Something Bad That Jesus Did?

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

You keep saying how laughable and unbelievable the New Testament is, but how much more unbelievable is it than the Old Testament?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hmmmm, Jesus said, according to John the Apostle (4:22), “.…because salvation is from the Jews.” Jesus was a Jew, so our Salvation does come FROM the Jews. No problem.

Well my friend, you have all the right in the world to your opinion. Now, here’s mine: Let me startle you with the following statement, then I’ll explain it: If Israel existed at the time of Noah, there would have been no Flood.

Do you remember why was the Flood necessary? Because the Earth had become corrupt and the inhabitants had become depraved. (Gen. 6:12)

After the Flood God promised Noah that He would never doom Mankind again to such universal catastrophe. (Gen. 8:21) But what if Mankind became corrupt again? How would God make good His promise to Noah?

Isarael was on the make with the choice of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel was to be the pledge to guarantee God’s promise to Noah that the world would be saved from another such catastrophe. That’s what Jesus had in mind when he told the Samaritan woman that salvation is of the Jews. The salvation of Mankind. It’s absolutely illogic that Jesus could have ever meant it to be himself on an individual basis.

I know it’s hard for you to understand the place of Israel in the Counsel of God. But please, don’t discard it as a thing of nonsense. There is a lot to study about this.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’m not sure what you mean. In 70AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.

And in 30 CE, the Romans destroyed Jesus.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

[Well, yes I do. I look to 2000 years of teaching, all guided by the Holy Spirit. You’re making it up as you go along.

I’ve seen this argument raised numerous times (no, you’re not the first). I’ll look at it again, Ben. It didn’t convince the millions of Jews who converted, Ben, so I’m not concerned with it. But I will look at it for you.

You are not concerned with it! What do you have to fear? God ahead, check it out and bring me your views about that? I make nothing up; I just add logic to solve confusion.

Those millions of Jews you claim to have converted, they must have been of those of Hosea 4:6. Perishing for lack of knowledge.

Ben:
[/quote]

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well, I think we’ve come to a crucial question. You are saying that Jesus is preached differently by Paul than He is by the apostles, is that right?

We know Paul’s way well, but in your opinion, who do the apostles say that He is?

Yes, that’s right. From my researches in the NT, that’s exactly the conclusion I have arrived to. Never mind who the Apostles thought Paul was. They had enough reasons not to stand against Paul.

When the sun of Paul was rising, for that very reason, the sun of the Apostles started going down. The Jesus whom the apostles preached about, would make of the converts staunch defenders of the Jewish Law. (Acts 21:20)

Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children, and to renounce the Jewish customs. (Acts 21:21) Paul had apostatized from Judaism to give rise to Christianity.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

And last but not least, I am not re-writing the NT but adding logic to understand what is too confusing.

Ben:

Well, when you say this is true, but this is fabricated, guess what? That’s a re-write.

When you say Jesus couldn’t have claimed to be God because He was a loyal Jew, guess what? That’s a re-write.

Paul started the Christian sect and sucked the Nazarene sect into his little kingdom, guess what? That’s a re-write.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well my friend, you have all the right in the world to your opinion. Now, here’s mine: Let me startle you with the following statement, then I’ll explain it: If Israel existed at the time of Noah, there would have been no Flood.

Do you remember why was the Flood necessary? Because the Earth had become corrupt and the inhabitants had become depraved. (Gen. 6:12)

After the Flood God promised Noah that He would never doom Mankind again to such universal catastrophe. (Gen. 8:21) But what if Mankind became corrupt again? How would God make good His promise to Noah?

Isarael was on the make with the choice of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel was to be the pledge to guarantee God’s promise to Noah that the world would be saved from another such catastrophe. That’s what Jesus had in mind when he told the Samaritan woman that salvation is of the Jews. (Notworthy’s edit. correction: “…is from the Jews” carry on) The salvation of Mankind. It’s absolutely illogic that Jesus could have ever meant it to be himself on an individual basis.

I know it’s hard for you to understand the place of Israel in the Counsel of God. But please, don’t discard it as a thing of nonsense. There is a lot to study about this.

