I found it interesting that the concept of the Israelites having "killed their prophets" is found in Matthew 3:37 and Luke 13:34, but is also found in Chapter 3 of the Quran, verses 21, 112 and 181, as well as Chapter 4: 155.
It would suggest that there was a common source or awareness of this idea by the authors of the gospels that was known about by the authors of these Quranic chapters.
On the other hand, we find that despite some similarities between the Quranic idea of the virgin birth and that of Luke and Matthew, the Quranic version eliminates mention of all the events in the birth of Jesus found in those two gospels including Joseph. That itself suggests that the Quranic source was not directly anything or anyone knowledgeable about the gospels, but an independent source.
The Quran also seems to speak more about the life of John the Baptist than about Jesus himself, and apparently knows nothing of Paul or his epistles while polemically rejecting the trinity which is not really found in the epistles anyway. Had the authors of the Quran been aquainted with any Christian source, including Nestorians, etc., they surely would have found reason to condemn Paul as the Quran condemns other areas considered idolatry. Thus it would seem to me that the authors of the Quran did not include any documents or sources that could be identified as New Testament Christianity.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
I found it interesting that the concept of the Israelites having "killed their prophets" is found in Matthew 3:37 and Luke 13:34, but is also found in Chapter 3 of the Quran, verses 21, 112 and 181, as well as Chapter 4: 155.
It would suggest that there was a common source or awareness of this idea by the authors of the gospels that was known about by the authors of these Quranic chapters.
Any things in common (virtually none) between the Quran and the Gospel were plagiarized.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PMOn the other hand, we find that despite some similarities between the Quranic idea of the virgin birth and that of Luke and Matthew, the Quranic version eliminates mention of all the events in the birth of Jesus found in those two gospels including Joseph. That itself suggests that the Quranic source was not directly anything or anyone knowledgeable about the gospels, but an independent source.
As the prior link details, Muhammad was coached by many people that had marginal, and perhaps more, knowledge of the bible from a tri-lingual Jewish secretary, to his good friend and ex"Christian" Jabr as well as Jewish and formerly Christian wives and concubines.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that from a Christian perspective, a single verse from the Quran makes it obvious that it is Satan that inspired
Muhammad, to proclaim the EXACT OPPOSITE of the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel.http://www.petewaldo.com/
Islam is antichrist
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/antichrist.htm
http://www.petewaldo.com/
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PMThe Quran also seems to speak more about the life of John the Baptist than about Jesus himself, ......
So do Mandaeans, http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2805.0 which would seem another group Muhammad and his fellow authors lifted from - including roots of Ramadan.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1571.0
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PM........ and apparently knows nothing of Paul or his epistles while polemically rejecting the trinity which is not really found in the epistles anyway.
Which of the epistles are silent regarding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=610.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=611.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2999.0
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PMHad the authors of the Quran been aquainted with any Christian source, including Nestorians, etc., ......
Muhammad was familiar with first century Gnosticism by way of his cousin Waraqa who was an occult Ebionite priest.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm
It was Simon Magnus, aka Simon the Magician, Simon the Sorcerer, who originally penned Muhammad's denial of Jesus' crucifixion, that he received by way of Waraqa.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PM...... they surely would have found reason to condemn Paul ......
No more reason to condemn Paul than they tacitly do Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Jesus. They must necessarily reject them all, to follow THE false prophet Muhammad.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PM...... as the Quran condemns other areas considered idolatry. Thus it would seem to me that the authors of the Quran did not include any documents or sources that could be identified as New Testament Christianity.
Only the same bits and pieces and rehashed myths and fables that he created from Judaism as well.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=893.0
The problem with this way of looking at it is that there is no real evidence for the theories related to Simon Magus.
There is also reason to believe that the Mohammed of the Quran did not exist. Thus there are revisionists not only about the origins of Christianity but about the origins of Islam as well.
Revisionists have been able to suggest that a number of texts in the Quran originated in pre-Islamic times among Arab monotheists with ideas about Jesus that were not directly linked to the teachings of the texts of the New Testament.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 03:39:44 PM
The problem with this way of looking at it ......
That is to say, in view of the available evidence?
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 03:39:44 PM....... is that there is no real evidence for the theories related to Simon Magus.
We have the evidence from the Gospel, as well as early church fathers regarding Simon's Gnostic heresy. Indeed he was called "The Father of Heresies".
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2749.0
On what basis do you make the claim that there is "no real evidence" for what "theories" are you making reference to?
Simon's Gnostic heresy that it only appeared that Jesus was crucified was parroted by others after him.
This from Tertullian in "Against All Heresies"
"After him [Simon Magnus] Menander, his disciple (likewise a magician), saying the same as Simon. Whatever Simon had affirmed himself to be, this did Menander equally affirm himself to be, asserting that none could possibly have salvation without being baptized in his name."
"Afterwards, again, followed Saturninus: he, too, affirming ..... that Christ had not existed in a bodily substance, and had endured a quasi-passion in a phantasmal shape merely; that a resurrection of the flesh there will by no means be."
"Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides. He affirms that there is a supreme Deity, by name Abraxas .... there ensued infinite issues and processions of angels; that by these angels 365 heavens were formed ...."
Then by way of the Ebionites who adopted this heresy propagating throughout the next centuries until Muhammad's wife Khadijah sent him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal, an ebionite occult priest.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 03:39:44 PM
There is also reason to believe that the Mohammed of the Quran did not exist.
