My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[DallasCatholic]

Since when, to preach against Moses is to follow in Moses’ footsteps? Perhaps only in your dictionary. Read Acts 21:21.

Ben:

Following in Moses’ footsteps in that Moses created Judiaism and Moses corrupted the faith passed down from Abraham…

 

[ralphinal]

You are the one saying that Moses was a Gentile, not me.

Ben:

You said that Peter told Gentiles that they must be Jews to folow Jesus,. I want to see that in the Bible.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You said that Peter told Gentiles that they must be Jews to folow Jesus,. I want to see that in the Bible.

So, look for! If you can’t be moved by logic to see the truth, you have to work as a slave to find what you need.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Following in Moses’ footsteps in that Moses created Judiaism and Moses corrupted the faith passed down from Abraham…

Very good! So, we have Judaism corrupted by Moses, and you have Christianity corrupted by Paul. Now, we can call the quits on this subject.

Ben:

 

[ralphinal]

So, look for! If you can’t be moved by logic to see the truth, you have to work as a slave to find what you need.

Ben:

I have looked for it. I cannot find it. I can find where he said to be baptised and believe. Now that is not the same, is it?

Show where Peter said it. IT is not that hard. You have been throwing NT verses around fairly well, showing that you have an excellent understanding of where to find the verses if they exist.

And I have not seen logic. I have seen a historical hypothesis based on a set of notions that are not spelled out as such in the books cited. Your thread on ben david vs. ben joseph is much more logical.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I have looked for it. I cannot find it. I can find where he said to be baptised and believe. Now that is not the same, is it?

Show where Peter said it. IT is not that hard. You have been throwing NT verses around fairly well, showing that you have an excellent understanding of where to find the verses if they exist.

And I have not seen logic. I have seen a historical hypothesis based on a set of notions that are not spelled out as such in the books cited. Your thread on ben david vs. ben joseph is much more logical.

Now, you surprised me. To tell me that you understand the thread on Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David and cannot understand that the converts of the Nazarenes would become fully Jews!

Here’s the logic: If Peter was the one assigned to the Gentiles according to Acts 15:7, and the converts would become staunch defenders of the Jewish laws according to Acts 21:20, the logic resides on the fact that through Peter the Gentiles would become fully Jews. On the other hand, those who were persuaded to side with Paul would return to their condition of Gentiles under the Noahite laws. (Acts 15:28,29)

Ben:

 

[ralphinal]

Now, you surprised me. To tell me that you understand the thread on Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David and cannot understand that the converts of the Nazarenes would become fully Jews!

Here’s the logic: If Peter was the one assigned to the Gentiles according to Acts 15:7, and the converts would become staunch defenders of the Jewish laws according to Acts 21:20, the logic resides on the fact that through Peter the Gentiles would become fully Jews. On the other hand, those who were persuaded to side with Paul would return to their condition of Gentiles under the Noahite laws. (Acts 15:28,29)

Ben:

Ok, i understand that. What I do not understand is how it never says that Peter said anything of the sort, yet you assert that it is how it was. I would say that Acts 10 should support you, but Peter never once told Cornelious that he had to follow any sort of Laws at all. Then, in Chapter 11, Peter told the story to the Jewish faithful, and he never once said that he told them to follow the Jewish Law. In fact, he said that he could not prevent the Holy SPirit from filling them and he baptised them. Then, in Peter’s speach in Acts 15, he clearly says that it is wrong to make Gentile Converts follow the Law of Moses. All that is required of them is that the believe and are baptised. Acts 15:6-11.

In other words, your position is undermined by Peter himself.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ok, i understand that. What I do not understand is how it never says that Peter said anything of the sort, yet you assert that it is how it was. I would say that Acts 10 should support you, but Peter never once told Cornelious that he had to follow any sort of Laws at all. Then, in Chapr 11, Peter told the story to the Jewish faithful, and he never once said that he told them to follow the Jewish Law. In fact, he said that he could not prevent the Holy SPirit from filling them and he baptised them. Then, in Peter’s speach in Acts 15, he clearly says that it is wrong to make Gentile Converts follow the Law of Moses. All that is required of them is that the believe and are baptised. Acts 15:6-11.

In other words, your position is undermined by Peter himself.

