The Mark of the Beast

[minkymurph]

Just throwing this in as a red herring. The adultress that was brought before Jesus; where was the man? I assume she didn’t commit adultry on her own. How come the man got off?

 

[Lapell]

Ryanoneil, you should have left this one [the passage of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus (Note by Lapell)] for another poster of less quality which I think you have. It’s embarrassing for lack of a better word to believe that such a case really happened. First of all, Jewish authorities would never be the ones to execute the stoning of a criminal sentenced by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin would never sentence an adulterous woman to be stoned to death in a day or two. It would take from months to even years. Then, who condemned that woman to be stoned to death? Obviously only the Sanhedrin could. Did she get stoned? No, she didn’t. How could a man in the street change a decision of the Sanhedrin? Then, the case is painted like a gang of Scribes and Pharisees who caught the woman in the act and brought her to Jesus. Come on Raianoneil! Please, have mercy on yourself! If you want to retell this case, at least, tell us as a parable. Anyone with a head on his shoulders knows that this case never happened.

So, you mean to say that when the deacon Stephen was stoned with the clothes left at the foot of the young Saul of Tarse, it was after the Sanhedrin sentenced him to death by stoning? Thank you for the information!

 

[Lapell]

Sorry my friend, but for all the above to be spoken by a Jew on an individual basis cannot be Jewish. Therefore, not true.

Haven’t a few rabbis, some of them Chassidim, spoken that way or in a way quite similar? “Come to me, those who thirst, and you will receive living water”]

 

[ryanoneil]

Just throwing this in as a red herring. The adultress that was brought before Jesus; where was the man? I assume she didn’t commit adultry on her own. How come the man got off?

Who knows? He may have run off like Susanna’s partner (Dan 13:34-41) which is pure speculation on my part. We can only say the woman brought before Jesus was accussed. There is no evidence she was comdemned.

 

[Lapell]

How do YOU know what Jesus wrote on the ground, Ben [in the passage of the adulterous woman brought by a group to Jesus]? The passage never said what he wrote. All you can do is speculate about it, and it just may or may not be as you said…

 

[Ben_Masada]

I thought infallibility was whenever the Pope would speak about matters of faith and morals, not just when an Ecumenical Council (not with the Cardinals, but with the bishops) would take place or an encyclical is written!

If infallibility is when the Pople speaks about matter of faith and morals, what kind of morals do you see in the organization of a Crusade? Pope Innocence III knew very well what Crusades did best: Murders. Don’t you agree that the Pope failed in his infallibility?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5289313:

minkymurph;5286027:

**Would you be able to produce a post of mine where I say that Judaism is the only way of salvation? No, you can’t. But you are always ready to put words in my mouth which were never in my mind. Salvation from what? Who is lost here to need salvation? Judaism is a way of life and not to get salvation from what I don’t know.
My form of Judaism is Biblical. Biblical Judaism. The Judaism of the Prophets. If you want a link to my Judaism, read the Tanach, the Torah and the Prophets. The historical books and the Wisdom books. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5289313:

minkymurph;5286027:

Ben Masada;5284568:

minkymurph;5280798:

Originally Posted by minkymurph:
"The Pope speaks infallibly only when there is concensus of opinion."

Catholic’s believe Peter had a specific role in that regard but it was not an elitist role which it is sometimes interpreted as.

Of course, there had been no “virginal conception” anywhere in actual humanity, and none after either, so it sure is something most extraordinary. Greek mythology (or any other mythology for that matter) is not needed if something of the kind happens. I know you don’t believe it, which doesn’t mean at all that it actually didn’t happen, while we believe it, and we do believe it happened, which to the eyes of the people of the centuries after Jesus’ time it may haveor have not happened. It is one of those matters pertaining to faith. It just CANNOT be proved per se!

**But of course! If the Church says so, everything goes. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

OK

I know.

You are inserting something that is not there. There is absolutely no indication that the Sanhedrin decreed anything. Jesus does discredit the Pharisees though.

If the Sanhedrin had not decreed the stoning of that woman, what was the use for all that charade? Where did those men catch that woman and thew her at Jesus? She did not deny the accusations. Can’t you see how embarrassing all this is?

There is no way to say what he wrote. Jesus says that verbally. Jesus is eluding their trap entirely- neither authorizing the stoning (which would incriminate himself) nor contradict Moses (compromise his teaching). And Jesus knew they could not execute the woman without Rome’s reprisal, so he is called their bluff. They had no intention to stone her (only discredit him), so Jesus said put your money where your mouth is. He turned the tables on them and they where made to look like sinners and compromisers.