Ben:

Ben, I feel that I understand Israel’s role in Salvation more than most Catholics, and certainly more than most Christians. And Israel is the first-born Son and chosen to join the New Church first. But as promised to Abraham, this Covenant was for all the world, not just the first-Born. Esau-Jacob taught us this, in a way.

And its perfectly logical for Jesus to mean Himself. Israel, due to the Covenant Promises and Curses was meant to die, according to Deuteronomy. The only way to break out of a Covenant is for one of the parties to die (we hear this in the vows of the Wedding Covenant, “… til death do us part”). If Israel would have died, then what would mankind benefit. But if God died, then the Covenant could be renenewed without the curse.

But God couldn’t die… or could He?

Salvation comes from the Jews…

 

[NotWorthy]

And in 30 CE, the Romans destroyed Jesus.

Ben:

But that little tidbit has nothing to do with my point. Go back and read my original point over, Ben.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, I feel that I understand Israel’s role in Salvation more than most Catholics, and certainly more than most Christians. And Israel is the first-born Son and chosen to join the New Church first. But as promised to Abraham, this Covenant was for all the world, not just the first-Born. Esau-Jacob taught us this, in a way.

And its perfectly logical for Jesus to mean Himself. Israel, due to the Covenant Promises and Curses was meant to die, according to Deuteronomy. The only way to break out of a Covenant is for one of the parties to die (we hear this in the vows of the Wedding Covenant, “… til death do us part”). If Israel would have died, then what would mankind benefit. But if God died, then the Covenant could be renenewed without the curse.

But God couldn’t die… or could He?

Salvation comes from the Jews…

A few little things I didn’t understand in this post of yours: First, you seem to differentiate Catholicc from Christians.
Does it meant you don’t consider Catholics Christians?
Second, you say that “Israel chose to join the new Church first.” I am lost here. What does Israel have to do with Church? Third, the Abrahamic Covenant was with Israel only. With the whole world were only two covenants: The Edenic and the Noahite covenants.
The token of the Abrahamic Covenant was the circumcision, and Gentiles have nothing to do with it.

Now, with regards to the releasing of a party to the Covenant, God never broke His Covenant with Israel. According to Jeremiah 46:28, of the other nations, the Almighty will make an end of them
but of Israel, He will only chastise as we deserve.

There was a time though when Judah had rejected the “Waters of Shiloah.” I mean, God’s free protection according to the Covenant.
(Isa. 8:6) As a result, God had passed judgment on Judah for its removal from existence, but because of His promise to David in I Kings 11:36, that Judah would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem, Israel, the Ten Tribes had to redeem Judah. This is translated by Isaiah 9:8, when the Divine decree against Judah fell upon Israel instead. That’s when God rejected the "Tent of Joseph, the Ten Tribes, and reconfirmed Judah. (Psalm 78:67,68) Since then, God may chastise the new Israel from the stock of Judah but he will never break His covenant with us. (Jer. 31:35,36)

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well, when you say this is true, but this is fabricated, guess what? That’s a re-write.

When you say Jesus couldn’t have claimed to be God because He was a loyal Jew, guess what? That’s a re-write.

Paul started the Christian sect and sucked the Nazarene sect into his little kingdom, guess what? That’s a re-write.

Sorry my friend, but none of the above sounds re-writing to me but a work on what exists with the purpose to get some harmony out of contradiction.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

A few little things I didn’t understand in this post of yours: First, you seem to differentiate Catholicc from Christians.
Does it meant you don’t consider Catholics Christians?All Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholic.

Second, you say that “Israel chose to join the new Church first.” I am lost here. What does Israel have to do with Church? The Church is the Catholic Church. The Jews were the first Catholics. Many joined. I don’t know how accurate this is, but I had heard that by the end of the 1st century, fully 2/3rds of the Jews had converted to the Catholic Church.

Third, the Abrahamic Covenant was with Israel only. With the whole world were only two covenants: The Edenic and the Noahite covenants.
The token of the Abrahamic Covenant was the circumcision, and Gentiles have nothing to do with it.
The Mosaic Covenant had curses, one of which was death, and Israel hadn’t suffered it yet. That was my point. I could care less about whether Gentiles were a part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Now, with regards to the releasing of a party to the Covenant, God never broke His Covenant with Israel. According to Jeremiah 46:28, of the other nations, the Almighty will make an end of them
but of Israel, He will only chastise as we deserve. When did I say God broke His Covenant. God will never break a promise. So one of God’s promises was the curse of death to Israel under the penalties of the Mosaic Covenant. The only way to release Israel from this death was by the death of God - hence, Jesus the Messiah.