To accept Acts 10 and 11 as true from Peter, you will be digging a lot of contradictions in your own NT. Do you want a prime example that chapters 10 and 11 have nothing to do with Peter? Read Acts 10:39. That’s about a speech that Luke claims Peter delivered. I’ll write here for you. “We are witnesses to all that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” Who is giving this speech, Peter? Never! Where is this speaker delivering this speech? Anywhere in the world but not in Israel. And was he a Jewish person? Never! A Jewish person would no say “In the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” Therefore, sorry my friend, but Peter has nothing to do with Acts 10 and 11. They are all interpolations made more than 50 years after Peter lived.

 

[carmalina]

Ben has also written a post about how Jesus was married.

This post is repeated at that location.

I am not here to comment on Ben’s beliefs or findings. I only wish to comment that these posts seem to have only one purpose: to sow doubt in Christians, to dilute Catholic church teachings. Someone will say: but! I only wish to discover and bring all to the truth. I wish to reveal the facts.

Ben, discuss your doubts in both yourself and in your relation with God with a priest. Seek one out on this forum.

Facts are stubborn things. You have presented no facts, and if I may humbly offer it, I admit that because I live in Faith, I don’t live in facts either.

What you have offered are opinions, human opinions, void of fact or proof. Why bring in the word ‘proof’? Because it seems to be your milieu, the ‘way’ in which you are telling your stories. You want to correct the facts of the Bible. You want to set some record straight.

Those of faith have long known that we cannot prove anything, and that, neither can you. But we are not suffering from scepticism.

A good philosopher to read on this score is Jacobi. He describes well the enlightenment dilemma between fact and faith in the 1800s, a dilemma to which Kant, Hegel and others responded as they could, and the same dilemma left for them by Descartes.

Kant discovered that reason had no way to prove it’s principles, to link itself with experience or reality, though he continued to try fiercely all his life. If faith had no leg to stand on, neither did reason. Hegel continued to try to link God with material existence, to give a proof. He succumbed to pantheism as the only way to do so.

It was Jacobi who saw the truth. That reason, no more or less than religious faith, is a leap of judgment, an act of faith. And no one has been able to refute him. Even modern philosophers, even as they proclaim their faith in unreason realize that unreason, faith, reason are all simply singular relations that cannot be universalized.

But the enlightenment, the scientific reason, goes on. It believes itself to be a priest of truth. Every ‘science’ is now imbued with this ‘method’, this geometricity whereby in facts, in empirical truth, a dogma of truth can be raised, a scientificity given to experience and facts.

So the old boring saw about the facts of Christianity and whether they can be substantiated is truly, truly boring and passe. Outdated, even.

Cling to your facts but facts will not bring the comfort of faith. The reason is that facts are a kind of faith, securalized and denuded of love.

There is something beyond the mundane checkbook, the balancing of details to arrive at a truth. We do that because we have to. We balance our checkbooks. But God exceeds such mundane earthly necessity. The necessity of God is beyond fact. Let us not limit our experience of God to finite facts.

 

[ralphinal]

To accept Acts 10 and 11 as true from Peter, you will be digging a lot of contradictions in your own NT. Do you want a prime example that chapters 10 and 11 have nothing to do with Peter? Read Acts 10:39. That’s about a speech that Luke claims Peter delivered. I’ll write here for you. “We are witnesses to all that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” Who is giving this speech, Peter? Never! Where is this speaker delivering this speech? Anywhere in the world but not in Israel. And was he a Jewish person? Never! A Jewish person would no say “In the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” Therefore, sorry my friend, but Peter has nothing to do with Acts 10 and 11. They are all interpolations made more than 50 years after Peter lived.

I disagree. I do so based on my own personal experience. I am part Italian. I have been known to use a slur against Italians when talking about being around my family. It does not make me less Italian. If you are American, I would ask if you have ever heard an African American using a racial slur to talk about his own kind.

When the NT Scriptures say “The Jews” it almost always refers to the corrupt political and religious system that had Jesus killed.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben has also written a post about how Jesus was married.

This post is repeated at that location.

I am not here to comment on Ben’s beliefs or findings. I only wish to comment that these posts seem to have only one purpose: to sow doubt in Christians, to dilute Catholic church teachings. Someone will say: but! I only wish to discover and bring all to the truth. I wish to reveal the facts

 

[Ben_Masada]

Deleted

 

[Ben_Masada]

I disagree. I do so based on my own personal experience. I am part Italian. I have been known to use a slur against Italians when talking about being around my family. It does not make me less Italian. If you are American, I would ask if you have ever heard an African American using a racial slur to talk about his own kind.

When the NT Scriptures say “The Jews” it almost always refers to the corrupt political and religious system that had Jesus killed.

