“Israel My People”

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 118
#61
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
If you can't produce any then I contend that the codification of the Scriptures as contained in the Christian Bible is more reliable than yours and that it was not us but your Rabbinical scholars who altered the wording.  

So, yes, the heart of your argument is the claim that all of Judaism is wrong because you claim that your work of fiction can be more authoritative because you have copies of it. Copies of old fiction suddenly become real. It IS a miracle.

I note, again, that you can't actually point to any altered text and haven't argued any actual content. This delights me no end.
#62
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Sorry for the fractured replies -- I am still uncomfortable with this interface:

What exactly are you referring to as Pharisitical in Matthew 5 & 6? Jesus was citing the Law of Moses. 
Actually, he cites the Talmud, so if you want to call that the law of Moses, you just verified the oral law. Thanks!

Here are a couple

Talmud, Kallah, Chapter 1
He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.
Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Talmud, Gittin 90a
The school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....

Talmud, Baba Bathra 9b
Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....


But hey...it's all part of the grand Jewish conspiracy to invent a religion after the fact, right?

More light reading if you would like...
#63
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

“ And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in a religious box, IMO. 
 
Absolutely true and I’m ok if people want to stay in their own boxes. All I chafe at is people telling me I don’t understand my own box.
First, why are we getting all this running together of words? I have to constantly correct them. 

You have a right to believe what you will. Judaism and Christianity have a lot in common. Where we differ we differ in major ways and one of us is definitely wrong. I contend that is you. I base it not on the Hebrew Scriptures but in your interpretation and version of them, as I am sure you do with me. I also attribute it to one of our two religions corrupting the text, of which I point to yours as being the case. I see Judaism as failing to recognize and accept their Messiah and the time of His coming.   
 
“This again is your assumption, yet you do nothing but assert what is and is not without a shred of reasonable evidence in most of your responses. 
 
So are you saying that you have a clear understanding of the difference between “messiah” and “messianic concept”? If so, why quote verses about the latter and then ask about the former? Are you saying that you understand the Jewish concept of what makes any messiah (there were many)? Great -- then you won't ask what you asked.
I am saying that there are around 300 Messianic prophecies that we as Christians recognize as relating to Jesus. Many of these you do not. You have a clearer understanding of your Hebrew Bible texts than I do, on where they differ from the OT texts. So I ask you, how many references do you have to the Messiah. I used one source that identified only a handful. 


 
 
“In the sense that it was a covenant of grace, not works. Do you know what separates Christianity from every other religion? It is a covenant of grace in which God accomplishes what we could not do.
 
Perfect. So what separates you is a covenant which does not exist in the Jewish understanding. That’s fine.
It exists for some Jews, such as Jews for Jesus. 

 
“The Jews demonstrate repeatedly through the OT that they cannot live by the covenant they agreed to with God. The Mosaic Covenant is just such a covenant of works. It is what the human does that puts them right with God. The NT of grace is what God did in Jesus Christ that the Jew nor Gentile could ever do - that is live a perfectly righteous life before God.  
 
The Jews demonstrate that the covenant we have, one of laws and ways of living, is a current and constant relationship which we work towards,hoping to get to the point when living by it will become automatic and not astruggle against any evil inclination.
And how successful have you been in keeping the law? In one sense you recognize how holy and pure G-D is, yet in another, you fail to live up to His purity. How does that justify you before God? Will your good deeds outweigh your bad, and what happens if they don't?

 
“Again, you are speaking Hebrew to me; in other words, you arespeaking above my head with language that is technical to a gentile. 
 
I am answering your question with a precise answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_priestly_descent
 
“Therefore, the priesthoodtoday may not be sanctioned by God. You don't know.
 
What we do know is that the legal system which establishes the priests IS sanctioned by God 9 (Deut 17:9). The system holds so the aspects of the system hold.
I'm not following. God 9? And what does "the system holds so the aspects of the system hold" mean? 

#64
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends


 
“The fact that I asked was to hear it from you, not because I don't understand this but to prove the point from you that your people are not following the law as they agreed to follow it.
 
