History Repeats Itself

[Spirithound]

That’s your conclusion; not mine.

Then what is your conclusion?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Then what is your conclusion?

**I think he used of the commonsense that any of us would;
Why bring eleven of his friends with him if he had no way to escape with his life? Then, he might have considered that he was not the only head of a group of 12 disciples who had been caught by the Romans. It was a custom among ambulant Rabbis in the First Century to gather groups in the mystic number of 12 to teach Torah and prepare future Teachers of the Law. **

 

[Spirithound]

I think he used of the commonsense that any of us would;
Why bring eleven of his friends with him if he had no way to escape with his life?

So he thought that they could take on the Romans? Or did big groups travel swifter and quieter in the first century?

Then, he might have considered that he was not the only head of a group of 12 disciples who had been caught by the Romans. It was a custom among ambulant Rabbis in the First Century to gather groups in the mystic number of 12 to teach Torah and prepare future Teachers of the Law.

eyes bug out Really? You think this actually crossed Jesus’s mind? Or are you just saying your thing that you say? I’m thinking the latter, since Jesus was actually alone when he was first approached, and even a little later, only Peter and John are mentioned as having come up to the group too. Not to mention they probably didn’t have a Torah with them.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So he thought that they could take on the Romans? Or did big groups travel swifter and quieter in the first century?

eyes bug out Really? You think this actually crossed Jesus’s mind? Or are you just saying your thing that you say? I’m thinking the latter, since Jesus was actually alone when he was first approached, and even a little later, only Peter and John are mentioned as having come up to the group too. Not to mention they probably didn’t have a Torah with them.

Why get so startled about my speculation of what was going on in Jesus mind? I don’t find it too hard to come up with an intelligent guess, speaking from the side of his fence. It’s only natural that over the side where you are, you find the idea hard to conceive.

 

[ryanoneil]

Now, open your Bible on Psalms 78:67-69 and see how the Almighty confirmed Judah, when He rejected Israel. It was based on His promise to David in I Kings 11:36, that Judah would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem.

Jeremiah has made it very clear that the New Covenant is with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one. (Jer. 31:31-34) You are talking about Christianity, which has nothing to do with those houses.

**And this is confirmed by Jeremiah 31:35-37, when he refers to Israel who will never cease as a people before the Lord forever, in spite of the natural laws. **

All along the book of Daniel, Israel is mentioned alongside the expression “Children of the Most High” by name so that we don’t have to assume that it could be Jesus or any Jew on an individual basis.

Not once have I tried to exclude Israel from any of this. And the son of David was adopted as God’s own son, the first time in Scripture that the idea of divine sonship is applied to one individual. Read Psalm 2. What I don’t understand is why you exclude the gentiles in the restored Davidic Monarchy. Wasn’t Ephraim dispersed into the gentiles in order to bring them into David’s restored kingdom, and doesn’t David’s empire include the other nations beside the 12 tribes?

You want exclusivity where God intends to include all his creation.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Not once have I tried to exclude Israel from any of this.

**Perhaps because you don’t agree with Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. **

And the son of David was adopted as God’s own son, the first time in Scripture that the idea of divine sonship is applied to one individual. Read Psalm 2.

Sorry, but Psalm 2 has nothing to do with Jesus. You believe so, because you have been trained to think so. Besides, Jesus was not son of David or of David’s lineage because you guys have taken that away from him by denying that he was a biological son of Joseph’s. The first time in Scriptures! Which Scriptures, the one written by Gentiles 50+ years after Jesus had been gone? Hardly convincing!

What I don’t understand is why you exclude the gentiles in the restored Davidic Monarchy. Wasn’t Ephraim dispersed into the gentiles in order to bring them into David’s restored kingdom, and doesn’t David’s empire include the other nations beside the 12 tribes?

