Lets say you do succeed in your quest to discredit and ultimately destroy Christianity,
**AM, what you tell me does not stand the test of Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if they don’t speak according to this pattern, it’s because there is no light in them.” Would you submit what you tell me to this test and get a passing grade? I doubt it very much.
**Now, read Isaiah 53:8.9. It says in there that exiles for the Jews is like being cut off from the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel and being assigned graves among the nations. Then, if you read Ezekiel 37:12, the end of the exile is like resurrection, when God opens those graves and bring the Jews back to the Land of Israel. That’s exactly what Hosea meant in 13:14. God’s redemption of the Jewish People from the death of exile, back to the Land of the Living. You err for being too literal. The main theme of the Scriptures is nothing that is said but the People whom what is said is about.
Jews are not that irrational.
And it is a pity that you don’t have a Biblical evidence for that.
So let me get this straight; you’re using secular history to prove your position (that Daniel was composed in the 2nd century B.C.), while simultaneously throwing out secular history on the grounds that it’s not Biblical because it contradicts your composition date?
It’s not that I need to prove anything, nor that any one person would necessarily be worth the cost of that proof; nor is it so that I am in control of the deliverance of proofs or evidences to people. Don’t you understand that you have taken Moses’ proof and overridden it with your interpretation of his writings?
I have not overwritten what Moses gave to the Jewish as proof … I use the Laws he gave to the Jewish on the behalf of God to understand the writings … that is why the Jewish are the better to explain the Tanakh than Christians.
But remember that there is an old and a new.
There is the Tanakh. It is impolite to call what is relevant to a People “old”… that is replacement theology.
Yet, nonetheless, because Christ was rejected and condemned by [some of] the Jews of His time indicates that, in order for you to accept His promotion of Judaism, you also need to accept that He is the ultimate representation of it; or else you are just misrepresenting His words by receiving what you like and/or can use and rejecting the rest.
Let’s see through evidences of your own NT who it is that is misrepresenting Jesus. In Matthew 26:59, it says that there were chief priests who sought false witnesses against Jesus. At last, as we find out in verse 60, two came forward. Now, what do you suppose they said about Jesus? Read verse 61 to find out.
Now tell me, this is not something the JEWS claim. This is part of the doctrine of Christianity. So … by logic, we can say that the Church is a false witness, no?
As for Jesus confirming Judaism, just read John 4:22.
Moreover, If you really believe(d) that Christ was a blasphemer; then I don’t suppose it would benefit you to bring back some of His words any more than it benefitted Saul when he brought back some of the animals of Amalek.
Jesus didn’t blaspheme. In Matthew 5:19, he upheld the commandments of the Laws … one of which is found in Deut 4:15,16. He even promoted the testimonies of the prophets, one of which is found in Hosea 11:9.
Paul is the one who blasphemed by placing Jesus’ name where the name of God is found in the testimonies of the prophets. He blasphemed as well by disregarding the Law of God. And another way is by his attempt at replacement theology.
JL: When was the Jewish canon set?
I am glad you have reminded me of this Scripture as I have meditated often on the content of that chapter – but not with such great focus as I would have liked (i.e. I remembered some of the contect often for reflection but had yet to locate the exact origin of the memory.) I would like to qoute a bit more of that chapter, actually all of it:
Do you understand that you have accused me of insanity? What you may not have known is that that is an accusation that has been placed on me before, and essentially for the same reason. (i.e. my faith in Christ and/or testimony that I received revelations of future events.) Moreover, the “proof” pertaining to the validity of that testimony came during an oppression enacted by individuals operating under a similar conclusion as you posess and at the expense of innocent life.
Now, I am not going to state that I exclude Scripture from the development of my faith, but I will have to disagree with your assumptions as to the motivation I had for reading and/or studying them. I wrote a few posts at Ben’s other thread, “A Challenge to Our Intelligence”, about the development of my faith from personal revelation if you would like to read them (especially relevant are # 227 & 230, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5727664#post5727664 ).
A strike to the head is not the best defense of what you are teaching. Sorry.
