L
Lapell
Guest
And acknowledged the Covenant that God did with King David, specifically…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**That’s a different kind of Messiah. **So you don’t consider the kings of Judah to have been individual messiahs? Especially King David?
A
alan1941
Guest
Well, Ben that it makes it very convenient for you doesn’t it. If they don’t agree with you, they are not Jewish which means maybe half the self-proclaimed Jews in the world are not Jewish because they are atheists…**Alan, let me ask you a question: Did Matthew and John apostated from Judaism like Paul did? No, they did not. Therefore, they did not write those gospels that carry their names. Too Hellenistic to be written by Jews loyal to Judaism. Not only Hellenistic but also complete disregard or ignorance of Jewish culture and customs. I bet 101 percent of my word that none of the books of the NT was written by a Jew.
To be hypothetical is to speak through suppositions. For example, “Suppose there was an eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection, would you become a Christian?” This is to be hypothetical. Or any statement starting with the conditional “if.” **
Remember the Jewish converts did not intend to separate from Judaism, they were thrown out of the synagogues and so began to meet separately & convert gentiles. Remember too, that some Jews held a belief in a personal Messiah or do you deny that, too!
Remember, too that the early Jewish converts including Paul went to the Jews first. Why did so many Jews convert?
I do not know to what are you referring when you speak of hypothetical suppositions.
A
alan1941
Guest
How many different knids of Mesiah are there, Ben?**That’s a different kind of Messiah. **
A
alan1941
Guest
**Oh, Alan, most definitely, we still have a lot of Jews who believe in an individual Messiah, especially among the Othodox. But the majory, if you count all the Reform and Conservative movements, there are more, fortunately, who adopt Isaiah’s views of the Collective Messiah. In Judaism, what one believes is less important than what one does. Good deeds are more important than faith. It must be very well known among Christians that we Jews don’t live by faith but by good deeds. **You seem to discount that God would tell you anything different from your interpretation of scripture which makes it very convenient to avoid God telling you anything different. I don’t presume to know what God would tell you but you do not seem to be open to the possibility that He would tell you something different from what you already hold. It seems to me you are saying, “My mind is made up, case closed”.It is a scary thing to be open to hear something that would shake your fast held belief. It takes courage to be open, courage which you seem to lack, understandably because it is uncomfortable to have ones fast held beliefs shaken or too even take the chance that they might be. Again God will either confirm what you already believe or He will tell you something different, not necessarily what I believe. But He will not tell you anything if you are not open to sacrificing your offspring, i.e. your fast held belief. And by the way, is it not true that all Jews do not hold to your belief that the messiah is Israel. Is it not true that some hold a belief in a personal messiah, e.g. the Chasids who have believed at various times that one of their rabbis was the hoped for messiah like Ba’al Shem Tov? If that is the case, how do you know which of you is right? COLOR=“Blue”]
I take it then that the majority rules and God has no vote. In Catholicism good deeds are important too as well as faith. Note the historical argument between Catholic & Protestant. As the saying goes, “Faith without good works is dead” but it seems to me that you are saying Good works without faith which would seem to point to a concept of a slot-machine God. “If I do good works He owes me”. Is that what you are saying?
L
Lapell
Guest
What’s new in Jesus doesn’t mean it comes from Hellenistic “mythology”. It is not a fact, Ben. You say you go by facts, but indeed you don’t seem to dislike including unproved hypotheses such as mere use of Greek mythology in the Gospels.**Alan, let me ask you a question: Did Matthew and John apostated from Judaism like Paul did? No, they did not. Therefore, they did not write those gospels that carry their names. Too Hellenistic to be written by Jews loyal to Judaism. Not only Hellenistic but also complete disregard or ignorance of Jewish culture and customs. I bet 101 percent of my word that none of the books of the NT was written by a Jew. **
Another hypothesis is having Paul as an apostate and not Matthew and John. And you want us to believe that Paul was not faithful to the faith of all the Apostles when he actually was! Either all three were apostates or none of them were.
L
Lapell
Guest
But they WERE messiahs, were they not?**That’s a different kind of Messiah. **
L
Lapell
Guest
You are still jumping at a conclusion, Ben. Because YOU find it “too Hellenistic” does not prove in FACT that it IS! You ignore many Jewish elements present in the Gospels because of the Resurrection story present in all 4 Gospels (from different angles, of course) LOOKS too Hellenistic to you. That’s only your gut reaction to the uniqueness of the events told there. God having a Son, the Word (or logos) as John puts it, who takes on a human soul and a human flesh, but remains a Divine Person, not a human person. And this having never happened before nor after.**Alan, let me ask you a question: Did Matthew and John apostated from Judaism like Paul did? No, they did not. Therefore, they did not write those gospels that carry their names. Too Hellenistic to be written by Jews loyal to Judaism. **
L
Lapell
Guest
Even though the TaNaKH in many places speaks of events that never had happened before and won’t ever happen again. Another Jewish thing, by the way!
