The Mark of the Beast

[ryanoneil]

**Perhaps your Hellenistic Jesus did it. The Jesus of Nazareth
never claimed something that would be against God’s Law. **

You have got it backward. Jesus IS God’s Law.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You have got it backward. Jesus IS God’s Law.

In that case, you can stop accusing us that we have rejected Jesus, because there is nothing we love more than God’s Law.

 

[ryanoneil]

But none by the People. And here goes down the drain the antisemitic NT accusation that the Jews killed the Prophets.

There he came to a cave, where he took shelter. But the word of the LORD came to him, “Why are you here, Elijah?” He answered: “I have been most zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, but the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to take my life.” (1 Kings 19:9-10)

That’s not true at all. The Romans did allow the Jewish authorities to extort the People with taxes. But the Sanhedrin was not paid by the Romans.

I wasn’t implying they were paid by the Romans. I was stating that they had to abide by Roman law (or be killed)

**So, why report this circus episode after all? **

To illustrate what you deny. Jesus was set up.

**Well, if there was a decision by the Sanhedrin, was the sentence executed? No. Why not? Because a passer-by in the street made the execution of the Sanhedrin obsolete. Does it make sense to you? I hope not! **

I can’t make sense of what you are saying. We don’t know if this woman was caught in the act that morning or a year before. And it doesn’t matter. She is being used to set up and discredit Jesus. That is the point. And Jesus turns the tables on them.

Do you happen to know what he wrote on the ground? And regarding that Prophet-like Moses, there was no secret about him even to the people listening to Moses, because everyone knew who he was. Joshua, who else could be? Even a prophecy, the case was not.

I don’t know what he wrote on the ground. I wish I did.

Obviously somes Jews thought a fulfillment in Joshua, still had another future fulfillment.

**It doesn’t matter now, and it won’t help to judge Israel for her past. Since the day Messiah ben Joseph, the Ten Tribes, was removed from existence, God is stuck with the New Israel from the stem of Judah. Now, the Almighty has no choice but only to chastise Israel for whatever we do. If we ever get removed from existence as Israel was, might the whole world as well go, because the existence of the world depends on the existence of Israel. No wonder Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22) **

You are right about one thing. It doesn’t matter now. The Sanhedrin rejected the heir of David and they were removed from existence.

**Now, go back to Jeremiah 31:31-33 and read what you quoted. If you get embarrassed it’s because you are not beyond repair. But if you don’t even blush, it’s because of too much cynicism. **

I don’t know what you mean by being embarrassed and blushing. Maybe we should really break this down someday.

Am I correct in thinking that this has already happened (In your opinion) or do you believe this is a future messianic age event?

 

[ryanoneil]

In that case, you can stop accusing us that we have rejected Jesus, because there is nothing we love more than God’s Law.

I believe you do love God’s Law. For the most part, we feel the same way about the 10 commandments. We believe this covenant remains. I believe we mainly differ on the Second Law. Moses’ concessionary legislation (Exodus 33 to Numbers 10), which we don’t believe remains. In our opinion it is fulfilled by the everlating covenant.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. (Mt 26:26-28)

 

[cthulhubryan]

Paul again…good grief… talking to you is like talking to a cactus plant…

And exactly what did a cactus plant ever do to you to deserve that comment?

 

[minkymurph]

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.

**The paragraph above is yours, and the sentence in color is what I understood by consensus of the Cardinals. Then, the Pope would pronounce what became the decision of the group. If this is what consists the infallibility of the Pope, I am vindicated. **

Again, the language you use Ben. Why do YOU *need * to be vindicated?

It is possible we have a different understanding of the term Consensus. Consensus of opinion means everyone has reached agreement. I do not understand the term Consensus to mean all but one person is in agreement and that one person, in this instance the Pope, is compelled by majority decision. Catholics believe the Pope has a specific role in guiding the Church when a Consensus of opinon cannot be reached, and I emphasize the term guiding, so they can reach a Consensus of opinion. As I said, the role of the Pope and the teaching of infallibility is one that is much misunderstood. Of course you will disagree with that, you are a Jew. However it is important to me that others disagee with what Catholics actually believe and not what they think they believe.

By vote, that I find hard that Peter would lend his opinion to promote a Gentile religious institution or church. And by Hellenistic Church I mean what Christianity is due to two facts: First, that it was founded by a Hellenistic Greek former Jew in Paul. And second, the Hellenistic doctrines with basis in Greek Mythology, as in reference to the birth of Jesus.