No, you just don’t know the law so you suppose that we are to follow it based on your limited understanding.
Or yours perhaps? Do you think you will be justified by following the Law? You have stated you don't always follow it. What about those times?

 
“Thus, they are not living by the covenant. They continually broke it. Thus God brought the curses/judgments of the Law upon them.
 
Only according to your version of the covenant. It just so happens, it was never the same as our understanding of the covenant so we aren’t bound by your lack of knowledge.
Why did God allow the destruction of the city by the Babylonians? Was that not a judgment? Daniel seemed to think so. Daniel 9:1-26 seems to signify as much. Daniel 9:24-27 also spoke of once again a judgment on the city and temple, per the curses of disobedience. Did that not happen?


“ So, again it is a covenant of works. You do what you can, somewhat unsuccessfully by the sounds of it, because you are bound by the works of the Law, living according to the letter of the Law, yet you can't follow the sacrificial system as prescribed in the OT.
 
You have 2 different statements here. The first is that I am trying to live by the law.
You have admitted you try to live by the law but you are not living according to the stipulations for atoning for your sins that the Law required - animal sacrifice, presented by a Levitical priest. You no longer have a physical temple. Why is that? That is where Israel met before the presence of God. Now, where do they meet? The synagog, right?


Sure, not completely successfully, but I try, and the law makes provisions for how I can improve. The second, about sacrifices, just exemplifies what you don’t understand. Sacrifices were never the end all and be all of Jewish worship, nor were they always necessary.
How does the Law make provisions for you?

No animal sacrifices? So you are no living according to the covenant as stipulated. It required animal sacrifices for the atonement of the nation and also sin offerings for individual sins, depending on what the person could afford. 

In fact, they were allowed to be made only at very specific times and with myriad other conditions. We had other systems already in place to supplement and even replace sacrifices when the conditions didn’t allow for them.
 


I will take a look at both links. Thank you!

#65
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

So, wait, let me get this straight. Is your argument that all of Judaism is a vast conspiracy because Wikipedia tells you so?
No, Wikipedia does not tell me that. It gives evidence of when the earliest manuscripts are recovered with both religions. It is a quick fix.

What I see by reading the two testaments is that 1) God chooses a people to make Himself known to the world through. Through these people, the Messiah will come. He enters into a covenant with these people. It is an if/then covenant. If they obey God will bless them with the promises of the covenant. If they do not then God will punish them with the curses of disobedience. Continually, throughout this covenant, the witness is that the people do not follow God in the prescribed manner. God sends prophets and teachers to them to warn them yet they do not heed His warnings. God judges their disobedience. His Shekhinah glory leaves the temple and it is destroyed. God promises another temple will be destroyed before He sets up His eternal kingdom. This happens in AD 70. Where is the kingdom He promised? You don't recognize the spiritual heavenly kingdom already exists. It has been established. You fail to recognize the promised Messiah has come. 

I believe you set up a man-made system yet again to compensate from the destruction in AD 70.  

Are you arguing that particular points which I support with text must be wrong because I can't reassure you that the text exists? I note you haven't countered with any real argument about the points I presented, just more questions steeped in ignorance.
All you did was make assertions about the way you understand the Hebraic Scriptures is right. In this session, we have not delved into Scripture itself.



I will sift through these. What do you want me to draw my attention to? Am I going to be wading through hundreds of pages without knowing?

How about giving me a hint? I could get into a "links war" with you. I could provide links for you to read and you can provide me with links to read, then we don't have to say anything. Or I can provide the gist of the information and let you investigate further if you are interested. Which way would you prefer?


#66
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Very interesting and impressive! Thank you. 
"How were the new scrolls verified? An authentic "proof text" was always kept in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, against which all other scrolls would be checked. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Sages would periodically perform global checks to weed out any scribal errors."

The temple with the proof text was destroyed in AD 70. The people were dispersed (the Diaspora) across the Roman Empire. What proof do you have that they managed to preserve the text from at least one of the twelve tribes since the "proof text" would have been destroyed? 

