciples in such a way that the Roman guard would only have to deal with him personally, why did you start this thread?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well, Ben, I don’t think I can go on with this anymore. I have asked for evidence of your assertions other than “a learned Jew wouldn’t say/do that”

I think you cannot go on with this because you are too confused. You don’t have your priorities in order. You eitther don’t believe the NT or you have it at a very low level of credibilitly to serve as any kind of evidence.

You claim that Paul was the founder of Christianity, and (in effect) convinced the original apostles to bend to his will, even if it went against what they learned from Jesus, yet you offer no proof for this claim.

Here is an example for your disregard for the NT as a trustworthy evidence. I have given you Acts 11:26 as an evidence that Paul founded Christianity, considering Luke’s declaration that Christians started with Paul. If you don’t believe what Luke said, that’s a problem between you and the writers of the NT who don’t deserve your vote of confidence.

You assert that Israel is the Messiah, yet you haven’t explained why a place is set for Elijah at the passover seder (Elijah is to come before Messiah, so where was Elijah prior to Israel becoming a nation again?).

Here is another problem of yours. You interpret the Scriptures base on the letter and not on the meaning of the letter. It’s not I who who asserts that Israel is the Messiah. It is Isaiah. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, what else do you want from me? I can’t rewrite the Bible to satisfy you. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4. Isaiah could not be more clear. Regarding Elijah at Passover, that’s an analogy from Malachi who says that at the end of the exile, Elijah will come to remind the Jew to return,
because the exile is over. And this happens every year, until the Jew decides to return.

You haven’t answered the question from Daniel about Messiah being cut off in the middle of the week, but not for himself (Dan 9:26).

I need many more than a line or two to tell you about that prophecy and the Forum does not approve too long a post. Why don’t you read my thread about the 70 Week/years of Daniel 9:24-27? It’s all explained in there.

Am I supposed to believe you because your Jewish?

Not only but also because we are dealing with Judaism and Jews. How would you feel if a Moslem or Buddhist wanted to dictate to you how Christianity is supposed to run? Ponder and then use commonsense.

Am I supposed to accept what you believe about the New Testament simply because you “know” what a “learned Jew” would or wouldn’t say or do? Do you honestly expect me to believe that Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who was taught by Gamaliel,

**Who told you, Paul himself? But of course! Show me in your NT where Gamaliel was his Teacher. **

who assented to the stoning of Stephen,

**Paul was only a young lad at that time. Perhaps a Teenager. How could such a young fellow assent to a death sentence? You have been brainwashed with an idle tale. **

who persecuted the early church and was making a great name for himself among the religious leaders (how else could he get the letters from the High Priest before going to Damascus?),

Paul NEVER in his life persecuted a single church. He was the founder of the Church. One does not found a church to persecute the adepts. You must be kidding! He persecuted the followers of The Way in the Nazarene synagogues. He himself said that the letters were to arrest the followers of “The Way” in the synagogues of Damascus. (Acts 9:2)

that, while on the road to Damascus decided he would rather “take over” the sect and mold it into his own image?

What Paul decided was to change his strategy and to join the Sect of the Nazarenes so that it would be easier to fight the Nazarenes from inside.

Oi vey, such chutzpah! I tell you what, don’t bother responding to this unless you want to present real, documentable evidence for your assertions. I’ll be happy to look at your evidence and reply to that, but I won’t waste any more of my time on baseless assertions.

There is no more real documentation than the NT itself which I have used, but for sure you don’t believe even your NT. But go ahead, you don’t have to continue listening to the truth. Before you go, let me tell you that the blind who does not want to see is worse than the one who is born so.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5241665:

Are you in Israel? When will the right time be? Is there a heaven? Do you have
sacrifices? It seems only logical that the scriptures that relate to Jesus would
also relate to Israel…

I live in Israel. I am speaking to you from Jerusalem, where the Word of God is supposed to come from. (Isa. 2:2,3) Heavens! Yes, every time we decide to make one for us and for others. Sacrifices! We can’t offer sacrifices without a Temple. As soon as we rebuild it, they will return. And the Scriptures do no relate to Jesus on an individual basis but to Israel as a People.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So Ben Masada, if you knew that Jesus knew the soldiers had only come for him, and you knew that Jesus arranged his disciples in such a way that the Roman guard would only have to deal with him personally, why did you start this thread?