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**It is not if they don’t agree with me; but rather if they don’t agree with Judaism. Then, it’s not true.Well, Ben that it makes it very convenient for you doesn’t it. If they don’t agree with you, they are not Jewish which means maybe half the self-proclaimed Jews in the world are not Jewish because they are atheists…
Remember the Jewish converts did not intend to separate from Judaism, they were thrown out of the synagogues and so began to meet separately & convert gentiles. Remember too, that some Jews held a belief in a personal Messiah or do you deny that, too!
Remember, too that the early Jewish converts including Paul went to the Jews first. Why did so many Jews convert?
There is no such a thing as an Atheist Jew. There are many non-religious Jews, but Atheist! Never believe an Atheist Jew. The People who brought the true God to the world cannot be Atheist. If a Jew tells you he is an Atheist, he must either be trying to get rid of your impertinence or he is a fool, according to Psalm 14:1.
The Jewish converted to Christianity through the work of Paul, wanted indeed to remain Jewish but Paul would not allow them. Read Galatians chapters one and 4:21-31. But they
were never thrown out of the synagogues. On the contrary, the Nazarenes tried to salvage them. But who could fight Paul? At the end, they liberated them of their being Jewish and reverted them back to their condition of Gentiles after that Council session in Jerusalem. (Acts 15.)
No, I won’t deny that many Jews held a belief in a personal Messiah, and many still do, especially among the Orthodox.
So, Paul went to the Jews first! Could you tell me when he decided to go for the Gentiles? Since his first station in the synagogues of Damascus and until his last station in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. And the joke is that he used to claim that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. Except for about 2 percent of missionary work among the Gentiles, 98 percent was among the Jews. This hardly makes of a missionary an apostle to the Gentiles.**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**The King, the High Priest, the Firstborn, someone entrusted with a mission, etc. But the Messiah within the context we have been studying were two, and today just one remains.How many different knids of Mesiah are there, Ben?
Until the 5th Century BCE there were two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph, which was Israel, the Ten Tribes, also called Ephraim, and Messiah ben David, which was Judah, the Southern Kingdom. Israel was called the Suffering Servant until it was removed from existence. And Judah has remained as the Triumphant Servant. Therefore, today we have only one Messiah. Messiah ben David, according to God’s promise to David in I Kings 11:36, that is supposed to remain forever. (Jer. 31:35,36)**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
I take it then that the majority rules and God has no vote. In Catholicism good deeds are important too as well as faith. Note the historical argument between Catholic & Protestant. As the saying goes, “Faith without good works is dead” but it seems to me that you are saying Good works without faith which would seem to point to a concept of a slot-machine God. “If I do good works He owes me”. Is that what you are saying?**Oh, Alan, most definitely, we still have a lot of Jews who believe in an individual Messiah, especially among the Othodox. But the majory, if you count all the Reform and Conservative movements, there are more, fortunately, who adopt Isaiah’s views of the Collective Messiah. In Judaism, what one believes is less important than what one does. Good deeds are more important than faith. It must be very well known among Christians that we Jews don’t live by faith but by good deeds. **
**I do understand what you mean by “faith without good works is dead.” And I agree with you. But how about good works without faith, are they dead? Think! No, they are not. Do you know why? Because good works are not done for the doer but for those whom we do them. If you agree with me, faith becomes a commodity. It is really not necessary.
Those who do good works only to hold God hostage for some kind of payment are not Jews but Christians. Let me start with the founder of Christianity, Paul himself. If you read I Corinthians 15:32, he said that if the dead won’t resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. This is what I call a conditional commitment. Good works only if the dead resurrect. That’s faith worthy menstrual rags if you forgive me the gross analogy. **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Compare Acts 21:20 with Acts 21:21. The first belongs to the Apostles; the second belongs to Paul. Read them. If you do not understand them, report back to me and I will add my two-pence. The first tells about the faith of the Apostles. The second tells about the faith of Paul. Then, figure if Paul shared the faith of the Apostles.What’s new in Jesus doesn’t mean it comes from Hellenistic “mythology”. It is not a fact, Ben. You say you go by facts, but indeed you don’t seem to dislike including unproved hypotheses such as mere use of Greek mythology in the Gospels.