**I do not exclude the Gentiles from partaking with the bounteous of the Lord. The invitation to join is in Isaiah 56:1-8. They have been always welcome. That was not reason why Ephraim was dispersed among the Gentiles. That was the death of Ephraim, as God rejected the Tent of Joseph. (Psalm 78"67) And yes, David’s empire does include the other nations besides the Jews, but only through conversion to Judaism. But no one should feel that it is necessary. As long as the Gentiles obey the Noahite laws, we are all in the same earth/boat. **

 

[Danno2281]

That speech was never delivered by Peter or anyone else. It was written but never delivered. Fist, Peter was a Nazarene Jew and not an anti-Semite. Then, the introduction in Acts 2:14 could never be of a Jewish man. “You who are Jews here in Jerusalem…” Then, a Gentile would not deliver such an antisemitic speech, accusing the Jews with the death of Jesus, and still expect to come out alive. Luke wrote it but just to document the Church with apostolic stock.

One of the problems with our understanding is that we do not hear what those before us in time heard as they heard it.The word “Jew” is a case in point. When we use that word today we mean those who follow only the Mosaic covenant. But the word actually designated an inhabitant of Judea (as opposed to Galilee or the diaspora for instance). This is why, especially in John’s gospel, the disciples speak of “Jews” with a certain disparagement, for it was not the Hebrews (remember that Nathaniel is referred to as an Isrealite) who opposed Christ), but the opposition came from Judeans specifically. Iudaioi are primarily inhabitants of Judea, not to be considered synonymous with Hebrews or even Israelites. Peter, a Galilean, means men of Judea when he speaks of Jews…

 

[Ben_Masada]

One of the problems with our understanding is that we do not hear what those before us in time heard as they heard it.The word “Jew” is a case in point. When we use that word today we mean those who follow only the Mosaic covenant. But the word actually designated an inhabitant of Judea (as opposed to Galilee or the diaspora for instance). This is why, especially in John’s gospel, the disciples speak of “Jews” with a certain disparagement, for it was not the Hebrews (remember that Nathaniel is referred to as an Isrealite) who opposed Christ), but the opposition came from Judeans specifically. Iudaioi are primarily inhabitants of Judea, not to be considered synonymous with Hebrews or even Israelites. Peter, a Galilean, means men of Judea when he speaks of Jews…

**You ignore that the terminology of the word “Jews” is general and became formally the name for all those who returned from exile in Babylon.

The Land of Israel was divided in districts by the Romans in order not to have a central government, and have to deal with someone with too much power in his hands.

Therefore, Peter was a Jewish man from Galilee. Therefore, a Galilean. According to Matthew, Joseph was from Judea, therefore a Judean, etc.

When Jesus was claimed to be king of the Jews, was it only of Judea or of all the Jews in the Land of Israel and Diaspora? See what I mean?

When Luke wrote Acts 2, he involuntarily made it very clear in Acts 2:14 that he was not a Jew, as we all know he was not. He was a Greek, disciple of Paul’s. **

 

[Danno2281]

**You ignore that the terminology of the word “Jews” is general and became formally the name for all those who returned from exile in Babylon.

The Land of Israel was divided in districts by the Romans in order not to have a central government, and have to deal with someone with too much power in his hands.

Therefore, Peter was a Jewish man from Galilee. Therefore, a Galilean. According to Matthew, Joseph was from Judea, therefore a Judean, etc.

When Jesus was claimed to be king of the Jews, was it only of Judea or of all the Jews in the Land of Israel and Diaspora? See what I mean?

When Luke wrote Acts 2, he involuntarily made it very clear in Acts 2:14 that he was not a Jew, as we all know he was not. He was a Greek, disciple of Paul’s. **

Go to that library that I invited you to seek in another thread, the one with a good dictionary. You will find, if you seek, some honest etymology. It will absolutely substantiate what I have written. You are like the scientist who refuses to conduct an experiment because it may negate hs pet theory.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Go to that library that I invited you to seek in another thread, the one with a good dictionary. You will find, if you seek, some honest etymology. It will absolutely substantiate what I have written. You are like the scientist who refuses to conduct an experiment because it may negate hs pet theory.

You got it. I am on my way.