** What is the Logic in your saying that there was no way to say what he wrote, because he said verbally? It’s only obvious that he wrote what he wrote and repeated verbally. Do you know who was bluffing in this fantastic story? The Gentile who wrote that gospel, because the case never occurred.**

Wrong. By your own claim christianity didn’t exist during (John 7:40) These are Jews who thought Jesus was the prophet like Moses/ the Christ.

What are you talking about? By the time the guy who wrote John 7:40 the map of Christianity was pinned all over Asia Minor and North Africa.

Isaiah promised Hezekiah that salvation was certain, but there would be a lengthy period before that salvation was realized. Remember Isaiah (7:14; 8:3-4)? In fewer than seventy years Ephraem was utterly conquered, dispersed, and left without a trace, for rejecting the Davidic line of kings.

Read my new thread “Almah versus Betulah” and you will understand about Isaiah 7:14.

 

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;5289938:

Ben Masada;5289313:

minkymurph;5286027:

**Would you be able to produce a post of mine where I say that Judaism is the only way of salvation? No, you can’t. But you are always ready to put words in my mouth which were never in my mind. Salvation from what? Who is lost here to need salvation? Judaism is a way of life and not to get salvation from what I don’t know.
My form of Judaism is Biblical. Biblical Judaism. The Judaism of the Prophets. If you want a link to my Judaism, read the Tanach, the Torah and the Prophets. The historical books and the Wisdom books. **

You said something to that effect that everyone needed to convert to Judaism but you may not have used the word Salvation. Perhaps that is something you do not believe in, I shouldn’t have assumed you do. However with respect, you have often put words in other people’s mouths yourself.

With regard to reading, I have a Bible. I can read it anytime I want. There are copies of the Tanach in the College Library. I can read it anytime I want. However, this would tell me little about Biblical Judaism or the Judaism of the Prophets as not all Jews agree on interpretations of these writings and as you said, I have a particular religious bias and I’m ‘need of repair,’ so it’s likely I would draw all the wrong conclusions, wouldn’t I? Unless of course one simply needs to read these books literally, word for word in order to understand them.

There are many websites I could direct someone to if they wanted information on Catholicism. I wouldn’t tell someone to read the Catechism and the Bible if they wanted to know something. All major religions have a website, and many not so major ones explaining their believe and interpretations of scripture. Few people would have difficulty directing someone to a webpage. I am very involved with inter-faith dialogue as I said and anytime I have asked someone of another religious persuasion if they have a website, they have been more than happy to give me the address of the homepage.

 

[minkymurph]

**Well, at least I made you feel nostalgic, and perhaps younger. And maybe, you won’t do it again, because you must have detected that I am not here to win Catholics away, but to claim Jesus as one of our own, which is exactly what he was: A Jew and not a Christian.

Ben: **

Ben, this is your post. I don’t know anyone who disputes the fact that Jesus was a Jew.

 

[minkymurph]

**Behold a paradox! This Roy Schoeman had to quit Judaism in order to appreciate what he had left behind. No wonder Hosea said that “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6) As I can see, he never understood, neither before not after becoming a Catholic, the meaning of what Jesus meant by saying that “Salvation is from the Jews.”

I recommend you my thread about “Salvation is from the Jews.” I am glad I posted it before reading his book. I was not influenced. And last but not least, he reminds us that the Jews are the chosen People, and he deliberately chose to quit being one of the chosen to claim from outside what he lost. That’s indeed a paradox!

Ben: **

Perhaps this post gave me the notion Ben you believe Salvation is only possible by becomming a Jew.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5296759:

minkymurph;5289938:

Ben Masada;5289313:

You said something to that effect that everyone needed to convert to Judaism but you may not have used the word Salvation.

**Here is what I said to that effect: Judaism is open for the conversion of any Gentile who wishes to join. It’s in Isaiah 56:1-8. But the Gentile does not have to and he or she does not need to. It would only bring a burden unto him or herself. Gentiles have the seven Noahite laws. That’s enough to keep safe from troubles in life. **

With regard to reading, I have a Bible. I can read it anytime I want. There are copies of the Tanach in the College Library. I can read it anytime I want. However, this would tell me little about Biblical Judaism or the Judaism of the Prophets as not all Jews agree on interpretations of these writings and as you said, I have a particular religious bias and I’m ‘need of repair,’ so it’s likely I would draw all the wrong conclusions, wouldn’t I? Unless of course one simply needs to read these books literally, word for word in order to understand them.

Please, accept my apologies. I didn’t mean to upset you.

There are many websites I could direct someone to if they wanted information on Catholicism. I wouldn’t tell someone to read the Catechism and the Bible if they wanted to know something. All major religions have a website, and many not so major ones explaining their believe and interpretations of scripture. Few people would have difficulty directing someone to a webpage. I am very involved with inter-faith dialogue as I said and anytime I have asked someone of another religious persuasion if they have a website, they have been more than happy to give me the address of the homepage.