Another hypothesis is having Paul as an apostate and not Matthew and John. And you want us to believe that Paul was not faithful to the faith of all the Apostles when he actually was! Either all three were apostates or none of them were.
A
alan1941
Guest
Or in other words you’re interpretation of Judaism. You say there is no such thing as an atheist Jew meaning in other words if they are atheist they are no longer Jewish. Well I can appreciate that distinction. It would be an anachronism to speak of a Catholic atheist, as well. I can understand how you make an assumption that Paul is speaking to Jewish Galatians but it is an assumption. He is speaking to some who have not been circumcised & are therefore adults and as likely as not, not Jewish.If you admit that many Jews still hold to a personal Messiah then how can you say with absolute assurance that you (&and many Jews like you) are right?**It is not if they don’t agree with me; but rather if they don’t agree with Judaism. Then, it’s not true.
There is no such a thing as an Atheist Jew. There are many non-religious Jews, but Atheist! Never believe an Atheist Jew. The People who brought the true God to the world cannot be Atheist. If a Jew tells you he is an Atheist, he must either be trying to get rid of your impertinence or he is a fool, according to Psalm 14:1.
The Jewish converted to Christianity through the work of Paul, wanted indeed to remain Jewish but Paul would not allow them. Read Galatians chapters one and 4:21-31. But they
were never thrown out of the synagogues. On the contrary, the Nazarenes tried to salvage them. But who could fight Paul? At the end, they liberated them of their being Jewish and reverted them back to their condition of Gentiles after that Council session in Jerusalem. (Acts 15.)
No, I won’t deny that many Jews held a belief in a personal Messiah, and many still do, especially among the Orthodox.
So, Paul went to the Jews first! Could you tell me when he decided to go for the Gentiles? Since his first station in the synagogues of Damascus and until his last station in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. And the joke is that he used to claim that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. Except for about 2 percent of missionary work among the Gentiles, 98 percent was among the Jews. This hardly makes of a missionary an apostle to the Gentiles.**
And how do you interpret Micah 5:1 But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me, one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is fom of old, from ancient times." It seems to speak of an individual not a nation.
A compliment for you, this discussion in very stimulating but I think it would be more productive if we discuss what we have in common.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Or in other words you’re interpretation of Judaism. You say there is no such thing as an atheist Jew meaning in other words if they are atheist they are no longer Jewish.
No Alan, that’s not what I mean. A so-called Atheist Jew, which I don’t believe there is one, has not confessed religious loyalty to another faith. Therefore, he or she remains Jewish.
Well I can appreciate that distinction. It would be an anachronism to speak of a Catholic atheist, as well. I can understand how you make an assumption that Paul is speaking to Jewish Galatians but it is an assumption. He is speaking to some who have not been circumcised & are therefore adults and as likely as not, not Jewish.
Really! If that’s how you understand, let us read the introduction to the text. To begin with that’s a Letter to the church in Galatia. (Gal. 1:2)
Then, Paul was disappointed that so many among the Galatians were deserting him and going over to the other gospel, which was the gospel of the Apostles he would refer to. (Gal. 1:6) The reason is that he used to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues but geting into them like a cuckcoo bird and converting the whole synagogue into a church. Then from Judea James would send some missionaries, whom Paul would call Judaizers, to try to salvage their synagogues. When Paul saw that so many were returning to the Nazarenes, he wrote Galatians 4:21-31 by saying, “You, who want to be subject to the Law, tell me…” As you can see, I am assuming nothing; everything is written.
If you admit that many Jews still hold to a personal Messiah then how can you say with absolute assurance that you (&and many Jews like you) are right?
Because it makes no difference to us what and how you believe. In Judaism, to believe is not so important; but good deeds, as long as you don’t confess loyalty to another religion. This is a bad deed.
And how do you interpret Micah 5:1 But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me, one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is fom of old, from ancient times." It seems to speak of an individual not a nation.
**Bethlehem Ephrathah was the craddle of the Tribe of Judah when the Israelites entered Canaan. And from there came out David, who became the most famous ruler in Israel. Therefore, the prophecy points to David as the type and to Judah, the People, as the archetype. And the expression, "Whose origin is from of Old, from ancient time, means only one thing: “From God.” I know that Jesus was born there, but so were many Jews, and none, like Jesus, became a ruler in Israel. So, the text could not be referring to Jesus. Only in the preconceived notions of the Christian. **
A compliment for you, this discussion in very stimulating but I think it would be more productive if we discuss what we have in common.