Why do you say Paul was a Hellenistic Greek and what Hellenistic doctrines based in Greek Mythology in reference to the birth of Jesus are you referring to?

 

[Lapell]

Love is an emotion and no one can be commanded to feel. I think Jesus meant to respect one another. Respect yes, can be comanded, and sometimes even enforced.

Love is more than just to respect. You can hate your enemy and still show him respect.
And love is not an emotion. To be attracted to someone is not yet to love him or her. Love is more than that. True love is a decision of the will. By the way, are you married, Ben?

 

[Lapell]

In that case, you can stop accusing us that we have rejected Jesus, because there is nothing we love more than God’s Law.

O.K., but still, do you believe that Jesus IS God’s Law?

 

[minkymurph]

Love is more than just to respect. You can hate your enemy and still show him respect.
And love is not an emotion. To be attracted to someone is not yet to love him or her. Love is more than that. True love is a decision of the will. By the way, are you married, Ben?

That’s a strange concept Ben of what it means to love. I have two young children and what I feel for them is lot more than respect. There are times I don’t feel very respectful towards my husband because he gets on my nerves! Sorry guys. I’m sure there are times wives get on your nerves! The point is I still care deeply for him. I can’t say I respect my enemies, but I would not go out of my way to do them harm or step over them in the street if they needed medical help. I would not leave my enemy starving to death if I had food surplus to my needs. You can’t say that is nothing more than respect.

This may seem like a strange question but do you believe in God? If so, describe God to me.

 

[Ben_Masada]

There he came to a cave, where he took shelter. But the word of the LORD came to him, “Why are you here, Elijah?” He answered: “I have been most zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, but the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to take my life.” (1 Kings 19:9-10)

**That was a natural human burst of paroxism of generalization, given the anxiety of human nature. Elijah pretty much was able to see when the Voice made him understand how mistaken he was to exaggerate and generalize. A great multitude had not bent their knee to Baal. **

I wasn’t implying they were paid by the Romans. I was stating that they had to abide by Roman law (or be killed)

** And one of the laws is that the Sanhedrin could not sentence anyone to death.**

To illustrate what you deny. Jesus was set up.

Yes, to illustrate a fabrication with a charade.

I can’t make sense of what you are saying. We don’t know if this woman was caught in the act that morning or a year before. And it doesn’t matter. She is being used to set up and discredit Jesus. That is the point. And Jesus turns the tables on them.

I think that the point was rather to discredit the Sanhadrin by having a private citizen who had nothing to do with the Sanhedrin to undo a decree proclaimed by 71 magistrates. What’s this, a joke?

I don’t know what he wrote on the ground. I wish I did.

You don’t have to be a paragon of wisdom to figure what he wrote on the sand. Assuming that the episode was true, what did they bring that woman to Jesus for? To check if he agreed or not with the stoning of that woman. Why? Because she had committed a sin punishable with death by stoning. Then, Jesus wrote on the sand: “Whoever here is without sin, go ahead, condemn the woman by throwing the first stone.” When all the alleged potential executioners had gone, Jesus asked the woman where were they. As the woman said, they had gone, what did Jesus add? “And neither do I condemn you?” Why? Mind you that he had said, “Whoever here who is withouth sin.” Since Jesus was also there, he was included within the “Whoever.” But of course, you can’t see that far. The Church won’t release the blinders.

Obviously somes Jews thought a fulfillment in Joshua, still had another future fulfillment.

**Not Jews but Christians. **

You are right about one thing. It doesn’t matter now. The Sanhedrin rejected the heir of David and they were removed from existence.

You are mistaken. The Sanhedrin went on for another 40 years, as an evidence that their demise had nothing to do with Jesus.

I don’t know what you mean by being embarrassed and blushing. Maybe we should really break this down someday.

The figure of speech I used is too obvious. To go back and explain it further, it would be an insult to your intelligence.

 

[Ben_Masada]

O.K., but still, do you believe that Jesus IS God’s Law?

**No, I don’t. At least, not on an individual basis. As part of the People whom God entrusted His Law to, yes. (Psalm 147:19,20) **

 

[Ben_Masada]

That’s a strange concept Ben of what it means to love. I have two young children and what I feel for them is lot more than respect.

**That’s an emotional feeling which is called maternal love as a result of the habit of living together. Let your child be taken from you after a day or two of being born. If you meet him or her as an adult, you will never be able to love him or her as you do your two young children. **

There are times I don’t feel very respectful towards my husband because he gets on my nerves! Sorry guys. I’m sure there are times wives get on your nerves! The point is I still care deeply for him.