There was a time though when Judah had rejected the “Waters of Shiloah.” I mean, God’s free protection according to the Covenant.
(Isa. 8:6) As a result, God had passed judgment on Judah for its removal from existence, but because of His promise to David in I Kings 11:36, that Judah would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem, Israel, the Ten Tribes had to redeem Judah. This is translated by Isaiah 9:8, when the Divine decree against Judah fell upon Israel instead. That’s when God rejected the "Tent of Joseph, the Ten Tribes, and reconfirmed Judah. (Psalm 78:67,68) Since then, God may chastise the new Israel from the stock of Judah but he will never break His covenant with us. (Jer. 31:35,36)

Ben:

Irrelevant, although interesting and enlightening. But irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry my friend, but none of the above sounds re-writing to me but a work on what exists with the purpose to get some harmony out of contradiction.

Ben:

The only harmony you are looking for is the one that fits your preconceived notions. Hence, the re-writes.

 

[chosen_people]

The Jews were the first Catholics. Many joined. I don’t know how accurate this is, but I had heard that by the end of the 1st century, fully 2/3rds of the Jews had converted to the Catholic Church.
QUOTE]

This is incorrect for several reasons:

Christians did not enjoy the privi lege (yes the word privilege comes from here) of the Jews exempting them from having to participate in state religious ceremonies (see Christians and the lions)

The Jews were involved from 70 c.e. onwards through to 135 c.e. in massive uprisings against the Roman empire and Christians did not join them in this enterprise

Catholicism accused all first century c.e. Jews of deicide (and continued to do so until 1965 except for the SSPX who still do)

One third of the Jews died fighting the Romans. If in addition 2/3 had converted there would have been zero Jews. As you can see we’re still here.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is incorrect for several reasons:

Christians did not enjoy the privi lege (yes the word privilege comes from here) of the Jews exempting them from having to participate in state religious ceremonies (see Christians and the lions)

OK… what’s that got to do with it? I stated that the Jews were the first Catholics. 100% of Christian converts through the first 15 years or so were Jews. Cornelius led the first trickle of Gentiles, and then the council of Jerusalem made it easier for Gentiles to convert.

The Jews were involved from 70 c.e. onwards through to 135 c.e. in massive uprisings against the Roman empire and Christians did not join them in this enterprise

Again, irrelevant. After the little episode with St. Stephen, “Stone-Gate” if you will, there was a rising anxiety between Christians and Jews. This was long before 70.

Catholicism accused all first century c.e. Jews of deicide (and continued to do so until 1965 except for the SSPX who still do)

irrelevant…

One third of the Jews died fighting the Romans. If in addition 2/3 had converted there would have been zero Jews. As you can see we’re still here.

No, the 1 million or so Jews killed in the Roman fighting would not have fit into this equation.

Although I’m not sure how accurate these figures are, for I only heard them once during an MP3 talk, your stats don’t disprove this at all.

 

[cheeto1]

Never mind who the Apostles thought Paul was.

The Jesus whom the apostles preached about, would make of the converts staunch defenders of the Jewish Law. (Acts 21:20)

I meant to say, who do the apostles say Jesus is?

 

[Valmabar]

Today, The Grace of God Come Upon us

My sibling Notwhorthy, I am sorry for come late. But the threat 131 post by you deserve answers that you wanted.

Is not yet a teaching of the Catholic Church that, Jesus is not God. What you recite from John is written but in many occasions John also say, indirectly, Jesus is not God. His Gospel is plenty of says like that, 8:28-29, “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” You know as I know, John was a later version of the Gospel’s made for give answers to the immense coming questioning. It is the why John uses so many doubled understanding statements. See? The Father taught him what to do. Who would taught to God what to do? If Jesus were God, he simple would say nothing because was just a talk from him to himself.