God gave man free will to disbelieve anything they so choose, in spite of the available evidence, and even beyond all reason. It is from consideration of the available evidence that we can draw reasonable conclusions.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 03:39:44 PMThus there are revisionists not only about the origins of Christianity but about the origins of Islam as well.
Revisionists have been able to suggest that a number of texts in the Quran originated in pre-Islamic times among Arab monotheists with ideas about Jesus that were not directly linked to the teachings of the texts of the New Testament.
Regarding revisionism please revisit and reply to this post.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13299#msg13299
Peter, the nagging problem with all of this is significant. No one can say independently anything about Simon Magus because the only sources are from church heresiologists/apologists who are not unbiased observers but rather spokesmen for the Constantinian church regime.
As far as the trinity is concerned, the epistles don't refer to what conventional Christianity deems them to be. God is a father to all, and Christians believe the Christ (either historical or celestial) existed as someone. And the holy spirit is a spiritual idea. But that isn't the same thing as the trinity.
And even the text attributed to Tertullian cannot be taken according to the dating of the heresiologists. Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 06:18:20 PM
Peter, the nagging problem with all of this is significant. No one can say independently anything about Simon Magus because the only sources are from church heresiologists/apologists who are not unbiased observers but rather spokesmen for the Constantinian church regime.
You keep speaking authoritatively about subjects that you demonstrate abject ignorance to. Irenaeus and Tertullian predate Constantine.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 06:18:20 PMAs far as the trinity is concerned, the epistles don't refer to what conventional Christianity deems them to be.
See what I mean? "Conventional Christianity" recognizes the "trinity" as being the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 06:18:20 PMGod is a father to all, ......
No He isn't. God is Father to His believers.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Distinct from God as the Father of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:6 And
because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=611.0
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 06:18:20 PM....... and Christians believe the Christ (either historical or celestial) existed as someone.
Christians believe that the Father and His Son Yeshua - the Messiah, the Christ - are coexistent from before the foundation of the world.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
God later manifest, or revealed Himself, through the flesh of His Son. In a manner not unlike when He revealed Himself to Abraham.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2358.0
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 06:18:20 PMAnd the holy spirit is a spiritual idea.
Perhaps we can safely presume you aren't a Christian if you understand the Holy Spirit as an "idea".
1Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of
the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that]
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm
Quote from: Dave2 on April 19, 2012, 06:18:20 PMBut that isn't the same thing as the trinity.
And even the text attributed to Tertullian cannot be taken according to the dating of the heresiologists. Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Perhaps what you really mean is you choose to put your effort into denying, rejecting, and disbelieving the evidence.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0
It's not a question of denying or the like. It's a question of examination, reflection, observation and analysis.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 20, 2012, 01:59:28 PM
It's not a question of denying or the like. It's a question of examination, reflection, observation and analysis.
Then let us engage in some. Would you accept 537-36 BC (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7ncCspNP_3IAvA1XNyoA?p=first+year+of+cyrus+babylon+%22537%22+%22536%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=) as possible dating for the first year of Cyrus?
(as you can see from the Yahoo search if you click on the dates there is no shortage of folks that do)
Judaism does not follow secular dating. The First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 08:35:30 AM
Judaism does not follow secular dating. The First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.
Then please just indulge me and click on the dates 537-36 BC (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7ncCspNP_3IAvA1XNyoA?p=first+year+of+cyrus+babylon+%22537%22+%22536%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=) to confirm, that according to the secular dating that I recognize you reject, that is very widely accepted dating for the first year of Cyrus.
I clicked. Now what? The second Temple was mistakenly begun 50 years later and stopped until after.the defeat of Haman. Among his sons hanged were officials in Judea who were collaborating with the Samaritans against the Jews.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 08:51:56 AM
I clicked. Now what?
Let me quote from a version of the Tanach from chabad.org:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16495/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.
What is a "time"? What is meant by 2-1/2 "times"? 2-1/2 of what?
(If we could both stay on this thread for a bit, and keep hitting our refresh button, it will save us some time.)
I would have to check the commentaries. It requires time [no pun intended]. But what is the point you are driving at here?
Quote from: Peter on April 27, 2012, 08:56:37 AM
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 08:51:56 AM
I clicked. Now what?
Let me quote from a version of the Tanach from chabad.org:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16495/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.
What is a "time"? What is meant by 2-1/2 "times"? 2-1/2 of what?
(If we could both stay on this thread for a bit, and keep hitting our refresh button, it will save us some time.)
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 10:29:43 AM
I would have to check the commentaries.
It might take some searching, since the "anti-missionary education" Jews at Chabad.org that I chatted with in their forum, told me their scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament) are silent regarding what a "time" is.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 10:29:43 AMIt requires time [no pun intended].
Good one! ;)
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 10:29:43 AMBut what is the point you are driving at here?
What if "ended shattering the strength of the holy people" or as the KJV confirms "shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people" were a reference to the end of the scattering of Jews among the nations?
An end of their scattered power, once their power was consolidated, in Israel and Jerusalem?
Without squeezing it through the filter of your doctrine, can you see how purely on a textual basis, it could be understood as saying something like that?
I will try to check it over the Shabbat. I will look at our commentaries regarding Daniel 12:7.
Aside from that, remember the reference in Song of Songs THREE times to "...until you so wish....."
See this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths
Quote from: Dave2 on April 27, 2012, 02:16:26 PM
I will try to check it over the Shabbat. I will look at our commentaries regarding Daniel 12:7.
Aside from that, remember the reference in Song of Songs THREE times to "...until you so wish....."