**That’s an emotional feeling caused by two factors: The passionate love of the origin of it and the habit of living together. **

I can’t say I respect my enemies, but I would not go out of my way to do them harm or step over them in the street if they needed medical help. I would not leave my enemy starving to death if I had food surplus to my needs. You can’t say that is nothing more than respect.

No, that’s not respect. That’s charity, which could even be rather disrespect.

This may seem like a strange question but do you believe in God? If so, describe God to me.

If we were the ones who brought the true God to the world, how could I not believe in God? If God could be described, He would not be God. One cannot describe the Incorporeal.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Love is more than just to respect. You can hate your enemy and still show him respect.
And love is not an emotion. To be attracted to someone is not yet to love him or her. Love is more than that. True love is a decision of the will. By the way, are you married, Ben?

**Didn’t I say that there is no such a thing as love thy enemy? Respect yes, but not love.

Yes, love is an emotion. You cannot say that tomorrow or next week you will love someone. Why? Just because of the reason that love is an emotion or feeling. Something that we cannot reason with.

I know that to feel attracted to someone is not love but passion as a result of hormones storming inside. There is no such a thing as true love as a result of a decision of the will.

No, I am not married; I am still a recent widower. (2006). **

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

**The paragraph above is yours, and the sentence in color is what I understood by consensus of the Cardinals. Then, the Pope would pronounce what became the decision of the group. If this is what consists the infallibility of the Pope, I am vindicated. **

Again, the language you use Ben. Why do YOU *need * to be vindicated?

It means I am justified in my statement that if you call infallibilitly when the Pope pronounces a dogma of faith as a result of a consensus reached by a synod of Cardinals, infallibility is a cop-out.

It is possible we have a different understanding of the term Consensus. Consensus of opinion means everyone has reached agreement. I do not understand the term Consensus to mean all but one person is in agreement and that one person, in this instance the Pope, is compelled by majority decision. Catholics believe the Pope has a specific role in guiding the Church when a Consensus of opinon cannot be reached, and I emphasize the term guiding, so they can reach a Consensus of opinion. As I said, the role of the Pope and the teaching of infallibility is one that is much misunderstood. Of course you will disagree with that, you are a Jew. However it is important to me that others disagee with what Catholics actually believe and not what they think they believe.

Thank you. You have confirmed my views with every sentence in the paragraph above.

Why do you say Paul was a Hellenistic Greek and what Hellenistic doctrines based in Greek Mythology in reference to the birth of Jesus are you referring to?

Paul was born in the originally Greek city of Tarsus, in Cilicia, one of the first Greek provinces to become Roman. Tarsus was famous for its Stoic Platonic University. Paul was the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic Jewish family of Tarsus, who probably, as it was the custom of every Hellenistic Jewish family, had his son educated in the local Platonic Stoic University. Paul must have conceived the idea that he could fufill the failed Platonic dream of a city governed by king Philosophers by founding a society of religious people with no need of the Law to live ethically under the cop-out of grace and faith. Then, by Hellenistic doctrines based in Greek Mythology, I am referring to the virginal conception of Jesus without an earthly father. That’s possible only in the realm of Pagan Mythology. Alien therefore to Judaism. Since Jesus was a religious Jew, it didn’t happened.

 

[Lapell]

It means I am justified in my statement that if you call infallibility when the Pope pronounces a dogma of faith as a result of a consensus reached by a synod of Cardinals, infallibility is a cop-out.

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!

 

[Lapell]

… and when the Pope pronunces it ex cathedra!

 

[minkymurph]

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.

**The paragraph above is yours, and the sentence in color is what I understood by consensus of the Cardinals. Then, the Pope would pronounce what became the decision of the group. If this is what consists the infallibility of the Pope, I am vindicated. **

It means I am justified in my statement that if you call infallibilitly when the Pope pronounces a dogma of faith as a result of a consensus reached by a synod of Cardinals, infallibility is a cop-out. ]

Again Ben, your posts are loaded with ‘I think,’ me, I, it’s all you. You answer is not an answer. You say your opinion is vindicated, yet you don’t say why this is important to you.

Your statements about the Church and mythology are nothing more than your opinons. You have no scholarship to back it up. You provide no scholarship to back up your interpretations of scripture. It’s all what you think. The only historian I can recall you quoting is Josephus. There are also many Jews who would disagree with your opinions and would disagree with your interpretations of Scripture. I take it that in your opinion, they are wrong. Or is it ok to be wrong as long as your a Jew that’s wrong?