You have just decided not to understand about the Roman policy to arrest and crucify only the head of any private movement. And mind you that Jesus was not alone. Many went through the same destiny. The difference is that the others did not have a Paul to make another Christ out of them. That’s all.

 

[Spirithound]

Cachonga;5242873:

who assented to the stoning of Stephen,

**Paul was only a young lad at that time. Perhaps a Teenager. How could such a young fellow assent to a death sentence? You have been brainwashed with an idle tale. **

That’s in the Acts of the Apostles, and I think also Paul writes about it in a letter.

 

[ryanoneil]

**Either way, you are deeply mistaken about what really happened with the “binding” of Isaac. That’s how the metaphorical so-called sacrifice of Isaac is addressed in Jewish quarters. The binding of Isaac. There was never to be a sacrifice because Jews don’t sacrifice their children as pagans do. Besides, everything happened in a vision.

As we all know, Abraham was living among Canaanite pagans who would sacrifice their firstborn so that they could be blessed with more aboundant progeny. Abraham was wondering about such a custom and impressed with their love for their gods which would be stronger than their love for their children. Then, perhaps he slumbered and had a vision when God would show him that with Israel it would be different. The firstborn would be redeemed and be a blessing to others not by his death but by his life. So, we Jews never speak of that event as a sacrifice but as a binding. Isaac on behalf of his seed, the Jewish People, would bind Mankind with God. **

Thank you for proving my point. Sometimes one line of scripture appears to say something that it does not. The same is true of the NT and Jesus’ words.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Thank you for proving my point. Sometimes one line of scripture appears to say something that it does not. The same is true of the NT and Jesus’ words.

You forgot to add “…by assumption.” You plagiarize our Scriptures and assume that it applies to Jesus, as if Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus. I know I have said this many times. But you don’t have ears to hear.

 

[Spirithound]

**Either way, you are deeply mistaken about what really happened with the “binding” of Isaac. That’s how the metaphorical so-called sacrifice of Isaac is addressed in Jewish quarters. The binding of Isaac. There was never to be a sacrifice because Jews don’t sacrifice their children as pagans do. Besides, everything happened in a vision.

As we all know, Abraham was living among Canaanite pagans who would sacrifice their firstborn so that they could be blessed with more aboundant progeny. Abraham was wondering about such a custom and impressed with their love for their gods which would be stronger than their love for their children. Then, perhaps he slumbered and had a vision when God would show him that with Israel it would be different. The firstborn would be redeemed and be a blessing to others not by his death but by his life. So, we Jews never speak of that event as a sacrifice but as a binding. Isaac on behalf of his seed, the Jewish People, would bind Mankind with God. **

I was under the impression that Abraham wasn’t Jewish, but the Patriarch of Judaism. He was willing to sacrifice his son, and he actually would have sacrificed Isaac, because he didn’t consider it unusual. He didn’t know he was Jewish.

 

[Spirithound]

You have just decided not to understand about the Roman policy to arrest and crucify only the head of any private movement. And mind you that Jesus was not alone. Many went through the same destiny. The difference is that the others did not have a Paul to make another Christ out of them. That’s all.

I understand perfectly well that Roman policy. But if Jesus was so against being crucified, why did he put himself between the Romans and the disciples?

 

[ryanoneil]

You forgot to add “…by assumption.” You plagiarize our Scriptures and assume that it applies to Jesus, as if Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus. I know I have said this many times. But you don’t have ears to hear.

I didn’t. First century Jews did.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I was under the impression that Abraham wasn’t Jewish, but the Patriarch of Judaism. He was willing to sacrifice his son, and he actually would have sacrificed Isaac, because he didn’t consider it unusual. He didn’t know he was Jewish.