See this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths
But this was just another hypothetical question, not an inquiry as to whether it's part of your doctrine or not. Again,
What if "ended shattering the strength of the holy people" or as the KJV confirms "shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people" were a reference to the end of the scattering of Jews among the nations?
An end of their "shattered strength" and "scattered power", as a result of their power being consolidated, in Israel and Jerusalem?
Isn't it hard to imagine it meaning anything else?
A simple "yes it seems like it could communicate something like that, based solely on the words, and how they are used, in the verse." would do.
I checked the commentary sources on that verse in Daniel, and there is nothing specific to the reference of "time" per se. The context of the chapter has to do with the hiddenness of the ultimate Redemption and coming of the Messiah.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 28, 2012, 10:02:35 PM
I checked the commentary sources on that verse in Daniel, and there is nothing specific to the reference of "time" per se. The context of the chapter has to do with the hiddenness of the ultimate Redemption and coming of the Messiah.
Dave, I realize you are not an adherent of the New Testament, but I hope you will indulge me once again. In the New Testament we find this verse:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Koine Greek word that is translated as "day" in the above verse is "hemera". It is an ambiguous word whose definition is determined by it's context.
In 3 verses in the KJV it is translated as "time" (in 12 verses in the NASB).
From Strong's:
New Testament Greek Definition:
2250
hemera {hay-mer'-ah}
from (with 5610 implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit,
akin to the base of 1476) meaning tame, i.e. gentle;
TDNT - 2:943,309; n f
AV - day 355, daily + 2596 15,
time 3, not tr 2, misc 14; 389
So if a "time" is a thousand years, and Daniel 12:7 calls for a factor of 2-1/2 times, that would indicate a total of 2500 years.
Sorry, I don't know what to make of what you are discussing. All I can go on is what I see in Hebrew, Aramaic and the commentaries. Speaking of New Testament, and you may want to carry this over to a different thread, how is it that the great John the Baptist, Mary, virgin birth, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Pilate, Golgotha, Sermon on the Mount and other things are never hinted at even once in the epistles attributed to Paul??
How is it that in Romans 15 Paul doesn't want to move into territory where "the gospel" was already known when in Galatians he informs his readers that it is HE who has the exclusive gospel truth?
And how is it possible when he refers to apostles who were believed to have known the man Jesus he never expresses even the slightest awe and reverence for them at all with praise for having seen and walked with the man Jesus??
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 11:57:54 AM
Sorry, I don't know what to make of what you are discussing. All I can go on is what I see in Hebrew, Aramaic and the commentaries. Speaking of New Testament, ...
The prophecy begins (again quoting from the Tanach):
(Tanach) Daniel 10:1 In the
third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar, and the word was true, and
for a long time, and he understood the word and he understood it in the vision.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16493
Not dissimilar to the KJV Daniel 10:1 In the
third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [was] true,
but the time appointed [was] long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
So if the first year of Cyrus was 537-536, that would make the third year of Cyrus 534-533 BC.
subtracting 533 from 2500 years = 1967, the year the Israelis gained control of Jerusalem along with control of Israel "when they have
ended shattering the strength of the holy people".
I suppose we could chalk that up to just some sort of a freaky coincidence, to have hit a date spot-on over a period of 2500 years, that also seems to work textually as well.
And if you look at the dates 537-36 BC (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7ncCspNP_3IAvA1XNyoA?p=first+year+of+cyrus+babylon+%22537%22+%22536%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=) again, you will see that nobody else (that I've noticed) that is confirming those historical dates, is grinding the same axe I did - or any mathematical axe at all - because the church has been blinded to end-time passages in scripture, by unsound eschatology that came into the church in the 20th century.
So was it a one "time" wonder? (fully intending the pun that you excused yourself from! :D)
(Tanach) Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar, the king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream, and the visions of his mind [while asleep] on his bed; then he wrote the dream and said the beginnings of the matters.
(KJV) Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, [and] told the sum of the matters.
You can Yahoo confirmation for the first year of Belshazzar to be 553-552 BC (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7mfxap1PUw4A3x5XNyoA?p=first+year+belshazzar+553+552&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=)
Later in this dream we read:
(Tanach) Daniel 7:25 And he will speak words against the Most High, and he will oppress the high holy ones, and he will think to change the times and the law, and they will be delivered into his hand until a time, two times, and half a time.
(KJV) Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
2500 - 552 = 1948 The restoration of the Jews to the holy land, declaring an independent Israel. End of the Jews being given into his (their oppressors) hand and having to suffer the persecution at the hands of gentiles while being scattered among the "wilderness" of the nations.
Two separate problems that work out in perfect parallel, to pin the dates of 1948 and 1967 right to the year - over a period of 2500 years - and work textually as well. A coincidence?
This doesn't mean anything because the dates used by Jews correspond to HEBREW dates not dates "anno domino." You can find anything you want in the Tanakh. Even who will win the world series and of course the Bible Codes in the Torah.
In any case, it is only Esau who acts with vile violence, not Jacob. "Esau was a hunter, and Jacob was a pure man, who remained in his tents".
You continue to ignore the factual and historical issues related to the Zionist heretical movement of Amalek. I can't help anymore.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 01:14:36 PM
This doesn't mean anything because the dates used by Jews correspond to HEBREW dates not dates "anno domino."
However search as you did, you were unable to explain what a "time" was, by your books and commentaries.