 

[mary1173]

:slapfight:

**Ryanoneil, Jesus was a religious Jewish man. Therefore, he had to go according to Judaism, whose culture is that Tribal lineage is transmitted only and exclusively through the father. Excluding mother and adoption. Mother difines only the Jewishness of the Jew; not the Tribe he is supposed to belong to. How can you come from another religion to tell how Judaism is supposed to run? Why don’t you ask any Rabbi? You can go into a Synagogue and ask who is the Rabbi and ask about this. Just to hear a second opinion, if my credibility does not enjoy your appreciation.
**

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the Judaosm and Catholicism will never be at one with another. It’s like mixing oil with water…not going to happen. Each religion has a different view on the Messiah. Jews do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a teacher of Judaism. The Torah IS the Jews connection to their God. Not Jesus. To make arguments of such issues is like asking a mule to be a horse…Next question?
I do not say this to offend, but unless you have changed your mind about being a Jew that practices Judaism, Ben, the point is moot. You can’t have it be that Catholics will give up Catholicism, and vice versa. It’s ingrained from childhood. And each person has to decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

 

[Ben_Masada]

:slapfight:
This is exactly what I mean when I say that the Judaosm and Catholicism will never be at one with another. It’s like mixing oil with water…not going to happen. Each religion has a different view on the Messiah. Jews do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a teacher of Judaism. The Torah IS the Jews connection to their God. Not Jesus. To make arguments of such issues is like asking a mule to be a horse…Next question?
I do not say this to offend, but unless you have changed your mind about being a Jew that practices Judaism, Ben, the point is moot. You can’t have it be that Catholics will give up Catholicism, and vice versa. It’s ingrained from childhood. And each person has to decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

Take it easy Mary, I am not trying to make a Jew out of you. My objective here is to defend Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus, and whose image you Christians distort in the eyes of the world by using a religious Jew that was Jesus to insert Hellenistic innovations into it. That’s all. If you had chosen a Greek man to preach about Greek Mythology, we would not be having this discussion. But a Jew! There is no such a thing in Judaism.

 

[mary1173]

Take it easy Mary, I am not trying to make a Jew out of you. My objective here is to defend Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus, and whose image you Christians distort in the eyes of the world by using a religious Jew that was Jesus to insert Hellenistic innovations into it. That’s all. If you had chosen a Greek man to preach about Greek Mythology, we would not be having this discussion. But a Jew! There is no such a thing in Judaism.

I don’t feel like you are trying to make a Jew out of me. But it is your point that the torah teaches that the Messiah has not come, right? Well it is a Catholic’s interpretation of the prophets who came before Christ’s birth that we believe he is the Messiah. Not Hellenistic views. Nothing of th NT will a judaic practicing person believe, right? Then it is a moot point to argue Judaism with a Catholic. You believe Jesus to be a false prophet, Catholics do not feel the way you do. Other people on this web page are trying to learn about being Catholic, not being swayed to become Jews. Like oil and water…they’ll never mix. Keep the discussions polite and free of stress. Listen and learn from others on this forum. If you insist on trying to sway others to your beliefs, why not study your views with a Jewish web page forum? We’re here to learn about Christ. Next question?

 

[Ben_Masada]

I don’t feel like you are trying to make a Jew out of me. But it is your point that the torah teaches that the Messiah has not come, right? Well it is a Catholic’s interpretation of the prophets who came before Christ’s birth that we believe he is the Messiah. Not Hellenistic views. Nothing of th NT will a judaic practicing person believe, right? Then it is a moot point to argue Judaism with a Catholic. You believe Jesus to be a false prophet, Catholics do not feel the way you do. Other people on this web page are trying to learn about being Catholic, not being swayed to become Jews. Like oil and water…they’ll never mix. Keep the discussions polite and free of stress. Listen and learn from others on this forum. If you insist on trying to sway others to your beliefs, why not study your views with a Jewish web page forum? We’re here to learn about Christ. Next question?

