Something Bad That Jesus Did?

[NotWorthy]

God is talking about His sheep the Jewish People, who by that time were exiled in Babylon. That’s a reference to the religious leaders of prior to the exile who failed in their sherpherding of God’s sheep, which ended up being exiled. Wrong. God is talking about the lost Sheep of Judah, who were exiled in Babylon, and the lost sheep of Israel, who had been scattered all over the place.

If these leaders were the lost sheep, what does “I’ll give them to others” mean? In your logic, the author should have said, “I’ll give them back to your descendants”. That’s not what the author wrote.

This time, as the remnant of them was returning to the Land of Israel, God Himself would tend His flock. It means the establishment of the New Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah as one, when the Law, instead of being written in tables of stone, it would be written in the heart. That is, obedience motivated by one’s freewill and not compulsion. (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 34:11-13) Ben you are SO CLOSE!!! It’s like you’re on the one yard then. And then…

You have all the right in the world to think the way you please, but
Jewish prophecies must be interpreted by Jewish tools and not by strange tools from another religion.

Ben:

FUMBLE!!! Jewish prophecies are interpreted by the light of Christ. If not, you find a people that are simply stranded in the wilderness.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree with you 101 percent that resurrection of the dead is Christian doctrine. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Judaism, because there must be no contradiction in the Tanach, which is very clear that the dead will never return. (Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Sam. 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Prov. 2:19; Ezek. 26:20)

But Christians did not start then. Don’t forget that this report was given 50+ years after the alleged facts.

Ben:

Evidently you are in agreement with the Saduccees. But the Pharisees would have disagreed with you. It seems the Jews were not united on this matter.

St. Paul took full advantage of this discrepancy by starting a riot in the Sanhedrin simply by stating that he believed in the resurrection.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am sorry for the “pot to death” it was a lapse of the finger. Make it put to death. Yes, I know my friend. As you can see, I like to play. It helps to remind us that we are brothers if we’re able to laugh at ourselves from time to time.

They were always apart from each other. They were never together. What happened in Acts 15, we have been through it already. It was only a section of the Nazarene committee that Paul took part because he had agreed to come up to Jerusalem in order to let the Apostles know once and for all that the Diaspora was already in Paul’s hands, and that the “Judaisers” from Judea should wake up from their dream to restore the Synagogues lost to Paul.

Ben:

But, I seem to continue to miss your point here. Paul didn’t go to Jerusalem to tell them how the cow chews the fat. Paul goes and lets Jerusalem decide.

Then Jerusalem, Ben’s Church of the Nazarene, makes an edict that is binding on both Ben’s Church of the Nazarene and Ben’s Christian Church.

Paul doesn’t act like someone usurping power. He looks like someone looking to the Church leaders for guidance.

 

[zach_dunn]

I agree with you 101 percent that resurrection of the dead is Christian doctrine. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Judaism, because there must be no contradiction in the Tanach, which is very clear that the dead will never return. (Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Sam. 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Prov. 2:19; Ezek. 26:20)

But Christians did not start then. Don’t forget that this report was given 50+ years after the alleged facts.

Ben:

First of all, Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament, what He says goes. Jesus knows what the Old Testament says, what He teaches is truth. I don’t know what the Church teaches about those verses but I’m going to take its word over yours.

Just because the accounts of Jesus’ life and His teachings were recorded after the fact, you can’t exclude them as false. By your logic we would have to question the validity of at least Genesis because I’m sure it was written hundreds of years after it happened. Even more years than when Paul wrote about Jesus!

Pax,
Zach

 

[NotWorthy]

Moses was still living, wasn’t he? Joshua hadn’t been nominated yet, had he? So, it’s perfectly correct to use the verb in the future tense. “I will raise.”

Then why was all of Judea still waiting for the prophet like Moses to be raised from among you?

I told you already. You have all the right in the world to think what you please. But in matters of Jewish things, I think it’s safer to let me do the thought.

In light of the Christian Church, I think that has already happened. Your enlightened Fathers have done an admirable job of starting the Christian Church.

Regarding Christ consummating the Law

What’s the difference? Try Matthew 5:17 again.