Again, since you have accused me of malpractice of a theological nature, and have insisted that I (and that one could) “quit” being a martyr; I basically feel that you should have to first prove your accusations against me and also I would implore you to understand that the “proof” I have provided, like many of the injustices I have suffered, has all to easily been made into a non-occurence. And this fact – that you can be misinformed about religious events that happen in our modern time – compels me, not to provide more “proof”, which, if possible, would presumably entail the [further] expense of innocent life; but rather to advise you that the main goal of a religious individual should not be to demand “proof”, but to provide the opportunity for faith. [For faith protects life; and faith allows for mercy.]
Typical non-rebuttal of those who adhere to Christianity whilst claiming it is founded on the Tanakh. I have given you many proofs. I have seen some attempts from you, but you have failed thus far to properly address my replies to them.
The burden of martyrdom is not the injustice(s) one suffers, neither is the goal thereof to evoke pity; but the burden of martyrdom is the concern one has for others. For, justice is established by the power and judgment of God; but, in the same instant, any hope one has had for another can vanish, and any such concern may prove ineffective, misguided, and unfruitful.
I find those who face the truth no matter how difficult and willingly give up preconceived notions that are based on fallacious arguments to be the more concerned for their fellow man. Then, they are able to light the way for others still in the dark. This has little to do with martyrdom so much as has to do with intelligence.
And, for reference, I was not trying to “guilt trip” you or accuse you falsely. You say you know the N.T. so well that you should have understood that those who deny the divinity of Christ are therein considered guilty of His blood.
Just because a writing claims something and is labeled the Word of God by others does not make it truth. I weigh things out using what I know and what I have. By this standard, I have come to see the truth is indeed in the Tanakh and that the NT is nothing more than a double edged sword.
And again, I am not advocating that you worship Christ as God; but that you understand [and/or accept (in lieu of accusing me)] that the relationship of the Two and Their bond, as it were, compels me, as a Christian, to advocate and argue that the nature of that relationship does not allow for the worship of God independent of the worship of His Son.
The only support for the NT that is found in the Tanakh is possibly Jeremiah 17. That would be to weed out those who are against from those who are for. After all, many want to join the covenant for reasons that are treacherous … only a handful actually understand and appreciate the reason for the covenant as it was set up by God with and through His People.
Thus was the problem during the time that Jesus lived.
I don’t advocate Paul’s version(s) of Christianity.
Paul was never a Pharisee and his so-called conversion was only a change of strategy. He had arrived to the realization that the more he would persecute the Nazarenes, the more they would grow stronger. So, he decided to join the Sect to fight it from within. But he continued to Damascus, where he spent three years in the Nazarene Synagogues, perhaps to get some positive history to impress the Apostles with, when he went up to Jerusalem.
I could give you more than a reason or two. First, he needed to establish himself in a credible position; and second, it was in the nature of the man that he was. If you read Acts 21, you will see how twice he lied heavily. First, when he got to Jerusalem, he agreed
**The Apostles did not see Jesus after his resurrection but after his crucifixion. (Acts 1:1-3) This is no proof of resurrection because there was no eyewitness to it. Jesus could very
as the rest of the church.
**Interesting! Talking about Muslims and Jews, you say, “I am not anti-Muslim.” Does it mean you are anti-Jewish? Then, you a Gentile Christian say to a Jew, “You mean nothing to me.”
Listen my friend, are you a Catholic? I assume you are. Do you believe what your superiors say, I mean Bishops and the Pope? I suppose you do. I know you are not going to believe this one, but most my informations about Daniel not being a prophetic book but historical, and the fact that it was written between 167 and 164 CE I am getting from the Catholic Church. Surprised? I have more. The Bishop Committee that worked on the composition of the New American Version of the Bible, Saint Joseph’s Edition, btw with the Imprimatur of the Pope Paulus PP. VI wrote a preface to every book of this edition, asserting that my descovery about Daniel is legal and tender according to the Jewish Canon. Therefore, the composition date is not mine but yours. I mean, your Church’s. How can you beat this one? The problem with you guys is that you don’t read before posting for others.