**I do not teach that the Messiah has not come. I teach that Messiah is back in Israel already. If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you don’t have to assume that he could be Jesus. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4.

There is nothing at all in the Prophets about Jesus. Why don’t you quote the passage that you believe points to him? You are completely mistaken about me. Who told you that I believe Jesus was a fase Prophet? You like to accuse without knowledge and then talk about Christian love. Is this what you call keep discussion polite and free of stress? You must be kidding! **

 

[ryanoneil]

**Perhaps because you don’t agree with Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. **

Well I do agree with Galatians 4. It is an allegory (v.24). It is not speaking of all of Israel, but does speak of the Jerusalem of Paul’s time. In verse 27 he cites the Greek version of Is 54:1-3. He is compairing his Jerusalem with the one destroyed and desolate after the exile, to a barren woman made fruitful by God and to a tent that will spread out to make the nations her children.

Sorry, but Psalm 2 has nothing to do with Jesus. You believe so, because you have been trained to think so. Besides, Jesus was not son of David or of David’s lineage because you guys have taken that away from him by denying that he was a biological son of Joseph’s. The first time in Scriptures! Which Scriptures, the one written by Gentiles 50+ years after Jesus had been gone? Hardly convincing!

I’m refering to Psalm 2. Obviously it is talking about David and Solomon. So you can’t claim “Son of God” can only mean Israel, because divine sonship is applied the individual heir of David. There were religious Jews who believed in the return of the individual “Son of God” who was David’s heir, and some ended up believing it was Jesus.

**I do not exclude the Gentiles from partaking with the bounteous of the Lord. The invitation to join is in Isaiah 56:1-8. They have been always welcome. That was not reason why Ephraim was dispersed among the Gentiles. That was the death of Ephraim, as God rejected the Tent of Joseph. (Psalm 78"67) And yes, David’s empire does include the other nations besides the Jews, but only through conversion to Judaism. But no one should feel that it is necessary. As long as the Gentiles obey the Noahite laws, we are all in the same earth/boat. **

What if God decided to tear down the walls that seperated Jew from Gentile?

And what if God’s plan was to include the Gentiles in the Kingdom, through Christianity?

 

[Danno2281]

**I do not teach that the Messiah has not come. I teach that Messiah is back in Israel already. **

When told that Christians believed the Messiah had come, the rabbi threw open his shutters and said, “How can that be? I see no change.” The same can be said of the claim that the Messiah is the Jewish possession of the state of Israel. War, terrorism on the part of the Israelis as well as their neighbors, discord, division within Israel itself. Where is the descendant of David? What credentials could he show since all your genealogies have been destroyed? Where, child of Masada, is anything better than it was before David for the people? Where is the King of the Jews?

 

[altabz]

to all devouted catholics at this site christianster.com a non catholic forum site they were lambasting our catholic Church especailly Mamay. i put of the defences but the were to many of them your help is badly needed … it is out duty to defend out faith at all cost…

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well I do agree with Galatians 4. It is an allegory (v.24). It is not speaking of all of Israel, but does speak of the Jerusalem of Paul’s time. In verse 27 he cites the Greek version of Is 54:1-3. He is compairing his Jerusalem with the one destroyed and desolate after the exile, to a barren woman made fruitful by God and to a tent that will spread out to make the nations her children.

I don’t think you are being accurate in your understanding of Galatians 4. In that Pauline allegory, Paul compares the Sinaitic Covenant made with Israel to Hagar, the slave woman; and the Christian “New Covenant” to Sarah, who is free Jerusalem. Then, at the end, He urges to throw away the slave woman with her son. He means, the Sinaitic Covenant with Israel because of the establishment of a new order. That’s in two words, Replacement Theology.

I’m refering to Psalm 2. Obviously it is talking about David and Solomon. So you can’t claim “Son of God” can only mean Israel, because divine sonship is applied the individual heir of David. There were religious Jews who believed in the return of the individual “Son of God” who was David’s heir, and some ended up believing it was Jesus.