"How many letters are there in the Torah? 304,805 letters (or approximately 79,000 words)...But how impressive is this compared to other similar documents, such as the Christian Bible? (Both books contain approximately the same number of words.)"

Supposedly, the scribe would count every word. 



"David M. Steimle writes this about the Greek New Testament,
NT has only 138,162 words drawn from 5,437 words."

One comparison on the words of the original languages lists just one book - Jeremiah as having 33,002 words. I do not understand how your 79,000 words are enough. Moses (regarding the Pentateuch) is credited with 129,125 words. The article says that both Testaments contain approximately the same amount of words in their original languages. The article credits the Hebrew Bible as containing 77% of the words, which leaves 23% for the NT. Something does not add up. 

I have more problems to discuss in your next link when I get time. 

What is the earliest recorded copy that you have - dating from when? Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls?

#67
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
“I also attribute it to one of our two religions corrupting thetext, of which I point to yours as being the case.
 
That’s fine but can you point to specifics that were corrupted?Do you have any proof of corruption other than the message not being consistentwith the conclusions that you start with?
 
“ I see Judaism as failing to recognize and accept their Messiahand the time of His coming.   
 
But that’s because you see the concept of messiah verydifferently from how Jews now and then understood it. And as it was a conceptgiven to Judaism, it seems strange to tell Jews they don’t know their ownideas.
 
“I am saying that there are around 300 Messianic prophecies thatwe as Christians recognize as relating to Jesus. Many of these you do not. Youhave a clearer understanding of your Hebrew Bible texts than I do, on wherethey differ from the OT texts. So I ask you, how many references do you have tothe Messiah. I used one source that identified only a handful. 
 
The problem is threefold:
1. We understand that text has multiple meanings (between 4 and70 levels of meaning) so to ask what has messianic relevance would require theanswer of “most of it” and “none of it”
2. We understand that the word “messiah” means something differentfrom how you use it. As such, references to a messianic concept may refer tosomething totally different from what you mean
3. We have complementary texts which, as a function of faith,provide explanation for the written text with equal authority so how weunderstand the words is informed by much more than a literal reading.
 
Here is some background http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
 
“It exists for some Jews, such as Jews for Jesus. 
“And how successful have you been in keeping the law? In onesense you recognize how holy and pure G-D is, yet in another, you fail to liveup to His purity. How does that justify you before God? Will your good deedsoutweigh your bad, and what happens if they don't?
 
I hope I have been successful. There are many laws and I work,everyday, at every moment to follow them. If I have failed then I hope that inthe next world, I will learn how to be better.
 
“ And what does "the system holds so the aspects of thesystem hold" mean? 
If the text provides a recourse, a system by which authority canbe established, and that system still exists as sanctioned by God (in thatverse) then the people given authority by that sanctioned system are the dulydeputized and sanctioned priests/judges.
 

#68
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
 
“Or yours perhaps?
 
My limited understanding of Jewish law, its evolution andexpansiveness? I think the odds are that you know less about Jewish law than Ido,
 
“ Do you think you will be justified by following the Law? Youhave stated you don't always follow it. What about those times?
 
I don’t know what you mean by “justified”. Sometimes, I amwrong. Sometimes I sin. I work on that and on repentance.
 
“Why did God allow the destruction of the city by theBabylonians? Was that not a judgment? Daniel seemed to think so. Daniel 9:1-26seems to signify as much. Daniel 9:24-27 also spoke of once again a judgment onthe city and temple, per the curses of disobedience. Did that not happen?
 
There have been plenty of judgments and destructions. In fact,we are still in exile. You ask about the 70 weeks thing? That has been explainedin a number of ways by all sorts of sources to refer to the second temple. Ifyou would like a website which breaks it down, here is one opinion -- https://www.drazin.com/index6773.html?7._The_L-RD%27S_Anointed just scroll down. I can give you other opinions if you would like, none ofwhich require any Christian thinking.
 
 
“You have admitted you try to live by the law but you are notliving according to the stipulations for atoning for your sins that the Lawrequired - animal sacrifice, presented by a Levitical priest.
 