**How could the Patriarch of Judaism not be Jewish? According to our tradition, Abraham was the first Jew, so to speak, because the formal etimology became actual with the return of the Jews from Babylon.

As a matter of fact, it was not unusual to sacrifice one’s firstborn, but Abraham would never do that. That’s one of the rasons why he left his Country and came to Canaan, and just happened that happened to meet the same practices throughout. But he would never adopt such practices.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

I understand perfectly well that Roman policy. But if Jesus was so against being crucified, why did he put himself between the Romans and the disciples?

Because he knew that they had come only for him and not for the whole group, according to the Roman policy. That’s why the disciples dispersed.

 

[cheeto1]

cheeto1;5243947:

I live in Israel. I am speaking to you from Jerusalem, where the Word of God is supposed to come from. (Isa. 2:2,3) Heavens! Yes, every time we decide to make one for us and for others. Sacrifices! We can’t offer sacrifices without a Temple. As soon as we rebuild it, they will return. And the Scriptures do no relate to Jesus on an individual basis but to Israel as a People.

I am always surprised that you are willing to answer more questions. This is a real
treat, does your patience never run dry?
Is it scary living in Jerusalem? Do you live in fear of terrorists? If I were in Jerusalem,
I would be looking around, wondering about the place where Jesus might return. I
would probably ask someone, “where’s the Mount of Olives?” When you are looking
around, do you feel like you are in a holy place? What do you look for? What signs
are you looking for that the temple will be rebuilt? Do you believe in the heaven not
made with human hands? Where is “the bosom of Abraham” mentioned in Luke 16:23? Don’t you need sacrifices to have your sins forgiven? How do you have your sins forgiven now?

 

[jlhargus]

In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul made it very clear that his gospel was not learned from man; and that he even had not gone up to Jerusalem to meet those who were apostles before him.

JL: True Paul did not learn THE GOSPEL from any man, but thru direct revelation from our Lord. True Paul did not go, at that time, to Jerusalem to meet with those who were apostles before him.

Instead Paul went into Arabia, probably to rethink his OT theology in the light of Christ’s revelation, then returned to Damascus. Three years after his conversion Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to visit Peter with whom he remained fifteen days. Paul saw no other apostles except James, the head of the Jerusalem Church.
Ben Masada;5241638:

And would refer to the gospel of the Apostles as “the other gospel” which would upset him to see some of his followers returning to. So upset he would become that he would curse even a angel who came down with a gospel different from his. Read Galatians chapter one.

JL: Paul never referred to the gospel of the Apostles Fellowship as “the other gospel”. “The other gospel” to which Paul was referring, was the false gospel of circumcision and other Mosaic requirements some Jewish followers of Christ, called Judaizers, were preaching. These Judaizers went out from the fellowship on there own, they were not sent by the apostles.

In Galatians two, Paul tells us, he checked his teaching again with that one Apostolic Fellowship. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.] So after three years Paul met with Peter and again fourteen years later Paul went by revelation to check his teaching with Apostles’ Fellowship, lest he himself was teaching another gospel.

No, the contradiction is in yourself. Why don’t you put down a quotation about the Christian church in Jerusalem welcoming Paul when he came? Because you know there is no such a thing.

JL: Gal2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Hello Masada, hope things are well with you

 

[RobbyS]

Sorry but you are evading the issue. The point is that Jesus took the cross against his will. “Let thy will be done, and NOT MINE.” He couldn’t be more clear that it was not his will to die for the sins of anyone. Why do you folks insist on this romantic approach, even against Logic?

Too much of the language of the New Testament goes against your logic. Yes, Jesus did not want to die. Who does? But as John’s gospel especially has it, he was willing to let it happen to save his friends. The fact that even Peter who actually fought for him was left alone says a lot. The seizing of Jesus was an act of political decapitation. No one in authority had any fear of his followers, because none was a man of real substance. They must have been as surprised as heck by Peter’s emergence as a leader. Who knew that Jesus had chosen the Twelve to be the leaders of Israel and indeed all the nations?