**The heir of David is not an individual but according to God’s promise to David, he is Judah, the People, which would remain forever in Jerusalem. Judah, according to I Kings 11:36. **

What if God decided to tear down the walls that seperated Jew from Gentile?

**Too hypothetical. Especially because that would happened only if Israel ceased as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) **

And what if God’s plan was to include the Gentiles in the Kingdom, through Christianity?

**You are still being hypothetical. The Gentiles have been included since God decided to spare Israel for the sake of David. (I Kings 11:36) **

 

[Ben_Masada]

When told that Christians believed the Messiah had come, the rabbi threw open his shutters and said, “How can that be? I see no change.”

Perhaps this Rabbi was still in the Diaspora, waiting for a miracle from Heaven.

The same can be said of the claim that the Messiah is the Jewish possession of the state of Israel. War, terrorism on the part of the Israelis as well as their neighbors, discord, division within Israel itself.

Do you remember to have read in the Scriptures why God would not allow all the Canaanites to leave the Land for the Israelites to enjoy it alone? So that Israel would have what to do in terms of war exercises and don’t get too comfortable. That’s what life is: Struggles. Permanent peace is worse than a break in between wars. In fact, the Rabbi was wrong. There is a change. We have returned to the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel.

Where is the descendant of David?

**We are here in the throne of the Land of Israel. Don’t forget that what God promised David was not an individual to stay in Jerusalem forever, but a People, Judah, the Jewish People. Read I Kings 11:36. **

What credentials could he show since all your genealogies have been destroyed?

**All our genealogies have been destroyed! What are you talking about? Give us some more time. As soon as you see our Temple rebuilt, you will be surprised about our genealogies. If you mean Tribal genealogy, there is no more such a thing. The Tribal system is gone forever. All the Tribes are gathered under one People and one nation. The People is known as the House of Jacob, known by the new name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1) **

Where, child of Masada, is anything better than it was before David for the people? Where is the King of the Jews?

**Your nostalgia of the Israel of the time of the Kings has no point here. There is more order and organization in the State of Israel today than in the Israel of the time of Jesus. As you can see, even to bring some order to the status quo, Jesus was not good enough to. I bet this is a surprise to you. **

 

[Danno2281]

Do you remember to have read in the Scriptures why God would not allow all the Canaanites to leave the Land for the Israelites to enjoy it alone? So that Israel would have what to do in terms of war exercises and don’t get too comfortable. That’s what life is: Struggles. Permanent peace is worse than a break in between wars. In fact, the Rabbi was wrong. There is a change. We have returned to the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel.
Permanent peace is worse than a break between wars! Tell that to your widows and orphans, Any land where war is a way of life is a land of the dying, not a land of the living.

Where is the descendant of David?

**We are here in the throne of the Land of Israel. Don’t forget that what God promised David was not an individual to stay in Jerusalem forever, but a People, Judah, the Jewish People. Read I Kings 11:36. **
Back to that library, ben.M. Find out what a dynasty is “a lasting dynasty as I did for David.” v.48
What credentials could he show since all your genealogies have been destroyed?

**All our genealogies have been destroyed! What are you talking about? Give us some more time. As soon as you see our Temple rebuilt, you will be surprised about our genealogies. If you mean Tribal genealogy, there is no more such a thing. The Tribal system is gone forever. All the Tribes are gathered under one People and one nation. The People is known as the House of Jacob, known by the new name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1) **
Exactly my point. There are no tribal genealogies, and none can establish that he is of Judah. Perhaps all in Isrrael are descendents of converted Khazars. Who knows?

**Your nostalgia of the Israel of the time of the Kings has no point here. There is more order and organization in the State of Israel today than in the Israel of the time of Jesus. As you can see, even to bring some order to the status quo, Jesus was not good enough to. I bet this is a surprise to you. **

I am not at all nostalgic for such a time. “The kingdom of God is within you.” (Lk, 17, 21). And for so long as I continue to allow the Davidic messiah, Jesus, to rule my heart, I know peace in spite of any storm outside.