B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Ask Swariffin, he is the legitimate author of that statement. And I am sure he spoke as a good Catholic.
Ben:
- Status
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
A Jew who knows all about Judaism, and is talking about Jewish issues is under no obligation to dig for proofs when his own knowledge and life is proof enough. Would you be satisfied with any name I gave you? It will be just the opinion of another man: I you want, here are some: Rashi, Maimonides, Josephus, there are many. But what does it mean to you? The best way to impress is through one’s own handling of Logic.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Hints! Here is a better one: The disciples of Jesus had never heard that he was the Messiah until Paul arrived in scene preaching about him as such because their heaquarters
was in Jerusalem and they were coexisting peacefully with the local Jews. When Paul appeared preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, he was nearly killed for preaching apostasy. How about Jesus’ disciples? What were they preaching about Jesus? I tell you, they were as surprised about Paul’s gospel as the regular Jews were.
Do you believe Isaiah the Prophet was a liar? I didn’t think so. He said that Israel is the Messiah. How? If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, you can read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Isaiah identifies that Servant as Israel by name; so you won’t have to assume that he is talking about Jesus. What do you have to say?
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Okay, here is my evidence: Jeremiah 31:35-37.Is this one of your “traditions” too?
Still have no evidence to back up your claims I see.
If the Jews are ever rejected by God or removed from existence, the sun will no longer light by day or the moon and stars by night. Besides, the natural laws will give way in spite of God’s decree for their ability to function in order. Do you know what this means? It means that natural castastrophes will hit Mankind from every corner of the Universe. Am I talking nonsense? If this is nonsense,
Jeremiah is the Prophet talking nonsense. There is one more thing: Of the other nations God will make an end of them. But of Israel He will only chastise as we deserve. That’s in Jeremiah 46:28. Isn’t it something? Now, do you understand why salvation is from the Jews? That’s what Jesus meant when he told that Samaritan woman that salvation if from the Jews. Two thousand years later, people still think like a Samaritan woman. There are things that never change.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
None of the Apostles was an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection. On the contrary, they considered the resurrection a nonsense and an idle tale. Read Luke 24:11 and don’t tell me I don’t give sources.
None of the Apostles was a Christian. Christianity originated with Paul in Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Read Acts 11:26. The Apostles were Nazarenes.
Jesus never had anything against the Pharisees. He was of their same line. You must be confusing Jesus with Paul. This yes, always had a grudge against the Pharisees for having never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.
Jesus never exerted authority over the Law. He declared that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it just like everyone else. This is not to claim authority but to be under the same obligations. (Mat. 5:17-19)
Ben:
R
ralphinal
Guest
My head hurts. We have Muslims and Jews taking the same theological position
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Because the Sabbath is the best day to do good to whoever is in need. That’s for your first question. For the second question, I have to explain to you the meaning of the expression in Hebrew, “Picuach Nephesh.” That’s when to break a commandment is necessary in order to fulfill a greater one.
To take care of the sick is a greater commandment than to keep the Sabbath holy. Most Doctors and nurses are not observant Jews. So, it has been determined to pay hospital workers for the hours of the Sabbath, so that the sick people be cared for.
M
MHalsey
Guest
Wait, you claim the Gospel of John was not written by a Jew, but you use it as a proof. I’m sorry Ben, I will not let you away with that. Either accept the Gospel of John as written or reject ALL of it. You cannot have it both ways. The same with accepting 20% of the New Testament. I am tired of people like you only accepting what you want and disregarding the rest simply because it doesn’t fit your own erroneous beliefs.Okay, here is my evidence: Jeremiah 31:35-37.