Your definition of love is again, nothing more than your opinion. You don’t back it up with any psychological or biological evidence and it is contrary to what we are taught in Scripture. The reason I asked it you believe in God is because your view of love is similar to that of evolutionists.

To say I would not feel the same way about my children if I met them when they were adults is again, nothing more than your opinion. How could you possible know this? It is purely hypothetical and contrary to what has been scientifically proven. You have frequently been mentionedreason and logic . Unless you can back up what you say with some sort of evidence, you are presuming you know what might happen which is not reasonable or logical. Can it be considered resonable and logical to convert to another faith, assuming your intention is to convert people to Judaism, perhaps it’s not and it’s simply to attempt to discredit their faith, because of a post you read on the internet which is not backed up by nothing more than someone who believes they are right and that other people need ‘repaired’ because they are infected with a ‘virus.’ Echoes of Richard Dawkins there.

You say Judaism is the only way of salvation. I’m not convinced that’s something you truly believe because what you say here is contrary to what a lot of Jews believe. But I guess their form of Judaism is the wrong one and yours, whatever form that is, is the right one. Does your particular sect have a website? Perhaps you can provide a link. Most religions have a website and I’ve accessed quite a few Jewish ones.

To conclude: why should we Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, accept your interpretation of scripture? If your answer is that’s what it says, read it, that is a Christian fundamentalist approach. By who’s authority do you interpret scripture? Or perhaps you believe the Bible is self-interpreting.

 

[Lapell]

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.

Paul was born in the originally Greek city of Tarsus, in Cilicia, one of the first Greek provinces to become Roman. Tarsus was famous for its Stoic Platonic University. Paul was the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic Jewish family of Tarsus, who probably, as it was the custom of every Hellenistic Jewish family, had his son educated in the local Platonic Stoic University. Paul must have conceived the idea that he could fufill the failed Platonic dream of a city governed by king Philosophers by founding a society of religious people with no need of the Law to live ethically under the cop-out of grace and faith. Then, by Hellenistic doctrines based in Greek Mythology, I am referring to the virginal conception of Jesus without an earthly father. That’s possible only in the realm of Pagan Mythology. Alien therefore to Judaism. Since Jesus was a religious Jew, it didn’t happened.

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!

 

[ryanoneil]

**That was a natural human burst of paroxism of generalization, given the anxiety of human nature. Elijah pretty much was able to see when the Voice made him understand how mistaken he was to exaggerate and generalize. A great multitude had not bent their knee to Baal. **

OK

** And one of the laws is that the Sanhedrin could not sentence anyone to death.**

I know.

I think that the point was rather to discredit the Sanhadrin by having a private citizen who had nothing to do with the Sanhedrin to undo a decree proclaimed by 71 magistrates. What’s this, a joke?

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

You don’t have to be a paragon of wisdom to figure what he wrote on the sand. Assuming that the episode was true, what did they bring that woman to Jesus for? To check if he agreed or not with the stoning of that woman. Why? Because she had committed a sin punishable with death by stoning. Then, Jesus wrote on the sand: “Whoever here is without sin, go ahead, condemn the woman by throwing the first stone.” When all the alleged potential executioners had gone, Jesus asked the woman where were they. As the woman said, they had gone, what did Jesus add? “And neither do I condemn you?” Why? Mind you that he had said, “Whoever here who is withouth sin.” Since Jesus was also there, he was included within the “Whoever.” But of course, you can’t see that far. The Church won’t release the blinders.

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.

Then he forgives her past sin which is another thing they had a problem with. Then the scribes and Pharisees began to ask themselves, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone can forgive sins?” (Luke 5:21)

**Not Jews but Christians. **

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.

You are mistaken. The Sanhedrin went on for another 40 years, as an evidence that their demise had nothing to do with Jesus.

And you point is . . .?

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.

Jesus said “From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mt 26:64) The cloud Jesus came on was the Roman army, just like God came on the cloud of the Assyrian army.

The figure of speech I used is too obvious. To go back and explain it further, it would be an insult to your intelligence.

Well, thank you for not insulting my intelligence then.

 

[Lapell]

In that case, you can stop accusing us that we have rejected Jesus, because there is nothing we love more than God’s Law.

Which I suppose explains why the Sons of Israel from time to time in the course of their history turned to forbidden idols as shown in the episode of the Golden Calf, then in Joshua, than in Judges, then in the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, and in the books of the Prophets!