Usually websites are just the opinions of another man with equally preconceived notions according to his or her religious upbringing. I prefer to indicate the Scriptures. Then, if there is any misunderstanding, we can either clear it up or discuss the issue here in the forum or in private.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, this is your post. I don’t know anyone who disputes the fact that Jesus was a Jew.

**Every time a Christian attributes a non-Jewish fact to Jesus, he or she is disputing the fact the Jesus was a Jew. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Perhaps this post gave me the notion Ben you believe Salvation is only possible by becomming a Jew.

**Hi Minkymurph, to you too, I recommend to read my thread about salvation being from the Jews. But I can advance some information to you.

There are two kinds of salvation. One is personal salvation, which is the responsibility of everyone in particular, and is attained only through obedience to the laws. The other kind of salvation is the collective one, or universal. That’s the salvation from catastrophes.

After the Flood, God made a Covenant with all Mankind through Noah, when He promised never to allow another catastrophe of the size of the Flood to hit Mankind again. (Gen. 8:21) Since the Flood had been sent because man had corrupted the earth, what would guarantee God’s promise to Noah if man corrupted the earth again? Israel, who soon afterwards rose from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was the pledge of guarantee.

Where am I getting this from? Jeremiah in 31:35-37, where he says that if Israel ever ceases as a People before the Lord, the natural laws will stop functioning properly. Anyone knows that if that ever happens, the whole of Mankind will be destroyed with all kinds of catastrophes.

That’s exactly what Jesus meant to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob, when he told her that salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22) As you can see, there is no need to join Judaism to escape from extinction like the Dinosaurs. Gentiles are safe as long as Israel exists.**

 

[minkymurph]

Usually websites are just the opinions of another man with equally preconceived notions according to his or her religious upbringing. I prefer to indicate the Scriptures. Then, if there is any misunderstanding, we can either clear it up or discuss the issue here in the forum or in private.

That’s a fair comment. Websites do need careful evaluation. My Religious Studies tutors don’t permit use of websites as sources at all; it’s books only due to the fact that there are too many wackey religious websites out there which are, as you say, someone’s opinion and not based on scholarship.

 

[minkymurph]

**

There are two kinds of salvation. One is personal salvation, which is the responsibility of everyone in particular, and is attained only through obedience to the laws. The other kind of salvation is the collective one, or universal. That’s the salvation from catastrophes.

After the Flood, God made a Covenant with all Mankind through Noah, when He promised never to allow another catastrophe of the size of the Flood to hit Mankind again. (Gen. 8:21) Since the Flood had been sent because man had corrupted the earth, what would guarantee God’s promise to Noah if man corrupted the earth again? Israel, who soon afterwards rose from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was the pledge of guarantee.

Where am I getting this from? Jeremiah in 31:35-37, where he says that if Israel ever ceases as a People before the Lord, the natural laws will stop functioning properly. Anyone knows that if that ever happens, the whole of Mankind will be destroyed with all kinds of catastrophes.

That’s exactly what Jesus meant to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob, when he told her that salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22) As you can see, there is no need to join Judaism to escape from extinction like the Dinosaurs. Gentiles are safe as long as Israel exists.**

Now this is the sort of stuff that interests me. What people believe as opposed to what they don’t believe. I am of the firm opinion that people should simply state what they believe and bashing someone else’s beliefs to get your point across is an unecessary and uneducated approach. People hold their beliefs, irrespective of what they are, very dear and it can be very hurtful to attack someone’s beliefs. As Catholic, I believe in stateing what I believe, why, and leave it at that. If someone is respectful enough to listen to me, it is only common courtesy to afford them the same, irrespective of whether or not we agree with them.

However, what you say in relation to the flood is a bit apocalyptic for me. I’m not really into predictions. The reason being predictions have a nasty habit of not coming true. The other thing I would say is I’m not big on using one or two verses from the Bible to support a belief. I have actually just studied the Prophets and as far as I know, prophecy in Ancient Israel was considered to be contemporary. Therefore, one passage of scripture has a variety of interpretations, all of which may be true. However interpretations are not contradictory of each other.

I would also say that my understanding of what constitutes natural law would be different from yours. A natural law to me is one that is put in place by God eg; gravity is an example of a natural law so I have difficulty making the connection you’ve outlined. I would distinguish this from Divine Law which pertains to moral codes which are absolute; unchanging irrespective of the circumstances. The Decalogue or Ten Commandments are absolutes. However to me, there is also such a thing as relative morality. To explain; in Cambodia, the government owned corn fields and the penalty for stealing corn was death. However, the government was a dictatorial, unjust regieme. The peasants harvested the corn for the soldiers, were starving and the land had been taken from them by force. Therefore, were the peasants justified in breaking the commandment ‘You shall not steal’ in this situation?