Ben:

Try John 19:30 - When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished. (consummated)" And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Then why was all of Judea still waiting for the prophet like Moses to be raised from among you?

Well, we still have Jews with slavish personality

In light of the Christian Church, I think that has already happened. Your enlightened Fathers have done an admirable job of starting the Christian Church.

Paul was never one of our enlightened fore-fathers.

Regarding Christ consummating the Law
Try John 19:30 - When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished. (consummated)" And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

Jesus meant his predicaments were over, as he thought he had died.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Then why was all of Judea still waiting for the prophet like Moses to be raised from among you?

Well, we still have Jews with slavish personality

Hmmmm, it seems like absolutely none of the Jews knew that Joshua was the prophet like Moses, until now. How convenient.
"Notworthy:

In light of the Christian Church, I think that has already happened. Your enlightened Fathers have done an admirable job of starting the Christian Church.

Paul was never one of our enlightened fore-fathers.Then where did Gamaliel go wrong?!? I understood Paul was the brightest pupil of the brightest teacher.

"Notworthy:

Regarding Christ consummating the Law
Try John 19:30 - When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished. (consummated)" And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

Jesus meant his predicaments were over, as he thought he had died.

Ben:

Yeah, most people at their last breath find the strength to comment that their predicament is over.

 

[Ben_Masada]

First of all, Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament, what He says goes.

Fist of all, there is no such a thing as “Old Testament.” This is a misnomer that reflects Replacement Theology, which derives from Galatians 4:21-31. “Old Testament” gives the understanding that there is a “New Testament.” And the only NT that there is has nothing to do with Judaism.

Just because the accounts of Jesus’ life and His teachings were recorded after the fact, you can’t exclude them as false. By your logic we would have to question the validity of at least Genesis because I’m sure it was written hundreds of years after it happened. Even more years than when Paul wrote about Jesus!

There is no problem with Genesis being written hundreds of years after the facts. But it was written by Jews and according with being Jewish. The NT is not Jewish and Christians insist with it being part of Jewishness.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

NotWorthy:
Hmmmm, it seems like absolutely none of the Jews knew that Joshua was the prophet like Moses, until now.

They did and they do. You didn’t know because you have never found a Jew like me who takes the commission of Isaiah 42:6 to be light unto the Gentiles seriously. Usually, the other Jews are just like Jesus with an aversion to Gentiles.

Then where did Gamaliel go wrong?!? I understood Paul was the brightest pupil of the brightest teacher.

That’s what he said. His word lacked so much credibility that I wonder if he was not lying or just never said that.

Yeah, most people at their last breath find the strength to comment that their predicament is over.

You see? Even Jesus did not know that he was still alive. He had just past out for some hours. Haven’t you read about The Wedding of Jesus.?

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Yes, I know my friend. As you can see, I like to play. It helps to remind us that we are brothers if we’re able to laugh at ourselves from time to time.

But, I seem to continue to miss your point here. Paul didn’t go to Jerusalem to tell them how the cow chews the fat. Paul goes and lets Jerusalem decide.

Paul was cunny. He had one thing only in his agenda: To be able soon to transfer his headquarters from Antioch to Jerusalem. There was nothing he wanted more in his life than to take over the Nazarene synagogues of Jerusalem. That’s the reason why he acted submissively. But we all know that he didn’t give a damn to the recommendations of Jerusalem. He considered those recommendations as tales of old wives.

Then Jerusalem, Ben’s Church of the Nazarene, makes an edict that is binding on both Ben’s Church of the Nazarene and Ben’s Christian Church.

As I can see, you still don’t believe that the Sect of the Nazarenes was distinct from the Christianity of Paul. It’s too hard to fight against faith.

Paul doesn’t act like someone usurping power. He looks like someone looking to the Church leaders for guidance.

It was convenient to him to behave in the enemy’s territory. Then, he was satisfied with what he heard. That is, they would leave his churches alone from then on.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

Paul was cunny. He had one thing only in his agenda: To be able soon to transfer his headquarters from Antioch to Jerusalem. There was nothing he wanted more in his life than to take over the Nazarene synagogues of Jerusalem. That’s the reason why he acted submissively. But we all know that he didn’t give a damn to the recommendations of Jerusalem. He considered those recommendations as tales of old wives.