Well, no. What I said is that there are systems in place forwhen we have no sacrifices and that even sacrifice was never the end all and beall of atonement (it didn’t even cover all sorts of sins). So saying that I don’tlive according to the stipulations, when you don’t know all the stipulations isproblematic at best.
 
“ You no longer have a physical temple. Why is that? That iswhere Israel met before the presence of God. Now, where do they meet? Thesynagog, right?
 
“How does the Law make provisions for you?
“No animal sacrifices? So you are no living according to thecovenant as stipulated. It required animal sacrifices for the atonement of thenation and also sin offerings for individual sins, depending on what theperson could afford. 
 
And if a person could offer only flour, flour sufficed. Noanimal sacrifice was necessary. And even those sacrifices only covered certainsins.
 

#69
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Here is some information om the number of letters and words (remember that what is ascribed to Moses goes beyond the text of the 5 books)

#70
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Before I respond, please can you tell me why the text is so corrupted every time I open your posts? I keep finding words running together that I have to correct to make sense of what is being said. 

“The OT or Hebrew Bible contains various references to the sacrifice as representing them by their laying of hands on the animal. The animal was used to atone for their sins, thus it was a substitution. It was not their blood that was shed yet it provided the atonement for THEIR sins. 
 
Except that manty sacrifices were not for sins that would require the shedding of blood otherwise, so the death of an animal could not substitute for anything. Nothing in any of the text you provide says “substitute”– they say “atonement”. Instead of inserting what you believe, read the text. If I commit a sin, I owe something to repay for that act. My loss of something and my dedication of something are the sacrifice. When the text demands blood, it doesn’t allow animals to replace it (that’s why there is a death penalty –if animal substitution worked, then killing an animal would substitute for killing a criminal. But it doesn’t)
Leviticus 4:1-3 (NASB)
The Law of Sin Offerings
4 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, 3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
Leviticus 4:27-29 
27 ‘Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, 28 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. 29 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering.


1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally [by committing one] of all the commandments of the Lord, which may not be committed, and he commits [part] of one of them
3. If the anointed kohen sins, bringing guilt to the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed, an unblemished young bull as a sin offering to the Lord.
27. If one person of the people of the land commits a sin unintentionally, by his committing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be committed, incurring guilt.
28. if his sin that he committed is made known to him, he shall bring his sacrifice: an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he committed.
29. And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] on the head of the sin offering, and he shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.




Who sinned - the man or the animal? If it is the man then the man must pay the penalty. His life is required for sin, yet God has permitted in his place a bull or goat to be offered. What does that tell you? What does placing his hands on the head of the bull or goat tell you? It tells me he recognizes the price for sin, a life is required. That life is not his life, but an animal that represents him. The cost is an animal without defect be slaughtered. It is a high price, but not his own life, yet it allows the offerer to have his relationship with God restored. 

Do you think God allows sin to go unpunished? He did not in the Garden. What is the price for sin? It is a death. God told Adam that if he was disobedient he would surely die that very day. Do you acknowledge that happened?

16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.
17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

What does sin do? It separates a man from the presences and relationship with God. Did God say ON THE DAY you eat of it you shall die? So sin brought death. 

Your people are sinning. Do they not deserve death? God in His grace and mercy provided a provision for sin. It pointed to a greater sacrifice that would take away sin forever for His people. 

[ One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient ] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,


#71
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Everything in the Law and Hebrew Bible points towards Jesus Christ! You just don't realize this. Your eyes are closed to this.

2 Corinthians 3:13-15 
13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil 
remains

unlifted
,
because it is removed in Christ.
 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

Acts 3:22-26
22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet 
like me from your brethren; to 
Him
 you shall give heed to everything 

He says to you.
 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God 
made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your 
seed
 all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’

 26 For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19
15. A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him.
18. I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.
19. And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.

So, just as you have Moses and the 1st Exodus taking the people from the land of bondage to the Promised Land, so you have Jesus - the Second Moses - taking His people from bondage and slavery in the land to the greater Promised Land, the heavenly country. Just like you listen to Moses, God commands you listen to Jesus. I could point of similarity after similarity between the physical Hebrew Bible and the spiritual significance of the teaching.  