 

[cthulhubryan]

If infallibility is when the Pople speaks about matter of faith and morals, what kind of morals do you see in the organization of a Crusade? Pope Innocence III knew very well what Crusades did best: Murders. Don’t you agree that the Pope failed in his infallibility?

Ben Ben Ben, hopefully you are not being argumentative and are just simply farmishte.

The Crusades are not doctrine. They were set up as a response to Seljuk Turk aggression against Constantinople. They were directed against the forces of darkness, the Moslem invaders killing and raping in the name of Mahomet and Allah.

While it is quite true that many Jews were killed by men in the crusades who themselves less than perfectly saintly, the crusades were a response to the Saracen and Seljuk hordes bent on evil. It is terrible for there to have been Jewish victims (from both sides) for these were the innocent.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5289313:

That’s a fair comment. Websites do need careful evaluation. My Religious Studies tutors don’t permit use of websites as sources at all; it’s books only due to the fact that there are too many wackey religious websites out there which are, as you say, someone’s opinion and not based on scholarship.

Another reason why I avoid websites is that sometimes the information is so blatantly wrong and contradictory that it makes me feel frustrated for not being able to let the author know of his or her wrong approach to the Scriptures.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Now this is the sort of stuff that interests me. What people believe as opposed to what they don’t believe. I am of the firm opinion that people should simply state what they believe and bashing someone else’s beliefs to get your point across is an unecessary and uneducated approach. People hold their beliefs, irrespective of what they are, very dear and it can be very hurtful to attack someone’s beliefs. As Catholic, I believe in stateing what I believe, why, and leave it at that. If someone is respectful enough to listen to me, it is only common courtesy to afford them the same, irrespective of whether or not we agree with them.

**But of course, you are big enough to admit that along with the joy to share your beliefs with others resides the hidden agenda of the missionary within all of us. Wouldn’t you agree? **

However, what you say in relation to the flood is a bit apocalyptic for me. I’m not really into predictions.

BTW, I mentioned the Flood only as an example of what a catastrophe means, and the fact that the Covenant with Mankind through Noah was made because of the Flood, which could be any other kind of catastrophe.

The reason being predictions have a nasty habit of not coming true.

**In my case, the prophecy happens when you come to Jeremiah. And it won’t be nasty for me because if it does not come true, nobody will be around to say that Ben was wrong to quote Jeremiah. **

The other thing I would say is I’m not big on using one or two verses from the Bible to support a belief. I have actually just studied the Prophets and as far as I know, prophecy in Ancient Israel was considered to be contemporary. Therefore, one passage of scripture has a variety of interpretations, all of which may be true. However interpretations are not contradictory of each other.

I have heard before about multiple interpretations to a prophecy. But I have never been able to understand it that way. I believe that every prophecy points to one interpretation only. Unless you are interpreting an allegory or analogy. The metaphorical interpretation can be multiple. But prophecy is totally different.

I would also say that my understanding of what constitutes natural law would be different from yours. A natural law to me is one that is put in place by God eg; gravity is an example of a natural law so I have difficulty making the connection you’ve outlined.

**Yes, gravity is an example of natural law. Imagine if gravity failed. Another natural law is for celestial bodies to rotate orderly in their own habitat, as ordained by God in the beginning. By natural laws going berserk, I would imagine thousands of comets whose heads are composed of thousands of iced meteorites getting through our atmosphere and hitting the earth, as at the time of the Dinosaurs. It would be the end of Mankind. **

I would distinguish this from Divine Law which pertains to moral codes which are absolute; unchanging irrespective of the circumstances.

Here we differ that I believe God has left up to man to establish moral codes. And mind you, we have been doing a good job.

The Decalogue or Ten Commandments are absolutes.

I don’t think so. I believe that the Ten Commandments are relative, considering that they were given during the establishment of a private Covenant. The Sinaitic Covenant. For example, the Noahite Covenant was with all Mankind, while the Sinaitic Covenant was with Israel only. Not all commandments of the Ten figure in the seven Noahite laws. Then, going down through the items of the Decalogue, morality differs from curture to culture, as you adequately point out with the example in Cambodia, which indeed says a lot about relative morality.

However to me, there is also such a thing as relative morality. To explain; in Cambodia, the government owned corn fields and the penalty for stealing corn was death. However, the government was a dictatorial, unjust regieme. The peasants harvested the corn for the soldiers, were starving and the land had been taken from them by force. Therefore, were the peasants justified in breaking the commandment ‘You shall not steal’ in this situation?

I don’t think the Cambodia peasants would be justified in breaking the commandment, “You shall not steal.” They would if universal moral codes were absolute. But I believe as you do that they are relative. Therefore, the Law of the Land
reigns, as it applies to both, natives and foreigners.