How do we know that?!? He took those commandments (not recommendations) back to Antioch and initiated the first Christian “Block-Party” - which is understandable considering that circumcision was no longer a requirement! Matter o’ fact, this could be the worlds first Mardi Gras!!!

As I can see, you still don’t believe that the Sect of the Nazarenes was distinct from the Christianity of Paul. It’s too hard to fight against faith.

As I can see, you avoided the question. You already know my thoughts on this matter.

It was convenient to him to behave in the enemy’s territory. Then, he was satisfied with what he heard. That is, they would leave his churches alone from then on.

Ben:

So, he tells his fellow Antiochenes, that Jerusalem needs to decide. Then he comes back and says, “Guess what! No Circumcision!” The Gentiles had to have praised Jerusalem for this decision, which makes them want to leave the control of Jerusalem and follow Paul?

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Evidently you are in agreement with the Saduccees. But the Pharisees would have disagreed with you. It seems the Jews were not united on this matter.

St. Paul took full advantage of this discrepancy by starting a riot in the Sanhedrin simply by stating that he believed in the resurrection.

And did you know that Paul was lying? Do you remember why he was arrested? It’s in Acts 21:28. “Because he was spreading his teaching everywhere against our People, our Laws, and against the Sanctuary”

When he was taken before the Sanhedrin, what did he say? It’s in Acts 23:6. That he had been arrested because of his hope in the resurrection." A lie that he decided to play on the members of the Sanhedrin with the purpose to cause an argument. That was enough for a great loss of credibility in his word.

Ben:

 

[cheeto1]

And did you know that Paul was lying?

He was lying that he was a Pharisee?
When you want the truth, where do you go?

 

[Ben_Masada]

How do we know that?!? He took those commandments (not recommendations) back to Antioch and initiated the first Christian “Block-Party” - which is understandable considering that circumcision was no longer a requirement! Matter o’ fact, this could be the worlds first Mardi Gras!!!

Are you sure he was that happy to obey? Take a look at Acts 15:29 for the recommendations: To abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit sexual union. Just try to avoid these things, they advised and told him farewell. Both parties were equally anxious to get rid of each other, as it seems. Now, let’s see if Paul gave a damn to those recommendations.

 

[cheeto1]

NotWorthy;4853406:

He said back to his people: "Eat whatever is sold in the market without raising any question of conscience. If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you. (I Cor. 10:25,27)

Continue on to verse 28: But if someone should say to you,
“This was offered in idol worship”, DO NOT EAT IT.

For the Titus verse, this was referring to rules of ritual cleanness, the “washing” rules that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for following, while not keeping the moral truths of God. The Colossians verse in no way goes against the Acts 15 recommendations, which did not call certain foods unclean, but rather said not to eat sacrificed meat or meat with life blood.

Thinking about lent now coming, along with its abstaining and
fasting, I have a question. How are the Jews sins forgiven
today? I heard there were no more animal sacrifices.

 

[Valmabar]

I said what?

I am sorry, I was away attending the other forum, ‘Christ Died Once For All’ because I thought they needed me more there for an while.

The question lifted by NotWorthy was about the Something Bad That the authors of the Gospels said Jesus Did. They said that, he called the woman by the name of dog, puppy for some. I was rebuked by Notworthy saying, dog was not so meaning at the time of Jesus. But he observed that, dog were considered a unclean animal. (for the sacrifice I understood). I put one thread only saying, You said. And is that why I quoted his answer.

Does the matter of fact Ben Masada have added that, Dog is a dog anyways. I was refferring to the fact of a dog be consided not a clean animal, not for the sacrifice but because some of them even had the bad habit of eat human cadavers. It is an well known fact at the first century. The dogs can not be blamed for that. Their owners were not supposed to leave them in famine.

What is great is that, we don’t need to go outside of the Bible to see many meanings for the word dog. Look yourselves at the OT and the NT. In these issue, the writers of the Bible really said that, Jesus did something bad.