The Version of Trinity as it is post by the Church is much, much more late. God Exist? Yes. Jesus walked on earth? Yes. The Holly Ghost Exist? Yes. But only the ones that do not know God have the need for to think that the Three of Them are One in a Same Person. (I am putting the words in capital letters because God and me are We because Him).

I compared myself to Charles Darwin because at his time he were at first rejected and later accepted. And because he was right, despite of millions did not understand him.

You asked, Where is the faith? Ben Masada could give even better answer because the Jewish faith brought centuries of some faith to us without the concept of Holly Ghost and with others sons of God and not Jesus. Although, faith is a human thing not God’s. As Paul, the Great, define in Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” faith come not from God. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniconscient and then He need not Hope because He Know Everything and See Everything. We need faith because we are not God because if we were, we had Knowledge.

Where is the Grace? The Grace is in it, even you not knowing God yet you will be saved. Even if you are not yet practicing His Will you will be saved. But the way is a long way. And you need to take many steps to worthy it. Yes, you need to worthy it. The Grace is that, as God Made you He already put Salvation in you. Salvation is not something that you compete for as Paul, ignorantly, putted on Corinthians 9:24. Salvation is more like a School. You learn, practice and make points. When your points are enough, you are salved unless you loose some of those points but still you can make some more. You don’t compete against others than yourselves.

I am not reading the Bible in a wrong way. You, oriented by the Official Catholic Church, are.

I have seen your debate with Ben Masada. And he is correct in some of his insertions. By the OT Jesus is not the Messiah. The Prophecies that supposedly describe the Messiah take him as a man, descendant of David, who had to be a king in a way that men were in that time, should appyrising against the international domination, get freedom for Israel and had to reign over Israel and over the nations.

Accordingly to our Christians interpretations, Jesus did not fit into it. And mostly because what is written in the Bible itself. If you take your Bible you will see one genealogy for Joseph in first Matthew. Another genealogy is in Luke 3. When somebody observed that was impossible the two be right because were two differents fathers for Joseph, another one came up with the story that Luke put the genealogy of Mary and Joseph as a son. Ok. The problem is that, have not Joachim (Joaquim for some) in none of the genealogy. So, Joachim and Anna are the parents of Mary. It is not me saying it. Is the Catholic Church traditions, since the first Christians.

Ah!. The other one? The magical description for the birth of Jesus say that, Mary were impregnanted through the Power of the Holly Ghost, so, he is not David’s descendant in these way.

As I said before, like Ben Masada said, he believe not in more than 20% of with is the NT, I don’t believe in more than 20% of the OT. Have many unknowledge been attributed to God in there. One of those say about that had a Covenant between God and the people of Israel in separate. Also, only those that don’t remember God as He Is would say it have been done. Ben Masada is looking for to put understanding on the Christian mess but he had to look for it in himself home.

God would not ever do the Covenant because He already Knew that, the Covenant was about to be broken by man. It is like you go to a jockey club and be convinced to make your bet. But the owner of the club already knew what animal will be the winer. And he know the wagerer who will loose. So it is not a Covenant it is a deceit.

The men did the proposal and invented that God accepted. When the things went wrong, the new priests had to come up with new answers. If God had part on it, it would not failed.

And is because of it that we are stucked in our religious evolution. The Theologians and doctors of the law still talking about the sex of the angels, instead of talk about God Himself.

May God Concede Some Knowledge to the littlests of His Children.

 

[NotWorthy]

Valmabar?

I have trouble understanding your English, but I think my bigger problem is trying to figure out your teachings. There are far too many errors in your post to address any one. The more you post, the more gnostic your beliefs appear.

I’m sorry, my friend. Gnosticism isn’t the way to go, as has been proven numerous times over the last 2000 years.

Christ’s Grace and Peace to you and may He enlighten you to the Truth!

 

[Valmabar]

This just goes to show that we do need Church tradition to explain the Bible. Here’s someone who read the story, but didn’t understand the kind of story it was.

This is a “clever answer” story. Jesus, like a lot of rabbis, loved to teach by asking questions or getting people to make comebacks. He knew that this woman was clever and would be able to make clever comebacks, so Jesus got her to argue with him.

There are other “clever answer” stories in the Bible, but Jesus usually ends them by trumping the clever or right answer to make the person realize that he needs to do what he says, or to do more than that.