 
“So the offering and the shed blood was a substitute. It was not their blood. 
But their blood wasn’t demanded. Their repentance and sacrifice were.
Blood represents life. Without blood, there is not life. The animal blood represented their life. Their laying of hands on the animal represented the animal in their place. God, in Eden, told Adam that in the day he ate of the tree of knowledge he would surely die. Death is a curse of the Fall. Death separates us from God.  

 
 
“I think your charge is misrepresentative of the plain language presented.
 
I think it is duplicitous for you to define “substitution” but cite text which never uses that term.

God provides the idea of substitutionary atonement throughout the Hebrew Bible. Abraham was going to sacrifice his Son of the promise, yet God provided a substitute. God had instructed Abraham to take his son 

2 He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.” 
13 Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and 
took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.


2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
13. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.


I.e., it was a substitution for his son that God provided and it is a spiritual picture and truth of God offering His Son as the offering.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
 
#72
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

If you can't produce any then I contend that the codification of the Scriptures as contained in the Christian Bible is more reliable than yours and that it was not us but your Rabbinical scholars who altered the wording.  

So, yes, the heart of your argument is the claim that all of Judaism is wrong because you claim that your work of fiction can be more authoritative because you have copies of it. Copies of old fiction suddenly become real. It IS a miracle.
I do not doubt your Bible for it is my Bible also. I doubt whether your interpretation is correct. I doubt whether the claims that we altered it is true. Jesus cited the Septuagint. Why would He quote something He knew was not true? 


I note, again, that you can't actually point to any altered text and haven't argued any actual content. This delights me no end.

What I point to is that besides the Dead Sea Scrolls your earliest manuscript that you can produce a copy of dates to around 900-1000 CE. Our earliest dates back much earlier. The number of copies is more numerous too. The inaccuracies come from the NT scribes not copying the text with the same degree of care that was instructed of the Hebrew Bible. I will try to establish some of these claims.

#73
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
 
“Before I respond, please can you tell me why the text is socorrupted every time I open your posts? I keep finding words running togetherthat I have to correct to make sense of what is being said. 
 
I have no idea.
 
“ Who sinned - the man or the animal? If it is the man thenthe man must pay the penalty. His life is required for sin, yet God haspermitted in his place a bull or goat to be offered.
 
OK, here are the mistakes. First, the sacrifice is only forunintentional sins. Second, it isn’t for ones which would require the sinner’slife. Third, it isn’t a repayment – that is still required as separate anddepending on the nature of the sin. So, in sum, the killing of an animal doesnot replace or substitute for the killing of the person.
 
“ What does that tell you? What does placing his hands on thehead of the bull or goat tell you? It tells me he recognizes the price for sin,a life is required.
 
Interesting that it tells you that. It tells me something verydifferent because it applies in cases where the sinner would not have to die. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicha_in_sacrificesCheck out Lev 3:2. Hands are laid where there is no sin.

“Do you think God allows sin to go unpunished? He did not in the Garden. Whatis the price for sin? It is a death.
 
Actually not. Different sins have different punishments. Some involvedeath and no sacrifice avoids that. Some require financial payments.
 
“ God told Adam that if he was disobedient he would surelydie that very day. Do you acknowledge that happened?
 
Your translation is wrong. The Hebrew doesn’t say he would die “thatvery day”. Only that on that day he would incur a death penalty. Before that,man was intended to be immortal.
 
“ Did God say ON THE DAY you eat of it you shall die?
 
No.
 
“ So sin brought death. 
Yes. And people are still dying.
 
“Do they not deserve death?
Not in most cases. And trying to quote meaningless Christiantexts won’t change that.

#74
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

Sorry for the fractured replies -- I am still uncomfortable with this interface:
I have the same difficulties. I have to constantly go and check what is written. For some reason typing too close to other text can alter what has already been said. 


