Jewish Book: How to Read the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crumpy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaninchen said:
An outsider saying something like “there are these guys who say their leader rose from the dead” is evidence only of there having been some guys who said their leader rose from the dead, not that he actually did so.

The rest is NT Pt II.

I see a “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!” very close at hand.
Click to expand...
I guess we could say that about all history. Somebody saying that Caesar conquered Gaul is evidence only of there having been some guys who said Caesar did this.
 
Kaninchen said:
I didn’t say ‘small potatoes’, I merely pointed out that it’s conjecture built on conjecture.
Click to expand...
Understood… I did not mean to represent that those were your words (they were Lisel’s).
As to slaughter, look at the numbers of Jews slaughtered after our confrontations with them, particularly after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Meanwhile, we’re still here as a ‘People’, where are all the others?
Click to expand...
The Lord doesn’t revoke covenants–which is why the Jews are still and always will be among the People of God. But the Lord did promise to establish a new covenant with Israel under which the Gentiles would know the Lord as well.
The numbers game and ‘divine assistance’ is something of a cul-de-sac, you could say the same of Islam and others.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why you should ignore the numbers and look at the order of the kingdoms, noting that the last kingdom would be replaced by an eternal one–clearly this is the Messianic kingdom.
 
qui_est_ce said:
I guess we could say that about all history. Somebody saying that Caesar conquered Gaul is evidence only of there having been some guys who said Caesar did this.
Click to expand...
Well, if we had world enough and time we could wander along a whole range of traditional “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!” pathways from that one.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Right, which is why you should ignore the numbers and look at the order of the kingdoms, noting that the last kingdom would be replaced by an eternal one–clearly this is the Messianic kingdom.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you’ve lost me a bit there - I take it to mean ‘Messiah/Messianic Age’ (Judaism), ‘Second Coming’ (Christianity)?
 
Kaninchen said:
Well, if we had world enough and time we could wander along a whole range of traditional “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!” pathways from that one.
Click to expand...
How do you determine which parts of history to believe? Do you dismiss historical writings because they are not in agreement with your religious faith?
 
Kaninchen said:
I’m afraid you’ve lost me a bit there - I take it to mean ‘Messiah/Messianic Age’ (Judaism), ‘Second Coming’ (Christianity)?
Click to expand...
Actually the Catholic/Orthodox/Mainline understanding is that this Kingdom began at the first coming and is a spiritual kingdom of peace, not one of realm and conquest. However, humans’ wills remain free to accept or reject the Kingdom–hence there are abuses which have been committed in the name of Christianity.
 
Kaninchen said:
I’m to lazy to do the quotes from the initial part of the post.

Of course it’s all to do with acceptance or not of the NT. When you say something like “No. The point is they were fulfilled long before the NT was written.” the only source for the statement are events and narratives within the NT.

All the rest is conjecture and faith.
Click to expand...
Again, not true. Thousands coverted (mainly Jews) long before there was a NT and they converted because the OT pointed to Jesus as the Messiah.
 
Kaninchen said:
Well, if we had world enough and time we could wander along a whole range of traditional “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!” pathways from that one.
Click to expand...
Using that logic one can say George Washington never existed except in some writers memory.

It will do well if you ceased with the: “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t.” We are attempting to have a conversation, nothing more. Of course we disagree on many points, yet why are you here if you do not wish to converse? 🙂
 
qui_est_ce said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
Ah, you’re not part of the great tradition of “Christians v’s Atheists” or “Christians v’s Jews” wrangling on message boards. 🙂

There are numerous well trodden argument paths that surround the whole subject, various key words. For example bringing up Julius C v’s Jesus C can lead to things like the “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” path - a favorite with Atheists.

In some ways, I blame Josh McDowell - a decade or so ago, a lot of Christians on message boards tended to use the ‘Evidence that demands a verdict’ approach and a whole range of ritual arguments and responses to them developed.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Actually the Catholic/Orthodox/Mainline understanding is that this Kingdom began at the first coming and is a spiritual kingdom of peace, not one of realm and conquest. However, humans’ wills remain free to accept or reject the Kingdom–hence there are abuses which have been committed in the name of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Ok, I get the idea now. 🙂
 
Kaninchen said:
Ah, you’re not part of the great tradition of “Christians v’s Atheists” or “Christians v’s Jews” wrangling on message boards. 🙂

There are numerous well trodden argument paths that surround the whole subject, various key words. For example bringing up Julius C v’s Jesus C can lead to things like the “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” path - a favorite with Atheists.

In some ways, I blame Josh McDowell - a decade or so ago, a lot of Christians on message boards tended to use the ‘Evidence that demands a verdict’ approach and a whole range of ritual arguments and responses to them developed.
Click to expand...
I have no idea of what you are talking. I came up with my post on my own education and knowledge of history.

I don’t understand your logic.
 
Kaninchen said:
And the ‘evidence’ for that is in the NT.
Click to expand...
No, the evidence are the historical facts that Jews converted, and that most of Jesus’ early folowers were Jews. Again, Jesus first went to the house of Israel, not to the Gentiles. That is what Jesus historically did and it would be true even if a NT was never written.

First came Jesus.

Then came the apostles (Jews).

Then came additional followers by the hundreds (mainly Jews).

Then came an explosion which became mainly Gentiles.

Then the NT was written.

Christianity took time to develop into the fullness it later regularly taught. There were people that began that effort and many of them were Jews who likely did not even think of themselves as Christians, and they most certainly did not give much thought about a NT.
 
irishpatrick said:
No, the evidence are the historical facts that Jews converted, and that most of Jesus’ early folowers were Jews. Again, Jesus first went to the house of Israel, not to the Gentiles. That is what Jesus historically did and it would be true even if a NT was never written.

First came Jesus.

Then came the apostles (Jews).

Then came additional followers by the hundreds (mainly Jews).

Then came an explosion which became mainly Gentiles.

Then the NT was written.
Click to expand...
And the evidence for this narrative is where?
 
irishpatrick said:
No, the evidence are the historical facts that Jews converted, and that most of Jesus’ early folowers were Jews. Again, Jesus first went to the house of Israel, not to the Gentiles. That is what Jesus historically did and it would be true even if a NT was never written.

First came Jesus.

Then came the apostles (Jews).

Then came additional followers by the hundreds (mainly Jews).

Then came an explosion which became mainly Gentiles.

Then the NT was written.
Click to expand...
And before the NT was written, Nero was burning Christians alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top