In this case, Jesus was evidently so pleased by the woman and her answer that he felt no need to use her answer to tell her that she wasn’t living right or doing enough. He set her up as a good example, instead.

May God Bring His Light to our minds.

I am cotting this thread to give some answer to the questioning on my posts by NotWhorty. I am sorry my dear, my English is really bad. I admit it. Please be patient because I am trying hard to be clear.

I know is very difficult to understand what I am trying to say because what is behind me is a entire life of learning and we just met. For to understand better the God’s Knowledge we had to study the entire Bible with the vision from the Knowledge Concerning God. Doing it, step by step, you would understand better my insertions.

First of all, we should acknowledge God, and them read the Bible step by step looking if is there any contradiction our not. This was the method that I learned. But it is not what bring me here now.

What I say to you now is that, What Jesus really did bad were not write anything of his biography or his teachings. He left it to others to do for him. If he had, and had not differents versions of it and we would to continue discussing his teachings but in a more solid way.

The thread I brought up above will help me because I am with Ben in this matter. He is right. Jesus did something bad to that woman but our Church is doing worse to all women.

Ah! Just for everybody know, I am not Agnostic in that way you are thinking. They sprout from the first century to the fourth. So, they were not gone 2.000 years ago. I even don’t know enough about their phylosophies. I saw some documentaries about it and I like some of their teachings but some are just as mythical as the account in the Cannon.

About the passage above mentioned what I saw is that, talking to that woman, Jesus learn from her. That is one of the details that convinced me that, he is just a human and not our Father incarnated.

Know, supposedly I am wrong and Mintaka, the author of the thread above, is right. Jesus already knew what the woman had to bring about for teaching not only the Apostles and his disciples around him but all the generations that came and will come. The Gospel didn’t say that, Jesus thought the woman what to say, Mintaka says that, he knew what her have to teach but it came from herself. And I agree with these view at this point.

So, for Jesus, did not matter if was a woman teaching even the Apostles. Why thought our beloved Catholic Church still denying the priesthood to women? Is that a teaching of Jesus or teaching of Paul? Is the Catholic church Paul’s or Jesus’s Church?

Our Church need to do the Mea Culpa for mostly of the bad things that is coming upon us because the havest is so much greater than was then and God need much more workers for to help him to Stop the invasion of the ignorance. His people is dying for lack of Knowledge although He already Provided It to us.

I think, since the myth of the Eva and the serpent was post as true History inside the Bible, women have been having their heads crushed by men as like they were the serpent itself. Is not that, is written for men to do it so. Men just took advantage of it for excuse their wrongdoings.

In the same way, Why marriaged man can not be a functional priest? Jesus called for Cephas and have not evidence that Cephas broke his vows to be Apostle and later, head of the Church. Why man that are less than Cephas still imposing the contrary?

I am worried NotWorthy and I feel really sorry for those that are dying for lack of Knowledge, because are not enough workers for harvest so great Fields of God.

Fabricate answers to the questioning of others is not so difficult. The problem is to live with the consequences of it.

May God Bring Peace, Understanding and Reconciliation to us all.

 

[cheeto1]

I meant to say, who do the apostles say Jesus is?

Don’t forget about me

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Valmabar:

About the passage above mentioned what I saw is that, talking to that woman, Jesus learn from her. That is one of the details that convinced me that, he is just a human and not our Father incarnated.

No that is not right. Jesus is not the Father incarnate. Jesus in the “Word,” the second “person” of the One Triune God. That is why Jesus always talks of His Father in Heaven. The Trinity is a very Holy Revelation from Jesus, the Son of God, and cannot be found in Scripture before the New Testament. There are prefigurements and prophecies in the Old Testament, but no more.

This was the most Important revelation ever handed to us mortals about the nature of God and it could only be revealed by the Son of God Himself, no one else. But He is still One in Substance with the Father in His divinity.

But not very many Jews (or gentiles either) could accept this teaching by Jesus, not in His own time, and not now.

Jesus always said that His works were God His Father’s testimony that what he taught was true. But many people were not impressed with the wondrous miracles of Jesus. They quickly forgot them, or ignored them. But even today it is a testimony. One that should provoke some thought.