If the Jews are ever rejected by God or removed from existence, the sun will no longer light by day or the moon and stars by night. Besides, the natural laws will give way in spite of God’s decree for their ability to function in order. Do you know what this means? It means that natural castastrophes will hit Mankind from every corner of the Universe. Am I talking nonsense? If this is nonsense,
Jeremiah is the Prophet talking nonsense. There is one more thing: Of the other nations God will make an end of them. But of Israel He will only chastise as we deserve. That’s in Jeremiah 46:28. Isn’t it something? Now, do you understand why salvation is from the Jews? That’s what Jesus meant when he told that Samaritan woman that salvation if from the Jews. Two thousand years later, people still think like a Samaritan woman. There are things that never change.
Ben:
But since you probably think the above is due to my inability to deal with your quotes from Jeremiah, here is my response and it will be my last to you.
To understand what the prophet is saying, you have to go back a few lines so that it can be read in context.
Jeremiah 31: 31-37
The natural law referred to in verse 36 is directly related to verse 35. This is the NATURAL law the God is speaking of, not the law of Moses. And you have it backwards. God says that if any of these natural laws give way, then the nation of Israel will cease to be, not if the nation of Israel ceases to be then the natural law would collapse.
But let’s go back a few verses to 31. In that the Lord is speaking of a NEW covenant. that means the original covenant with Israel was not supposed to last forever. And everything from v. 31 on is fulfilled in Jesus Christ as the Messiah at the Last Supper. And like I said previously, Jesus, being God, has the authority to make a covenant, which he made with his disciples, and by extension, the rest of the world. Not that I expect you to believe it, Ben.
Oh, one more thing, in Jeremiah 46:28, God is speaking of the lands into which he had driven the Israelites, Babylon and Egypt. Yet a couple of verses back in V 26 God says that Egypt will be inhabited again. As for Babylon, last I checked, Babylon no longer exists. So He did make an end to those nations, but as God said, Egypt is inhabited again.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16) I don’t see anything in the Gospels that restrict Jesus’s message to Jews alone. If Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, then He is God of not just the Jews, but of all of us.** Jesus was a Jew. he was for the Jews only. Throughout his life Jesus could not act or utter a single world against the law of Moses. And he did not do that. [/close]But, you also say…
The only few innovations he did were some improvements in teh laws of Moses about Sabath etc. or about stoning an adulteress. Even in those things Jesus never went against the Law of Moses.**So, did he obey the laws or did he innovate? You seem to be making two contradictory points about this.
planten:
He also advised that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Does this not effectively nullify the punishment under the Mosaic Law?
planten:
So, he was advising the Jews to “bend” the rules, but not break them? Is that what you are asserting. I’m not sure what your point is here?
plante:
You mean like claiming to be God? Isn’t that against the law of Moses?
planten:
planten said:** It is well known that saul took the whole system to Greece. The word Christ and christinaity all seem to be Greek. The Greeks were pagans, having many gods and Godesses. they loved the flesh of swine. So Saul helped them with that unclean flesh.
I can feel that christianity started with Saul. befor eSaul there was no church or christianity.**It is clear that one did not need to be a Jew first, in order to be a Christian. That little issue was resolved early on, by Peter not Paul. Read the Acts of the Apostles to see how it was resolved.
planten:
I do not see this as a problem. Why do you think this is a problem for Christianity?
planten:
There are four separate gospel accounts of what happened to him, and the countless witness of martyrs and saints describing what happened to Him? How can you say there is no record? Yes, Christianity is based on the ministry of Jesus Christ - not just what He taught, but what we believe He did, and what He accomplished.
planten:
The acts of the Apostles tells the story of Saul’s conversion, and his being received by Peter and the other Apostles thereafter. It’s not that Paul was acting alone. He was acting with the full blessing and support of the other Apostles in spreading the good news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and what that meant for all, not just the Jews, but the arabs and the greeks and the europeans and the africans, etc.
Peace,
-Robert
R
ralphinal
Guest
So those historians wrote what you claim about JoA bribing guards?A Jew who knows all about Judaism, and is talking about Jewish issues is under no obligation to dig for proofs when his own knowledge and life is proof enough. Would you be satisfied with any name I gave you? It will be just the opinion of another man: I you want, here are some: Rashi, Maimonides, Josephus, there are many. But what does it mean to you? The best way to impress is through one’s own handling of Logic.