The key to those problems was given to us in the first century, when the Gospel was written, under the Julian calendar (which is effectively the same as the solar calendar over the span of 2500 years). Thus the solutions were achieved using the same calendar, as the apostle who gave us the key used.
And until the
dates of 1948 and 1967 had passed, nobody could have seen the solutions to those problems. That's no surprise. The book of Daniel was sealed until the "time of the end":
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
This was followed up with a crystal clear statement of fact:
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
And what a perfect method of sealing it was! No men can be credited with opening it, but rather simply the passage of time!
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 01:14:36 PMYou can find anything you want in the Tanakh. Even who will win the world series and of course the Bible Codes in the Torah.
But as you can see this wasn't some sort of a contrived "bible code", but two specific problems that scripture assigned to us, that worked out in perfect parallel over 2500 years, both mathematically and textually.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 01:14:36 PMIn any case, it is only Esau who acts with vile violence, not Jacob. "Esau was a hunter, and Jacob was a pure man, who remained in his tents".
You continue to ignore the factual and historical issues related to the Zionist heretical movement of Amalek.
But these problems would suggest that God is a Zionist as prophesied by Daniel, and as you previously indicated the vast majority of Jews are Zionists too, that happen to have a different understanding of your scriptures.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 01:14:36 PMI can't help anymore.
It is you that has your head stuck in the sand regarding the Islamic conquest of Israel, and your support for anti-Zionist Muslims that are out to kill and subjugate both faithful and unfaithful Jews, Christians and non-Muslims of all stripes, not only in Israel but all around the world. With over 18,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks, just since 9-11 as meticulously logged by the folks are http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/. Just as they have since Muhammad did 1400 years ago.
Cut out the paranoia, for once and for all. G-d is not a Zionist. Zionism is an ideology developed by atheistic scum like Theodor Herzl. It has nothing whatever to do with the principles of the Torah. And leave the Muslims alone. How would you feel if your country was repeatedly bombed to smitherines and surrounded by aircraft carriers and tactical nuclear weapons? If these came into the Caribbean the US airforce would bomb the hell out of them in a minute. But when all these forces are all over the Middle East starting from colonized Palestine to the Persian Gulf, you expect those people just to stay home and play penucle all day?? Come on, give me a break.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PM
Cut out the paranoia, for once and for all.
The physical matter of fact of 1400 years of Islamic conquest has nothing to do with a state of mind, but what 1.5 billion people - 1/4 of mankind - are called to do by the false prophet Muhammad. And every true follower of Muhammad obeys him, and do what they can to be like him.
Surah 9.29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth,
(even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 30 The
Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the
Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say.
Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
Quran Sura 9.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise):
they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:
a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and
the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
http://www.petewaldo.com/jihad.htm
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PMAnd leave the Muslims alone. How would you feel if your country was repeatedly bombed to smitherines and surrounded by aircraft carriers and tactical nuclear weapons?
I refuse to believe that someone in your position could be that ignorant regarding
the 1400 year history of Islamic imperialistic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.
But why did you change the subject and not answer to the prior post on why the use of the Julian calendar, and the seal on the book of Daniel?
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PMG-d is not a Zionist.
Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PMZionism is an ideology developed by atheistic scum like Theodor Herzl.
Do you think your inability to control your name calling, and hatred expressed of persons, would help folks to conclude that you are a faithful Jew?
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PMIt has nothing whatever to do with the principles of the Torah.
But as you've already admitted, the vast number of Jews disagree with you on this.
I even showed you stunning fulfillment of bible prophecy in their return to Zion, but the hatred you express seems to trump all.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PMAnd leave the Muslims alone. How would you feel if your country was repeatedly bombed to smitherines and surrounded by aircraft carriers and tactical nuclear weapons? If these came into the Caribbean the US airforce would bomb the hell out of them in a minute. But when all these forces are all over the Middle East starting from colonized Palestine to the Persian Gulf, you expect those people just to stay home and play penucle all day??
Don't be silly. It's their job to terrorize and slay non-Muslims, just as their prophet did, and called his followers to do. One of the most consummate terrorists in the history of mankind.
Sura 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 03:08:44 PMCome on, give me a break.
I refuse to believe that someone in your position could be that ignorant regarding
the 1400 year history of Islamic imperialistic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.
But why did you change the subject and not answer to the prior post on the use of the Julian calendar, and the seal on the book of Daniel?
Shall I start quoting things from other religions describing some of their feelings that have no relevance? Don't be paranoid. I don't feel the slightest discomfort from Muslims. It's the United States with 300 bases worldwide and 2000 nuclear warheads. They all together have zero. What should worry me more? The fact that the Zionist State has 230 nuclear warheads to shoot at Europe and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or Iran that has ZERO nuclear warheads aimed at anyone has who HAVE signed the Non-Prolfieration Treaty??
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 04:19:30 PM
Shall I start quoting things from other religions describing some of their feelings that have no relevance? Don't be paranoid. I don't feel the slightest discomfort from Muslims.
That's a meaningless anecdote, simply indicating that you probably live in the U.S. or Australia, or another less than 2% Muslim country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXWjlgJ83E
While most Muslims don't engage in conquest, they must be approve those that are doing the heavy lifting of jihad, or they will be ostracized by their community. That's why so few speak out against Islamic violence.
Do you think that someone that is out to conquer and subjugate you would announce it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXWjlgJ83E
You must live in the U.S.
It's a far different thing for those that have to live in or near Muslim ghettos where Muslims are gaining power.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2968.0
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 04:19:30 PMIt's the United States with 300 bases worldwide and 2000 nuclear warheads.