What exactly are you referring to as Pharisitical in Matthew 5 & 6? Jesus was citing the Law of Moses. 
Actually, he cites the Talmud, so if you want to call that the law of Moses, you just verified the oral law. Thanks!
Okay. Or the Talmud copies Him. We look at it differently. Prove the Talmud came first. I accept that the written law was quoted but that Jesus added to it. I accept that the Jews memorized the Law so that they could recite it orally. 


Here are a couple

Talmud, Kallah, Chapter 1
He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.
Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Did you notice how He amended the Law? Jesus cites it, then amends it. "But I say to you..."


Talmud, Gittin 90a
The school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....

Talmud, Baba Bathra 9b
Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....


But hey...it's all part of the grand Jewish conspiracy to invent a religion after the fact, right?

More light reading if you would like...
Sure, I will gladly read it to see where you are coming from. Is there a particular point you want me to gleam or do you feel the whole link speaks of a conspiracy? I will think about it and get back to you once I have researched whatever it is that I feel is suspect. 

#75
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
 
“Everything in the Law and Hebrew Bible points towardsJesus Christ! You just don't realize this. Your eyes are closed to this.
That is your (arrogant, IMHO) belief. Supporting it withself-serving Christian text does nothing to advance your claim.

The funniest part to me is that Jesus, in endorsing thePharisaic teachings, would have known that the era of prophecy ended 300 yearsbefore he was born so he could not have been considered a prophet.

“So, just as you have Moses and the 1st Exodus taking thepeople from the land of bondage to the Promised Land, so you have Jesus - theSecond Moses - taking His people from bondage and slavery in the land to thegreater Promised Land, the heavenly country. Just like you listen to Moses, Godcommands you listen to Jesus. I could point of similarity after similaritybetween the physical Hebrew Bible and the spiritual significance of theteaching.  

And if I pointed to the Koran, the BOM or the texts ofthe Raelians and showed you connections you would argue that they are invalid.God gave Christians the Mormons so that they would know whast Jews feel likewhen people insist that there are newer prophets.
 
“ Blood represents life. Without blood, there is notlife.

Also, without oxygen, and water. So? In Jewish law, blooddoes carry an aspect of the soul so it must be buried and not eaten. That quotepeople love to mine about “the blood is the life” comes from a textual sectionabout eating meat and covering blood.

“God provides the idea of substitutionary atonementthroughout the Hebrew Bible.

And yet, in none of the sections you quoted was there theword “substitute.”

“ Abraham was going to sacrifice his Son of the promise,yet God provided a substitute.
True, but it wasn’t a sin sacrifice.

“ God had instructed Abraham to take his son

Strictly speaking, according to the Hebrew, Abe wascommanded to raise his son up as a sacrifice, not actually sacrifice him. Infact, the Sforno explains the “in place of” as

inexchange for what he had had in mind to do with his son. The phrase reminds usof Psalms 15,2 ודובר אמת בלבו, “hespoke truthfully in his heart.” [the author justifies the use of the word תחת, “inlieu of,” for something which had not actually happened, i.e. Yitzchok had notbeen slaughtered.
 
 

#76
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
 
“I do not doubt your Bible for it is my Bible also. Idoubt whether your interpretation is correct. I doubt whether the claims thatwe altered it is true. Jesus cited the Septuagint. Why would He quote somethingHe knew was not true? 
 
First you have to start by assuming that the Christian textaccounts are accurate and that Jesus actually said what was attributed to him.Then you can wonder what version (based on your translation) he meant. Then youcan decide that if anything doesn’t connect with the Jewish version of texts,all of Judaism must be one major cover up. Have fun with that.
 
“What I point to is that besides the Dead Sea Scrolls yourearliest manuscript that you can produce a copy of dates to around900-1000 CE. Our earliest dates back much earlier. The number of copies is morenumerous too. The inaccuracies come from the NT scribes not copying thetext with the same degree of care that was instructed of the Hebrew Bible. Iwill try to establish some of these claims.
 