Ben:
No, it is not proof just because you are Jewish. Being Jewish does not make you correct about everything Jewish nor does it automatically make you a Vulcan with your logic.
I know too many goofy Jews.
P
planten
Guest
** Whatever, he never went agianst the law of Moses a.s.**
** No. That is beside the point. That did not mean that punishment is not Stoning to death. It did justice to the law of Moses so that justified persons should apply that punishment.
If they are corrupt themselves, they should not throw a stone at the adulterers. That is what is meant by “He had come to fulfil the law.” Not to nullify the law of Moses**.
**You can understand the matters better than I. You read the same bible as I do. But I do not take strange literal meanings of all things.
You said you are not sure what is my point. That is some excuse too. But not a good excuse to not understand.**
**That is strange. At what stage did Jesus start speaking strange things. At the end of his mission? Had Jesus claimed even Once that he was God Almighty, there would have been no delay and no need to question him about Sabath and tax etc. He would have been taken to task very quickly. But there was no such case of calling himself the God almighty. People knew him as a prophet.
But senior Jews did not even permit that he should be called a prophet of God.
**
** John is saying it or it was a later teaching by the influence of Saul that it was inserted into one of the gospels. Did the Mathew and Mark and Luke not know about it? About such an important saying? And Please let me know Who said it? Whose words are these**?
**Please read the gospels where Jesus forbids his disciples strictly to preach to any non-Jew. This the order of the day. But the gospel writers under the influence of Saul found it necessay to take the religion to Greece where there were all gentile pagans who knew nothing about Judaism and Jesus.
It was an open field of ignorants for Saul. So he did well amongst them and changed the original line of Jesus. I cannot argue too much on this subject.
Had Saul kept on working on the Jews only, we may admit him as a true fellow. And it would have helped the followers of Jesus much better. The Jews having been reformed would have changed the shape of the world.**
**There were no christians unless you take the teachings of Saul. Jesus was not for any except the Jews and I am happy that some Jews have started claiming their Jesus. All these things about Peter and Barnabas acting with Saul are later interventions in the scripture, 300 years after the good-bye from Jesus.
I admit that there were some believers who were working under the influence of Saul try to push the broken wagon ahead.
**.
Please try to understand it youself, somehow. I cannot go back on the subject. If still there is a problem then you may point it out as a singualr question to me.
Robert, I am happy that you have addressed the subject very well.
.
The four gospels can be called a one gospel. They end up with Jesus suddenly at 33 A.D. No more. They start with the birth of Jesus, with his geneology and then do not tell anything until Jesus became 30 years of age. He rode the donkey and entered Jerusalem. Lived for another three years and that was the end of the affiar of Jesus. But it was the satrt of the affair of Saul.
The acts tell things. But that is all Saul. There is no Jesus there. You people made a Lord out of Jesus. That may have been okay. He was something. But you did not stop there. You made many more Lords beside Jesus too… I will not continue any further… thanks for your remarks…
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
To refute your claims that John the Apostle wrote such a thing so unJewish. But what’t the matter with it having been written by a Gentile? I have read many books written by Gentiles. For instance, all the books of Dostoyevky and of Plato. And to tell you the least, I couldn’t enjoy them more.
Why should I reject or accept ALL? The author is tempering with Judaism with Hellenistic innovations and I should accept it? On the other hand, the book brings good information to help me enlighten others with the truth.
Believe me, this percentage method is good to eliminate contradictions.
And who said anything about Law of Moses? I am sorry but I think you don’t understand what you read. Or perhaps my English is so bad that you understand completely wrong. I have nothing backwards. I meant the natural laws. You are the one who inserted the Law of Moses.