I don't intend to get into a peeing contest regarding secular nation-states, but the only country the U.S has nuked - that killed so many Asians and Americans - was Japan, and it ended a conflict that would have killed millions more on both sides.
And the Japanese have thrived on the constitution we then assigned it, which in my opinion, was a good sight better then them being compelled to worship their leader Hirohito as a god. As a faithful Jew you might agree while a secular Jew probably wouldn't care.
Here's a picture of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today:
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4589009901323092&id=7462b561207f05c4fe78f7ccb5746609)
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 04:19:30 PMThey all together have zero. What should worry me more? The fact that the Zionist State has 230 nuclear warheads to shoot at Europe and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, ......
That's because they are too honest. Unlike Russia, for example, who signed the same but continued proliferating. And unlike Muslims that will sign anything, planning full well on violating it immediately, like they did in Gaza for example. But of course that's because their prophet encourages them to.
...If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."
Sahih Bukhari 9:89:260
Israel is not like their Islamic neighbors, who engage in, and break, agreement after agreement, while fully intending to break them when they enter the agreements.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 04:19:30 PM...... or Iran that has ZERO nuclear warheads aimed at anyone has who HAVE signed the Non-Prolfieration Treaty??
Thank you for that. I hadn't read it until I finished my prior replies. What you did was confirm, as did Yassar Arafat, what a ridiculous notion it is to engage in agreements with folks whose prophet tells them it's no problem to expiate an oath if something better comes along.
Like I said, the Israelis are too honest to declare an oath that they are uncertain they can keep. The Islamists will declare any kind of oath that will get them any kind of short term advantage they can glean from it, without ever intending to keep it in the first place.
I have asked this a few times.
Where do you live Dave?
Why not reply to this post that you ignored?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13504#msg13504
You see Dave, you couldn't tell me what a "time" is because your books and commentaries are silent on the subject, and and that's because Daniel's book was sealed until the "time of the end", and the last seal wasn't lifted until 1967. With just the 1948 problem, folks determined to cling to their tradition, might have been able to justify it to themselves as a freaky coincidence.
Yet I showed you two stunning math problems that were assigned to believers through Daniel, that work in perfect parallel over the span of 2500 years, to pin the restoration of the Jews to their land in 1948 and city in 1967, in stunning fulfillment even textually, since the scattered strength of Jews ended as the book of Daniel was unsealed! Not by the hand of man, but by the simple passage of time. Nobody can be credited with unsealing it, but God Himself.
Yet the best you can do is ignore it and turn away - without reason - because then you might have to reconcile that you are supposed to love Jews that live in Israel rather than hate them.
You stand there in the light of the math, clutching your traditions and crying "This doesn't mean anything because the dates used by Jews correspond to HEBREW dates not dates "anno domino.""
Just like a Christian might cry "But the tradition I was taught says it's 3-1/2 years, not 2500 years, that can't be what it means...." even though the only thing wrong with the exegesis of the time times problems is their false tradition.
Missing the stunning fulfillment of the prophecy all around. Indeed proof of God.
Though nothing new under the sun.
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
I'd encourage you to pray about it Dave, but not in some repetitive habit or tradition, but really ask God Himself - with an open heart and a contrite spirit - to share with you what He thinks.
How ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. You base your pet theories on numbers that work out according to Anno Domino which has absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish calendar according to which everything in Jewish history operated. For your information 1967 was really 5727.
But everything we discuss is not even a discussion. Whatever I have introduced to this Board has gone in one ear and out the other.
You can use any calender and it works. It is still 2500 years between the 3rd year of Cyrus' reign and the restoration. If you don't believe it tell us what year on your calender Cyrus' reign started.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 30, 2012, 09:12:38 PM
How ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. You base your pet theories on numbers that work out according to Anno Domino which has absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish calendar according to which everything in Jewish history operated. For your information 1967 was really 5727.
But everything we discuss is not even a discussion. Whatever I have introduced to this Board has gone in one ear and out the other.
Talk about in one ear and out the other. You admitted that Judaism has kept you blind and clueless as to what a "time" is. You admitted that NOWHERE under your Jewish calendar, in your books, commentaries or on the tongues of your Rabbis is a "time" defined. That is of course because it wasn't UNTIL the term was defined during the
new covenant era, under the Julian calendar, that the problem could be solved. Seems you hate truth almost as much as you hate your own brethren in Israel.
Have you asked God for a new heart? Have you been born again?
Jeremiah 31:30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant. 31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord. 32. For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people. 33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.
Yet because of your false doctrine you even join Nazis, skinheads, Aryans, David Duke and the KKK, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam, and Muhammad's followers, in their hatred of the vast majority of your own Zionist brethren, and you don't even seem to care. Indeed you seem to be perfectly comfortable in that company. At least you certainly haven't suggested otherwise.
You help advance the Islamic conquest of Israel, to convert it into another female circumcising, child doing, wife beating, concubine keeping, Christian beheading, Islamic terror, slave state, while you sit back all comfy in the U.S. and cheer it on from across an ocean.
Here's something else from the new covenant:
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 11:57:54 AM
Sorry, I don't know what to make of what you are discussing. All I can go on is what I see in Hebrew, Aramaic and the commentaries. Speaking of New Testament, and you may want to carry this over to a different thread, how is it that the great John the Baptist, Mary, virgin birth, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Pilate, Golgotha, Sermon on the Mount and other things are never hinted at even once in the epistles attributed to Paul??
How is it that in Romans 15 Paul doesn't want to move into territory where "the gospel" was already known when in Galatians he informs his readers that it is HE who has the exclusive gospel truth?
And how is it possible when he refers to apostles who were believed to have known the man Jesus he never expresses even the slightest awe and reverence for them at all with praise for having seen and walked with the man Jesus??
As per your suggestion we begin to explore your questions on a different thread here:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.0
That is true chutzpa. There you go claiming to know something of the Book of Daniel when you cannot even read Hebrew or Aramaic, and probably not Greek or Latin either. It's incredible. How do you know what is false doctrine? Don't you even read your own teachings from Matthew 23:2 for heaven's sake where "Jesus" gives a compliment to the "evil Pharisees"??
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
That is true chutzpa. There you go claiming to know something of the Book of Daniel when you cannot even read Hebrew or Aramaic, and probably not Greek or Latin either. It's incredible.
My Aramaic may be restricted to interlinears and Strong's and such, but it seems like it might perhaps be a little more honest then some of your scholars.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=615.msg2406#msg2406
Bar-Elohin does not refer to what you think it does, i.e. someone born to a virgin mother by the "holy spirit." It is an expression of the speaker's astonishment at looking at the fourth person who LOOKS LIKE an angel (he is NOT an angel, but looks like one). Sorry, again.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 12:50:01 PMIt's incredible. How do you know what is false doctrine?
One way is by the fruit, Dave, and when a person's doctrine has them running with
Nazis, skinheads, Aryans, David Duke and the KKK, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam, and supporting
the false prophet Muhammad's followers conquest of Jews and Christians in Israel, the fruit makes it abundantly clear that they are walking in false doctrine.
Add to that, that by your own admission, the vast amount of your own Jewish brethren, would agree would condemn your anti-Zionist doctrine, helps complete the picture.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 12:50:01 PMDon't you even read your own teachings from Matthew 23:2 for heaven's sake where "Jesus" gives a compliment to the "evil Pharisees"??
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."
Maybe you should try reading that passage.
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore
whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do;
but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For
they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them]
on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
That's a real compliment isn't it. Do as they say when they read from Moses' seat,
but don't do as they do. They place burdens on others that they are not willing to accept themselves. Parading around like little emperors with no clothes.
Maybe Jesus is speaking to you in the next one, and the anti-Zionist tree you fruit, along with Jew hating serpent seed doctrine holders that put on a pretense of religiosity:
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit. 34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 12:38 Then certain of the
scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An
evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Why? Same reason you have displayed repeatedly:
Mar 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
So now you want to divert away from the main issue into an incomprehensible interpretation of that portion of Matthew. Of course there could be different kinds of Pharisees, and it says so in the Talmud itself. However, he here we are talking about the teachers of the Law, thank you. And the Book of Daniel is in Hebrew and Aramaic and all the commentaries are also in Hebrew going way back.
While you are thinking about this, remember your own Matthew 5:18:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:40:50 PMSo now you want to divert away from the main issue into an incomprehensible interpretation of that portion of Matthew. Of course there could be different kinds of Pharisees, and it says so in the Talmud itself.
I agree that there may have been faithful Jews among the Pharisees, though some that hold anti-Zionist Christian replacement theology insist that the Koine Greek term "generation" used is literal, as if by "generation of vipers" Jesus would be condemning men by the happenstance of their time of birth, rather than the condition of their hearts. I believe the metaphorical use is meant, being a group of men that share the same character.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:40:50 PMHowever, he here we are talking about the teachers of the Law, thank you. And the Book of Daniel is in Hebrew and Aramaic and all the commentaries are also in Hebrew going way back.
Yet in all that you remained blind to what a "time" is, so it took the new covenant book of 2Peter to unseal the book of Daniel for us all.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13499#msg13499
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:40:50 PM
While you are thinking about this, remember your own Matthew 5:18:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So then you follow the law Dave, or the traditions of men? Which law? Kinda tough without a temple isn't it? Do you live in Israel? The law that joins you at the hip with Nazis and skinheads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_law
What laws did Adam and Eve, Noah, the Patriarchs observe before the giving of the Torah?? They received all their teachings ORALLY without anything written down. This continued to be the situation at Sinai and thereafter. Only a part of the Torah was put into written form. The rest of the Torah and its principles of exegesis were handed down ORALLY just as before. After all, both you and Karaites would know that it is impossible to know from the Torah how to circumcise correctly or how to slaughter meat correctly to make it kosher. These are part of the ORALLY transmitted teachings from the Almighty to Our Teacher Moshe, and from him to the great Joshua, the Elders, the Judges, the Prophets, the Sanhedrins, the Tannaim and Amoraim of the Talmud.
It is all so simple that it must be above your head, Peter. No disrespect intended, but sometimes I cannot take the stiffneckedness of people when they are pretending to engage in rational discussion.
Just remember what "Paul" said about keeping the Law. I guess I would have more in common with the author of Romans than you:
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
Romans 2.13.
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."
Romans 3.31.
"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
Romans 7.12.
"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." â€" Acts 24.14.
But of course he couldn't get it straight, or else Romans was combined with different messages:
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin ... Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." â€" Romans 3:20,28
"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." â€" Romans 7.6.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." â€" Romans 10.4.
You engage in all types of sophistry to explain why things are not stated in the epistles, because it is self-explanatory, and now you will engage in more sophistry to explain why the contradictions in Romans are not contradictions at all.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:40:50 PM
So now you want to divert away from the main issue into an incomprehensible interpretation of that portion of Matthew. Of course there could be different kinds of Pharisees, and it says so in the Talmud itself. However, he here we are talking about the teachers of the Law, thank you. And the Book of Daniel is in Hebrew and Aramaic and all the commentaries are also in Hebrew going way back.
While you are thinking about this, remember your own Matthew 5:18:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Yep. And it will not. But your own oral law contradicts such a sentiment.
Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments2 as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument,3 but they did not accept them. Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place â€" others affirm, four hundred cubits. 'No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards â€" 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined. Again he urged: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: 'When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?' Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.'4 What did he mean by this? â€" Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.5
This purposely wrenches Exodus 23:2 out of its' meaning. Specifically voiding it to make a point that essentially says even God weighing in on a matter will not dissuade the Jewish leaders from their decision.
Personally I think it is perfectly arrogant of someone who knows nothing of Judaism to pretend to determine anything about the principles of the oral law, in this case or any other. The Torah is authorized to establish rabbinical courts to apply the oral law and methodology of exegesis. Rabbi Eliezer purposely did this test to enshrine the importance of determination of law through rabbinical judges and not through one's subjective spiritual powers, no matter how great.
Read the account again. Rabbi Eliezer asked God to intervene to decide whether halachah agreed with him. It was the other Rabbi's that enshrined their oral law over God's direct word by wrenching Exodus 23:2 out of its' specific meaning.
Exd 23:2 "You shall not follow [fn]the masses in doing evil, nor shall you [fn]testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after [fn]a multitude in order to pervert justice;
The last line they say, "we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.5"
It specifically says the opposite. This is a direct negation of the Word of God to put up a tradition.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 07:52:34 AM
Personally I think it is perfectly arrogant of someone who knows nothing of Judaism to pretend to determine anything about the principles of the oral law, in this case or any other.
Particularly since Jews are all in such complete agreement with each other! Which are you Dave? Reform?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_main_sects_of_Judaism
I inquire of Reform because I understand that some of them are anti-Zionist, perhaps because in the mid-19th century they dropped the prayers for the return of Jews to Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah).
Which - for them prior to the 19th century - had gone along with the prayers you mentioned here (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3183.msg13323#msg13323)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Interpretations_of_Aliyah
Interesting timing since the 19th century is when so many of the false prophets that infected the body of Christ (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1219.0), started their little cults, also just as we were warned through prophesy.
Perhaps you are Orthodox, since you pointed out Jesus said not one jot or tittle has passed from the law, and Orthodox recognize the 613 Mitzvot as the laws that they follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot
Oh wait, many of those laws have been rendered impossible to follow -
during this new covenant era (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=31&t=KJV#31) in which the law is written in God's people's "inward parts (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=31&t=KJV#33)" - because Yahweh arranged to have your temple torn down, just as Jesus had prophesied,
because His body IS the temple of God (http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm) in the Christian era.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm#matt_24_1
Gentlemen, you have completely misunderstood the whole scenario and my reply to you. I repeat, legal adjudication is made by the COURTS and JUDGES, not by heaven or even PROPHECY. Halacha is determined through established legal channels once the Torah was given to Man. If a bonafide court rules on a particular matter and a prophet would recount a prophecy to the contrary, we follow the decision of the court. Is that so hard to comprehend? Even the URIM VeTUMIM was not used to adjudicate law.
Not hard to comprehend it. We well understand it, as you just detailed it, my friend.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
What do you mean the tradition of MEN? It is not simply all made up. It is an integral part of the Jewish system that I have been trying to explain. How in hell would you know to adjudicate laws without more than what appears in the Torah?! For heaven's sake. Without the midrashic traditions you would have no ancient and biblical historical details either.
By the way what would you call your ecumenical councils of Nicea, Constantinople and everywhere else over a century trying to figure out whether the Christ was two or one or one or two or two in one or one in two?? Now there is something you could call the tradition of MEN!!
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 11:50:02 AM
What do you mean the tradition of MEN? It is not simply all made up. It is an integral part of the Jewish system that I have been trying to explain. How in hell would you know to adjudicate laws without more than what appears in the Torah?! For heaven's sake. Without the midrashic traditions you would have no ancient and biblical historical details either.
Because we understand that what God is desirous of is a heart turned toward Him in obedience. You cannot even see how absurd it is that you would listen to a court that IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE TORAH, let alone instituted by it, than by a direct Word from God. And all of this is supported by a verse that is interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says. So what you have in effect is a court that points to an oral law that only exists according to its' own word to support its' validity and then says that they can over rule a direct word from God. The fact that you don't see how absolutely backwards that is speaks to your blindness. Those verses speak very well of you.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
Gentlemen, you have completely misunderstood the whole scenario and my reply to you. I repeat, legal adjudication is made by the COURTS and JUDGES, not by heaven or even PROPHECY. Halacha is determined through established legal channels once the Torah was given to Man. If a bonafide court rules on a particular matter and a prophet would recount a prophecy to the contrary, we follow the decision of the court. Is that so hard to comprehend?
I and Dr. Brown understand it well.
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/listen/are-rabbis-right
You are not relating to what I mentioned. You tell em about traditions of men, and then when I present to you the traditions of the men at Nicaea or Constantinople you launch into an unsupported dogmatic answer having nothing to do with what I wrote. Of course there were courts. They were first established among the Elders in the Desert and recommended by Jethro. But essentially the Torah could never be adjudicated without courts, or didn't you ever think of that? How do you suppose the prohibition against theft could be adjudicated if there were no methodology and court system??!!
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 01:11:13 PM
You are not relating to what I mentioned. You tell em about traditions of men, and then when I present to you the traditions of the men at Nicaea or Constantinople you launch into an unsupported dogmatic answer having nothing to do with what I wrote. Of course there were courts. They were first established among the Elders in the Desert and recommended by Jethro. But essentially the Torah could never be adjudicated without courts, or didn't you ever think of that? How do you suppose the prohibition against theft could be adjudicated if there were no methodology and court system??!!
The issue isn't that courts existed. It is that they override the Word of God to make their rulings.
So you listened to that audio in one minute? No. You have no interest in truth, let alone discussion. I'll defer until you do.
That's why you have been without reply every time we point out that the doctrine you defend joins you with anti-Zionist Nazis, skinheads, Aryans, David Duke and the KKK, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam, and Muhammad's followers, in their hatred of the vast majority of your own Zionist brethren. This while advancing the Islamic conquest of Israel, to convert it into another female circumcising, child doing, wife beating, concubine keeping, Christian beheading, Islamic terror, slave state, while you sit back all comfy in the U.S. and cheer it on from across an ocean.
How absolutely idiotic. It's like saying that anyone who opposes murder for different reasons of agenda are allied. The Mormons oppose murder so does that make you or me allied with Mormons? Buddhists oppose murder so does that make you an ally of Buddhists? How idiotic.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 03:39:13 PM
How absolutely idiotic. It's like saying that anyone who opposes murder for different reasons of agenda are allied. The Mormons oppose murder so does that make you or me allied with Mormons? Buddhists oppose murder so does that make you an ally of Buddhists? How idiotic.
It isn't "like" saying anything except you are fruit of the same anti-Zionist tree, and your anti-Zionism is advancing the Islamic conquest of Israel, and subjugation of Jews and Christians to Muhammad's followers. But then you seem to hate those Jews anyway and likely don't care a whit about the Christians fate either.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 03:39:13 PM
How absolutely idiotic.
Judged idiotic when you support your claim with such an abject failure in linear thinking that follows?
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 03:39:13 PMIt's like saying that anyone who opposes murder for different reasons of agenda are allied. The Mormons oppose murder so does that make you or me allied with Mormons? Buddhists oppose murder so does that make you an ally of Buddhists?
YES, of course. It makes you an ally of everybody who opposes murder, be they Mormons, Buddists, or Soviets. Those of us that oppose murder are all fruit of the good tree, of people who do not like murder. That would be good fruit of a good tree. An evil tree are people that do not oppose murder, and would include people that commit murder. They would be evil fruit of an evil tree, directly opposed to the good tree you and I and Mormons are in.
You join Nazis, skinheads, Muslims, David Duke and the KKK, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam as fruit on the anti-Zionist tree.
Judging by the fruit would you say that's a good tree or an evil tree?
Just because you are in the same anti-Zionist tree doesn't mean you have to have in common an interest in genocide of Jews, any more than being opposed to murder makes you a follower of Joseph Smith.
But YOU ARE FRUIT of the ANTI-ZIONIST TREE along with black-hearted people that want to murder Jews, and hate Israeli Jews and want to kill them and "drive them into the sea". Who say "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the jews, and the stone behind which a jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
You readily admit that the vast majority of your Jewish brethren are in the Zionist tree. Others in that tree include not only Israeli Jews but Israeli Christians as well as Evangelicals. Here's what evangelicals do (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3006.0). Perhaps you can list more fruit of this tree for us.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 03:39:13 PMHow idiotic.
But as we can see it is anything but. That you fruit the anti-Zionist tree shows what happens when men put their faith in men.
When you mean putting your faith in MEN you of course mean putting your faith in the handful of guys at the Nicene Council, or better yet "Paul" who knew "everything" based on the claims of a few scraps of paper called epistles?? There's the pot calling the kettle black. My word.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 11:24:40 AM
When you mean putting your faith in MEN you of course mean putting your faith in the handful of guys at the Nicene Council, or better yet "Paul" who knew "everything" based on the claims of a few scraps of paper called epistles??
Yet there you are, a Jew without a temple that the Lord arranged to have torn down in the first century, and has kept from you for almost 2,000 years, with the exception of the temple of God in the body of Christ. Jews composing just .02% of the world's population, because the Lord prevented you from proselytizing after the first century because He gave us a new covenant path to Him, just as prophesied by Jeremiah. Ah but you, you set yourself aside as a tiny fraction of that .02%, as if the Lord granted you an exclusive franchise on truth, even as you have abandoned scripture for your traditions of men, and thus wind up running with Nazis, skinheads, Muslims and the KKK - that are all out to get Jews.
Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 11:24:40 AMThere's the pot calling the kettle black. My word.
Our faith is in the scriptures, not in men as yours is, as has already been answered to, on the other thread you ignored it on. http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?t.opic=3238.msg13604#msg13604
Any more redundant posting of subjects, as if you haven't already been provided the answer, will be moved to your spam thread. Quit wasting our mutual time.
You repeatedly pretend we follow the traditions of men, so you can tar us, with what you had to admit you yourself do.
I understand your embarrassment Dave, particularly in light of the fruit that your doctrine puts you in company with.
Do not post on this thread again, until you are prepared to present, who some of the good fruit are, on your anti-Zionist tree. If you dither on it will be sent to your spam thread for temporary storage.