**Alan, the main objective to any discussion is learning. And believe me, there is no learning in the chit-chatting of common beliefs. Learning resides in controversy. **
A
alan1941
Guest
alan1941;5565596:
Or in other words you’re interpretation of Judaism. You say there is no such thing as an atheist Jew meaning in other words if they are atheist they are no longer Jewish.
No Alan, that’s not what I mean. A so-called Atheist Jew, which I don’t believe there is one, has not confessed religious loyalty to another faith. Therefore, he or she remains Jewish.
Well I can appreciate that distinction. It would be an anachronism to speak of a Catholic atheist, as well. I can understand how you make an assumption that Paul is speaking to Jewish Galatians but it is an assumption. He is speaking to some who have not been circumcised & are therefore adults and as likely as not, not Jewish.
Really! If that’s how you understand, let us read the introduction to the text. To begin with that’s a Letter to the church in Galatia. (Gal. 1:2)
Then, Paul was disappointed that so many among the Galatians were deserting him and going over to the other gospel, which was the gospel of the Apostles he would refer to. (Gal. 1:6) The reason is that he used to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues but geting into them like a cuckcoo bird and converting the whole synagogue into a church. Then from Judea James would send some missionaries, whom Paul would call Judaizers, to try to salvage their synagogues. When Paul saw that so many were returning to the Nazarenes, he wrote Galatians 4:21-31 by saying, “You, who want to be subject to the Law, tell me…” As you can see, I am assuming nothing; everything is written.
If you admit that many Jews still hold to a personal Messiah then how can you say with absolute assurance that you (&and many Jews like you) are right?
Because it makes no difference to us what and how you believe. In Judaism, to believe is not so important; but good deeds, as long as you don’t confess loyalty to another religion. This is a bad deed.
And how do you interpret Micah 5:1 But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me, one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is fom of old, from ancient times." It seems to speak of an individual not a nation.
**Bethlehem Ephrathah was the craddle of the Tribe of Judah when the Israelites entered Canaan. And from there came out David, who became the most famous ruler in Israel. Therefore, the prophecy points to David as the type and to Judah, the People, as the archetype. And the expression, "Whose origin is from of Old, from ancient time, means only one thing: “From God.” I know that Jesus was born there, but so were many Jews, and none, like Jesus, became a ruler in Israel. So, the text could not be referring to Jesus. Only in the preconceived notions of the Christian. **
A compliment for you, this discussion in very stimulating but I think it would be more productive if we discuss what we have in common.
**Alan, the main objective to any discussion is learning. And believe me, there is no learning in the chit-chatting of common beliefs. Learning resides in controversy. **
True! Point taken.This is in reference to your last point.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**What Covenant was this that God made with King David? Would you remind me? I am curious. **And acknowledged the Covenant that God did with King David, specifically…
L
Lapell
Guest
Except that you still oppose Paul VS the Apostles. Paul did not say:*“the other Gospel” but “another Gospel”, and the Gospel he proclaimed was the same as the one proclaimed by the Apostles. So, I am afraid that you HAVE assumed things. Are you sure you are really interested in the Truth? Then why don’t you pray the True Truth to show you the Way to It whereever it leasds you to and to give you first what it takes to accept It as It truly IS? Have you already done that? Given what you have been saying here and elsewhere, I have serious doubts. Sorry.Then, Paul was disappointed that so many among the Galatians were deserting him and going over to the other gospel, which was the gospel of the Apostles he would refer to. (Gal. 1:6) The reason is that he used to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues but geting into them like a cuckcoo bird and converting the whole synagogue into a church. Then from Judea James would send some missionaries, whom Paul would call Judaizers, to try to salvage their synagogues. When Paul saw that so many were returning to the Nazarenes, he wrote Galatians 4:21-31 by saying, “You, who want to be subject to the Law, tell me…” As you can see, I am assuming nothing; everything is written.
L
Lapell
Guest
It was through prophet Nathan, after King David had told the prophet: “Look! I am living in a palace made from cedar, and the Lord God is living in a tent!” (When David wanted to build a temple more worthy of his God whom he cherished)**What Covenant was this that God made with King David? Would you remind me? I am curious. **
L
Lapell
Guest
And God said it would be a House for all nations (this may have been said elsewhere, through King Solomon when the Temple was inaugurated, or through either Isaiah or Jeremiah). (Sorry, I don’t have the Bible with me right now. But that God said it I remember it, though.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.