But of course, you can’t expect me to believe in assumptions. You simply assume that anything in Jeremiah is pointing to Jesus. And assumptions my friend butter no bread. Then, the NEW Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. You don’t see anything Christian, do you? It’s because the New Covenant has nothing to do with Gentiles.
All the nations to which I have driven you. All the nations of the whole world, wherever there are Jews in Diaspora. You can’t re-write the Scriptures out of envy. Humble yourself before God and accept what He has determined. Regarding Egypt or any other place which has been rebuilt, that’s the place giving rise a different nation. In Biblical terms, nations are peoples. not places. Places can be rebuilt. New nations rise in ancient rebuilt places. The Egyptians of today are not the Egyptians of the Pharaohs. The people who inhabit Jericoh today are not a continuation of the people of Jericoh of the time of Josuah. Well, you must have got the idea. I hope.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Just one was a Historian, Josephus. Rashi was a Bible Commentator; and Maimonides was a Jewish Philosopher.
And what does it give to you, the right to teach something that tempers with Judaism and to expect that a Jew will settle for it?
You can count them with the fingers of your hand.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Matthew 28:11-15. How could Matthew show documented proof of his theory? I am simply elaborating on his theory.
Ben:
L
LilyM
Guest
See Ben, the problem is as much of an expert as you may be on Jews and Jewish culture, what you are NOT is an expert on Romans and Roman culture. So your original point, that the Romans never pierced Jesus’ side, is in reality baseless - since it is a Roman soldier who is alleged to have done the deed.
And regardless of the debate about whether or not the Gospel was written by someone who’d witnessed Jesus’ execution, it certainly was written (and initially read) by people much more familiar with Roman soldiers and their ways than you (and Maimonides, if not Rakshi whose life I am unfamiliar with) have any chance of ever being. So your suggestion that we not give them THAT much of the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous, to say the least.
And regardless of the debate about whether or not the Gospel was written by someone who’d witnessed Jesus’ execution, it certainly was written (and initially read) by people much more familiar with Roman soldiers and their ways than you (and Maimonides, if not Rakshi whose life I am unfamiliar with) have any chance of ever being. So your suggestion that we not give them THAT much of the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous, to say the least.
A
allhers
Guest
St. Matthew28:11-15Matthew 28:11-15. How could Matthew show documented proof of his theory? I am simply elaborating on his theory.
Ben:
11
7 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened.
12
They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,
13
telling them, "You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.’
and the footnotes on this say this:
7 [11-15] This account indicates that the dispute between Christians and Jews about the empty tomb was not whether the tomb was empty but why.
source: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm
Could I ask you a question Ben? What does it mean to you that Jesus blood and water were poured out on the Cross and that beneath that Cross was His Blessed Mother, Mary? Is that significant to you at all? I’m just wondering about that as it seems to me that I read something about that long ago and I can’t really remember what it was right now, thanks.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
V
Voradin
Guest
Excuse me Benjamin,
respectfully.
but why do you - a Jew - quote scripture that’s from a different religion, Wouldn’t it make more sense to quote from Isaiah,
and then cross reference (not meant like a pun, of course) ?
I know some books were thrown out,
110 years after the Septuagint in Alexandria.
respectfully.
but why do you - a Jew - quote scripture that’s from a different religion, Wouldn’t it make more sense to quote from Isaiah,
and then cross reference (not meant like a pun, of course) ?
I know some books were thrown out,
110 years after the Septuagint in Alexandria.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Have you forgotten that I am still waiting for my answer about the laws Paul was referring to which were different from the laws that Jesus declared, he had not come to abolish? You said Paul was referring to different laws. Nu! What laws were they?
Ben:
L
LilyM
Guest
And that has precisely zip to do with whether Jesus’ side was pierced or not. Keep on topic, Ben.Have you forgotten that I am still waiting for my answer about the laws Paul was referring to which were different from the laws that Jesus declared, he had not come to abolish? You said Paul was referring to different laws. Nu! What laws were they?
Ben:
- Status