Ben Masada and me agreed in these case. And he agrees with me what were done by Moses against the Egyptians were a bad thing. He were so close to admit the Truth but the opposition remembered him that, he had to admit the both cases. The agreement between you were based not on the Truth but on your need for to believe is nothing wrong with the Scriptures. Ben is more comfortable because he have to defend only the OT and my fellows Catholics need to defend the NT but need also to preserve the OT of be recognized as man hand’s made.

What I saw on your writings while I was here? Ben Masada thinking me, me, me. He defends the OT because in his vision the Jew people is more than others. My fellow Catholics also thinking me, me, me. They are defending the NT because it supposed give them some prerogative.

And I ask you, and where is God in your thoughts? Where is The Father of all of us? If you don’t mind, God did not command anybody to kill anyone. Is written? Yes… By who? By the same person who wrote thinking me, me, me.

The Hebrew that wrote the OT were not nationalists only, they were egoists too. The writers of the NT were taking for them more than God Said was for take. It is obvious, it is cristal clear that, what God Said Is Good; what the Holy Ghost Communicates Is Good, but, the mind man who wrote it were unable of to translate 100% of the Truth. Man have always interests. Although only few are capable of be more sharing like person. (Any of you ever had read the book, Who Wrote the Bible? Is a good one.

What we got is not the Word of God. What we have is a man made book with a minimum of Instructions From God. The text is plenty of Contradictions. In both Ts. Please my people, do not repeat the accusations that the Biblical writers said, God did because He Did Not. If He Did Any Law for mankind obey is because He Does It In First Place.

You all don’t know God and shouldn’t teach yours misunderstandings. Teach the good way. Teach what is for sure God Did or Will Do, not what your egos desired.

Is interesting to learn about the wrong things that Paul, Peter and others did, but now I am more interested on what bad Jesus did, or what he left to the writers say he did.

May God Send us some humbleness.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy;4853406:

How do we know that?!? He took those commandments (not recommendations) back to Antioch and initiated the first Christian “Block-Party” - which is understandable considering that circumcision was no longer a requirement! Matter o’ fact, this could be the worlds first Mardi Gras!!!

Are you sure he was that happy to obey? Take a look at Acts 15:29 for the recommendations: To abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit sexual union. Just try to avoid these things, they advised and told him farewell. Both parties were equally anxious to get rid of each other, as it seems. Now, let’s see if Paul gave a damn to those recommendations.

Where does “it seem” this?

He said back to his people: "Eat whatever is sold in the market without raising any question of conscience. If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you. (I Cor. 10:25,27)

Moreover, he considered those things as Jewish myths or rules linvented by men. And that to those who are clean all things are clean. (Titus 1:14,15) And that no one is free to pass judgment on what they would drink or eat. (Col. 2:16)

As you can see, it doesn’t seem to anyone with the minimum of commonsense that Paul took any of the recommendations of the Apostles at heart.

Ben:

Weren’'t those sanctions already lifted? I believe its Galatians that demonstrates that this edict had already been freed up.

 

[NotWorthy]

The question lifted by NotWorthy was about the Something Bad That the authors of the Gospels said Jesus Did. They said that, he called the woman by the name of dog, puppy for some.** I was rebuked by Notworthy saying, dog was not so meaning at the time of Jesus. **But he observed that, dog were considered a unclean animal. (for the sacrifice I understood). I put one thread only saying, You said. And is that why I quoted his answer.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Which, of course, goes for the rest of your post.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Where does “it seem” this?

Do you think James, the chairman in Jerusalem was happy to have lost most of his synagogues in Asia Minor to Paul? Besides, he had a good to membory to remember what Paul had done 14 years before when he caused that havoc in Jerusalem as to endanger even the Nazarene’s reputation among the local Jews. It was for having saved Paul’s life that day from the Jews who wanted to kill him that the Lawyer Tertullus in Court befor Felix, connected Paul as a ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 24:5) The faster James could get him out of Jerusalem the best. So, he drew some kind of recommendations for the former Nazarenes disciples and got Paul out of their sight.

Weren’ those sanctions already lifted? I believe its Galatians that demonstrates that this edict had already been freed up.

 

[Ben_Masada]

He was lying that he was a Pharisee?
When you want the truth, where do you go?

To the only Scriptures that Jesus used know and handle.

Ben: