The Alleged Sons of God

[w_stewart]

Perhaps if you are looking at it through the lenses of the Church. But if you decide to look at it through your own lenses, perhaps not.

Of course there was no other way of looking at it. After all, the New Testament is a church document.

 

[w_stewart]

Stephen’s alleged stoning never happened for three reasons: First, you claim that the Jewish leaders did not execute Jesus because they had lost that power to the Romans. Then, all of a sudden they executed Stephen. That’s a contradiction. Second, the Sanhedrin did not work that disorganized in the function of an execution. And third, the speech of Stephen was too Christian, when Christianity had another 15 years to come about with Paul. Your argument is too full of contradictions.

The execution of Stephen had the approval of the Roman government.

And who said Christianity started to exist only when Paul was converted? That is purely wrong.

Christianity was already there when Christ was executed. In fact, Saul, who later became Paul, was one of the persecutors of the early Church.

As far as the history is concerned, there was no contradiction. Contradiction exists only in the mind of the Jews.

The Pharisees never wanted a Christian organization in Israel because it would introduce idolatry and Greek Mythology into the Country.

Sure. Sure. But that should not be a ground fo arrogance.

 

[adrift]

**Stephen’s alleged stoning never happened for three reasons: First, you claim that the Jewish leaders did not execute Jesus because they had lost that power to the Romans. Then, all of a sudden they executed Stephen. That’s a contradiction. Second, the Sanhedrin did not work that disorganized in the function of an execution. And third, the speech of Stephen was too Christian, when Christianity had another 15 years to come about with Paul. Your argument is too full of contradictions.

The Pharisees never wanted a Christian organization in Israel because it would introduce idolatry and Greek Mythology into the Country.

We don’t call ourselves a People of God. The Bible does. Have you read the Bible lately? It might be good to you to do that.**

As I have pointed out to you, it is not a contradiction.

Quote:
The answer to your question is given by William Carroll an historian.
I am going to paraphrase what he said because it is very lengthy. Pilate had been dismissed and a Marcellus was appointed his replacement by Vitellius who died and like all official appointments lapsed with the death of the emperor. Gaius appointed a Marullus. Gaois permitted a greater degree of autonomy to the provinces than had Tiberius. . Gaius appointed Marcellus within a few days of becoming emperor but because of the vagaries of sea travel the receipt of his appointment or the general uncertainty about the policy of the new emperor, together with the disgrace of Pilate and its cause, may have persuaded Marcellus not to intervene with the Sanhedrin. To shorten it the prohibition against the Jews administrating the death penalty was temporarily suspended.

The second reason is a contradiction of itself.

The third reason is nonsensical. Stephen was a Christian. His speech would be suspect if it did not reflect that. It is mere conjecture on your part not reasoning.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi Ben

I must admit, I have never heard a Militant Jew , like yourself, before. I have found most Jewish people that I have met over the years to be very tolerant people, who respect Christians though they disagree with them. They do not have any problem integrating into Western Society at all and in ordinary secular activity they are, generally, indistinguishable from Christians; my own Accountant is such an individual. This is unlike many Muslims who do seem to have some difficulty integrating ( no disrespect intended ).

However when I read the ‘material’ that you have posted here it does, to say the least, raise the hackles somewhat; I really do not think that you are doing Judaism any favours in launching such a blistering and unfounded attack on Christianity.
Who is this ’gentleman’ Mr Hinnerman; I can find no references to him anywhere. I have tried to ‘google’ his name but came up with nothing.

I understand that this ‘story’ was first circulated by a Roman militant anti-Christian; which was blatant disinformation against Christians at the time.( as noted in post 6 by ‘The Questioner’).

With regard to your references to the Bible: people have abused the Bible for years to misquote passages out of context to support their extremist views. For instance Gen 9:27, Gen 11, Acts 12:26 has been used, out of context, to support the ideas of slavery, segregation and apartheid in society. That is why, in my opinion, The Pope and The Magisterium is so important to interpret the Bible correctly ( no disrespect intended to non-Catholics).

With regard to the passage from the Gospel that you quote: Mark 7:24 KJV ‘…and entered into an house and would have no man know it: but He could not be hid…’ Jesus was quite well known at the time and often took time out for reflection and prayer as He did in His time in The desert, and in The garden of Gethsemane prior to His arrest. If you read the whole passage He did so here as well until He was discovered by ‘… a certain woman, whose daughter had an unclean spirit…’

So I really think you should rethink your position Ben.

Where does this anti-Christian attitude come from, by the way, Ben. My own view about why the Jewish people rejected Jesus is that He wasn’t what they were expecting; simple as that. I, personally, am quite tolerant of all mainstream religions; I think, generally, they are a good thing in society; though we disagree; Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Muslim; the alternative is chaos. But it cannot be allowed for extremists to sow seeds of division between people.

**Let me start by explaining to you why I have taken this differenct turn from the common Jew that you are acquainted with. Jesus was Jewish, and I am sure you agree with me. A religious Jew, btw. My position here is the one of a defender of Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus, from the distorting image all Christians
promote of it to the world by inserting Hellenistic innovations into it. How’s that?

As a Christian picks up a Jew to preach to the world that he was born of God with a woman, he is telling to the uninformed that there is room in Judaism for Greek Mythology. And I find this an insult to Judaism, because our image has been disseminated as the image of a pagan religion.

Now, how do you want me to rethink this position? Agreeing with the Christian position that what they say is true? Consider that thousands of former Jews, who are pereshing for lack of Biblical knowledge, according to Hosea 4:6 are converting to Christianity perhaps for believing this false message about Judaism.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, I gotta admit you keep things lively on these forums.

Are you a fan of Roswell, the 2nd biggest conspiracy of all time?

No, I am not. In fact, I have never heard of the guy.

 

[Ben_Masada]

If we weren’t distorting it as you say, what is the correct image of Judaism?

Here’s what I see: a small Middle Eastern ethnic group that believes that they are the chosen people of God by birth, created to rule over all other people. Is this true or not? I am not trying to bait you here. Where is it in your law that you should care about anyone outside of the Jewish nation?

The innovation brought on by Christianity is that the “chosen people of God” is by faith instead of by birth, which rests on the divinity of Jesus. This is the real importance of the virgin birth… it was a spiritual birth, the same way all Christians are ‘born’.

The relationship of the chosen people of God and those that have not accepted the faith (at least in theory) is prompted by including those people in salvation instead of excluding and ruling over them.

**You probably have never read the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle. Otherwise, you would not have asked the above question about God’s relationship with the People of Israel.

The change you mention in the concept of choseness from the Jewish People to Christianitay is part of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology, which some Scholars have classified as a kind of Antisemitism. (Gal. 4:21-31)

Regarding your question about where in our Law there is mention of our care for Gentiles, you can read Isaiah 42:6, as of being Israel for light unto the nations. You can read Isaiah 56:1-8 about the Gentiles being welcome to join. You can read Isaiah 2:2,3, about being Zion for the instruction to the Gentiles about God’s Words, etc. etc.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, what do you think of those who say there is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus? Is this not the foundational myth of Judaism which legitimizes the state of Israel and if it is not a factual event, then where is the legitimacy of Israel?

In the Bible; in the Scriptures. If you don’t find legitimacy for Israel, where is Christianity, stading in the vaccuun? If there is no legitimacy for Israel, where is the legitimacy for the Church?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Of course there was no other way of looking at it. After all, the New Testament is a church document.

But I believe you are an independent entity from the Church. The Church is composed by men. And I believe every man should have a mind of his own.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The execution of Stephen had the approval of the Roman government.

And who said Christianity started to exist only when Paul was converted? That is purely wrong.

Christianity was already there when Christ was executed. In fact, Saul, who later became Paul, was one of the persecutors of the early Church.

As far as the history is concerned, there was no contradiction. Contradiction exists only in the mind of the Jews.

Sure. Sure. But that should not be a ground fo arrogance.

Take a look at Acts 11:26. Barnabas was a Nazarene taking care of the Synagogue of Antioch, when he decided to invite Paul to help him out for being an old frined of his. After a whole year that Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ, the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. That’s when Christianity started: With Paul in Antioch.

 

[Ben_Masada]

As I have pointed out to you, it is not a contradiction.

The second reason is a contradiction of itself.

The third reason is nonsensical. Stephen was a Christian. His speech would be suspect if it did not reflect that. It is mere conjecture on your part not reasoning.

The third reason is an interpolation either by gospel writers or by the Church. You do not possibly deny that the Church, at the time they selected the writings to enter the Canon of the NT was a master of interpolations. It interpolated even from Josephus in order to get a better foundation for the Church.

 

[w_stewart]

But I believe you are an independent entity from the Church. The Church is composed by men. And I believe every man should have a mind of his own.

But we have to submit to competent authority.

 

[w_stewart]

Take a look at Acts 11:26. Barnabas was a Nazarene taking care of the Synagogue of Antioch, when he decided to invite Paul to help him out for being an old frined of his. After a whole year that Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ, the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. That’s when Christianity started: With Paul in Antioch.

That is fallacious. The essence of an organization is not the name it is called.

Christian is a follower of Christ. So even before the conversion of Paul, there were already followers of Christ which could validly be called Christians.

 

[Ben_Masada]

But we have to submit to competent authority.

Please, no offense meant, but this is a thought of the Dark Ages, when the Church was King in the hearts of men.

 

[Ben_Masada]

That is fallacious. The essence of an organization is not the name it is called.

Christian is a follower of Christ. So even before the conversion of Paul, there were already followers of Christ which could validly be called Christians.

I agree with your 101 percent when you say that even before Paul’s conversion, there were followers of Jesus; but they were not Christians. They were called Nazarenes, after Jesus of Nazareth. Christians were called so after the Christ of Paul, a title he granted on Jesus in order to promote his Church.

 

[adrift]

The third reason is an interpolation either by gospel writers or by the Church. You do not possibly deny that the Church, at the time they selected the writings to enter the Canon of the NT was a master of interpolations. It interpolated even from Josephus in order to get a better foundation for the Church.

It was not an interpolation by either the Gospel Writer or by the Church. You stating it is not proof and you never provide anything other than your interpolations. Since there is more than enough proof about Josephus, I would have to agree with his case but only with his.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins
and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of Joseph’s. At least, Joseph’s and Mary’s names won’t be smeared by Agnostics, who are only too ready to acknowledge.

challenging faiths is a good thing. at least you care enough to do so. most people either don’t really care about their faith or don’t want to offend anyone.

is it theoretcially possible that Jesus was a fraud and christianity is a lie? yes. but when you look at all the evidence, it’s very unlikely. at least that’s how i see it. faith is certain for me though. i’m willing to bet my life on it, or at least i hope i am willing.

i think there is enough old testament prefigurement about Christ that warrants jews to seriously consider the claims of christianity.

the bottom line is that one story from a know anti-christian is not proof. it’s evidence and rather weak evidence. even in the new testament in mentions that the jews made up a story that Jesus’s body was taken away by his followers. the muslims believe that Jesus didn’t die on the cross. it doesn’t surprise me that there is some ancient writtings speculating on Jesus’s origins.

 

[w_stewart]

Please, no offense meant, but this is a thought of the Dark Ages, when the Church was King in the hearts of men.

Are you suggesting that Jews are not obligated to submit themselves to competent authority?

 

[w_stewart]

I agree with your 101 percent when you say that even before Paul’s conversion, there were followers of Jesus; but they were not Christians. They were called Nazarenes, after Jesus of Nazareth. Christians were called so after the Christ of Paul, a title he granted on Jesus in order to promote his Church.

But then again, the teachings adhered by the so-called Nazarenes were the same set of doctrines accepted by the so-called Christians. The sweetness of the rose remains whether you call it by another name.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It was not an interpolation by either the Gospel Writer or by the Church. You stating it is not proof and you never provide anything other than your interpolations. Since there is more than enough proof about Josephus, I would have to agree with his case but only with his.

Adrift, you are much more intelligent than you think I can see through. You know yourself about the mastery of the Church in interpolations. But I am not going to keep pressing this button in order not to embarrass you. But a great percentage of even the gospels has been interpolated by the Church.

 

[Ben_Masada]

challenging faiths is a good thing. at least you care enough to do so. most people either don’t really care about their faith or don’t want to offend anyone.

is it theoretcially possible that Jesus was a fraud and christianity is a lie? yes. but when you look at all the evidence, it’s very unlikely. at least that’s how i see it. faith is certain for me though. i’m willing to bet my life on it, or at least i hope i am willing.

i think there is enough old testament prefigurement about Christ that warrants jews to seriously consider the claims of christianity.

the bottom line is that one story from a know anti-christian is not proof. it’s evidence and rather weak evidence. even in the new testament in mentions that the jews made up a story that Jesus’s body was taken away by his followers. the muslims believe that Jesus didn’t die on the cross. it doesn’t surprise me that there is some ancient writtings speculating on Jesus’s origins.

Well, after reading this post of yours, the only thought I had is that you are not too far from being the possessor of an emancipated mind. Notwithstanding the need from time to time to grab the rope of faith.