I don’t see why you would. There are very few changesthroughout the historical record of the Jewish texts but if you want to crowabout Christian texts feel free. Sadly, over history, non-Jewish forces workedhard to burn or otherwise destroy Jewish texts so there are fewer to rely on.One wonders why they insisted on destroying the record of Jewish thought. Whatthreat did it pose? Oh yeah…

#77
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
 
Okay. Or the Talmud copies Him.
 
And there we have it. If I can show texts that Judaism has beenstudying since before Jesus was born, you simply say “you don’t have signed anddated copies, so the entirety of Jewish law is copying Jesus.”
 
That’s the core of your faith and it can’t be argued. I showthat Jesus quoted earlier texts so you say that the texts aren’t earlier. Sowhen Jesus says to listen to the Pharisees, and their central difference wasthat they accepted a codified oral law, you say that the oral law didn’t exist.Fine. I can’t argue with that logic.
 
“ Did you notice how He amended the Law? Jesus cites it,then amends it. "But I say to you..."
 
Wow! Major difference! He said “I say” and then said the samething. That totally proves that he said it! I have plenty of students who wouldlove to use this method to support the contention that they “amended” earlierstatements.
 
 

#78
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

I found it extremely hard to follow. What is the point you want me to understand?
#79
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
That citing the sept as some sort of phantom authoritative and unquestioned text is problematic and just as susceptible to doubt as any other text.
#80
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends


Here is some information om the number of letters and words (remember that what is ascribed to Moses goes beyond the text of the 5 books)

Thank you for your trouble! I am going to take a week or so and examine your case. 

#81
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
So who do you say Jesus is?
#82
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Judaism presents a range of possibilities, from "he never existed" to "a political rabble rouser" to a religious reformer to a practitioner of magic to "no one who matters" to a false messianic claimant. The historicity of the Christian Bible can't be presumed so wondering about its details is not a major priority in Judaism. 
#83
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends

In other words, you see Jesus as simply a man at best.


Well, we Orthodox Christians do not see Jesus as being a man, but The Word of God.

Not that a man is The Word of God, but The Word of God as it is. The very Word of God that everything came into being from.


Topic's author
#84
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Thank you for your trouble! I am going to take a week or so and examine your case. 

Which you will reject at the first available opportunity.
#85
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Understood absolutely. And Muslims see him as a human prophet. And each belief system has a combination of its own texts and those of earlier days to support its position. 
#86
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
It's not the same Jesus though. We don't worship a man as God, even you and the Muslims would agree that this is an error.


Our beliefs are not supported by texts, but The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth we certainly believe inspired the authors of scripture. Scripture itself though is a part of church tradition. 

So Jews and Muslims are not even really looking at the same thing. So it actually is a very relevant to point out that we are not talking about the same thing.


The Jesus Christ that we recognize in Orthodoxy is The Word of God, which obviously existed before a historical figure could walk the Earth.


#87
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Jesus Christ that we recognize in Orthodoxy is The Word of God, which obviously existed before a historical figure could walk the Earth.
And this is a core of your faith/belief system. It drives your understanding and that's wonderful for you. It is very different from how others view the concept of Jesus (and, all the more so, the actuality).

#88
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8

Thank you for your trouble! I am going to take a week or so and examine your case. 

Which you will reject at the first available opportunity. 
-->@Stephen

Very possibly, but I will consider what he has said. He made some good points regarding the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures. I know some Bibles translate from the Hebrew and others use the Septuagint. I have to evaluate that. The apostles cite Jesus either quoting or citing from the Septuagint in some places. I have to sort that out. It either means that Jesus saw the value in this translation and being who He is helps them and us to understand the significance or the Septuagint translation was added later. 
#89
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
Well, it doesn't really matter how people who are mistaken believe, because the truth isn't arbitrary.

I can see you don't like it when other people tell you what you believe, and define your faith for you. Well, has it occured to you that maybe this little point here is so integral to the whole thing that it makes the difference between pagan delusion and True Religion?

So if you simply refuse to be corrected on this, it becomes easy to dismiss the whole thing without ever having to get understanding about it.

That certainly is not righteous judgement.


#90
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Muslims have their own text and are not Christians. Why should their beliefs effect a Christian?