This is an antisemitic accusation because you know that Jews did not kill Jesus. The Romans did. In fact, Pope John 23rd. asked publicly for forgiveness from the Jewish People for this false accusation going on for almost two thousand years, and you still want to keep it afresh. The man was a Pope of your Church. You can’t take the
word of a Pope at his face-value?

Ben:

 

[swariffin]

To accept Acts 10 and 11 as true from Peter, you will be digging a lot of contradictions in your own NT. Do you want a prime example that chapters 10 and 11 have nothing to do with Peter? Read Acts 10:39. That’s about a speech that Luke claims Peter delivered. I’ll write here for you. “We are witnesses to all that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” Who is giving this speech, Peter? Never! Where is this speaker delivering this speech? Anywhere in the world but not in Israel. And was he a Jewish person? Never! A Jewish person would no say “In the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” Therefore, sorry my friend, but Peter has nothing to do with Acts 10 and 11. They are all interpolations made more than 50 years after Peter lived.

And the basis of your argument only and only that Peter was a Jew and a Jew would never say that. Geez, it seems to me that you are saying that all Jews no matter what should follow what you say. Remember, Ben. People may have the same hair, skin and eye color. But, there can never be a unison of thought. Even identical twins may have a different opinion on something.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And the basis of your argument only and only that Peter was a Jew and a Jew would never say that. Geez, it seems to me that you are saying that all Jews no matter what should follow what you say. Remember, Ben. People may have the same hair, skin and eye color. But, there can never be a unison of thought. Even identical twins may have a different opinion on something.

You are a Gentile telling a Jew how Jews should think, live and behave. It doesn’t go that way. Too artificial. Sorry!

Ben:

 

[swariffin]

You are a Gentile telling a Jew how Jews should think, live and behave. It doesn’t go that way. Too artificial. Sorry!

Ben:

Nope, I am just saying that 2 Jews may have 2 different ideas on something.

 

[ralphinal]

This is an antisemitic accusation because you know that Jews did not kill Jesus. The Romans did. In fact, Pope John 23rd. asked publicly for forgiveness from the Jewish People for this false accusation going on for almost two thousand years, and you still want to keep it afresh. The man was a Pope of your Church. You can’t take the
word of a Pope at his face-value?

Ben:

No, it is not anti-semitic. The Romans were the ones who signed his death order and killed him. There was causality. If you look at the Bible, it is clear that a small number of Jewish people were the ones who did it. It was not the Jewish people. That is the important part. The rank and file man living in Isreal at that time had nothing physically to do with it and did not even know what was going on.

And before you accuse people of anti-semitism, I suggest you learn more about them.

 

[carmalina]

For anyone interested:

Spinozism is Pantheism. *Hen Kai Pan *(one and all, from the Greek). Pantheism has nothing to do with Christianity or Catholicism.

This is a Catholic, not Jewish forum?

The level at which Ben argues is empiricist. Not really useful for any approach to God.
I stand by my earlier statement - that line of approach, seems to me, a negative direction of thought that is not compatible with faith.

Disclosure: I’m working on a Ph.D. in philosophy and your refutations didn’t cut it for me. You’d have to go much farther. However, I don’t want to encourage you since the point of my original post was exactly this point - the war of ‘facts’ is futile, from either side, from any side. Reason rests on belief just as faith rests on belief. The only difference is that in one you are highly sceptical and in the other you are not. I believe that the position you espouse is highly nihilistic. I understand why you feel the way you do since I was of the same point of view as yourself for years. I’m relieved to have gotten off that see-saw and therefore, with much empathy, I wish you well in your journey to God. There are many very knowledgeable priests. Some have very rigorous philosophical training. I am surprised you stopped at the first try.

 

[Ben_Masada]

For anyone interested:

Spinozism is Pantheism. *Hen Kai Pan *

 

[Reuben_J]

No, it is not anti-semitic. The Romans were the ones who signed his death order and killed him. There was causality. If you look at the Bible, it is clear that a small number of Jewish people were the ones who did it. It was not the Jewish people. That is the important part. The rank and file man living in Isreal at that time had nothing physically to do with it and did not even know what was going on.

And before you accuse people of anti-semitism, I suggest you learn more about them.

Theologically speaking Jesus was killed by all mankinds (who are sinners).

The actual execution was done by the Roman soldiers who carried out the wishes of the Sanhedrins. Practically, the Jews had major role in his death. Today it is of no use to pin the blame on the Jews as the Killer of Jesus but Jesus’ words rang chillingly ominous "You who killed the prophets … ". Somehow, everyone is culpable for his death and this make the act of God truly awesome …