Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

This is in response to Dave2's questions on an unrelated thread.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13497#msg13497

Quote from: Dave2Speaking 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??

Is this even a serious inquiry? Paul's letters were meant as instructive to the churches. Do you suppose he would have to cover every single detail of the Gospel narratives in his letters? Stories that are covered multiple times in the OT do not include every single detail in the repeats. Only what is important to the point being made or is absolutely core to the story.

Quote from: Dave2How 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?

Paul was an emmisary to the gentiles. As such he went where others had not already preached so he could win new converts. And Paul didn't claim to have an exclusive monopoly on the Gospel. If you read the account in Galatians he included himself in that list of people that should be ignored if they came preaching another Gospel message. You could certainly see why it would be important for Paul to squelch false messages among young converts. Remember when Korah led the rebellion against Moses. Imagine if Moses had not intervened and stopped the spread of his usurpation. Imagine if Elijah had not confronted the false prophets of his day. Certainly you can imagine the problem it would cause if propagators of false messages were not dealt with.

Quote from: Dave2And 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??

His awe was reserved for the risen Lord Jesus Christ. And he called Peter, James, and John pillars of the faith. So this comment is unfounded and irelavant.

Split off the unrelated thread, as per your suggestion, Dave.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13497#msg13497

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on May 01, 2012, 06:32:13 AMDo you suppose he would have to cover every single detail of the Gospel narratives in his letters?

Indeed. The Gospel is the very thing that he preached, persuading in synagogues (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=19&t=KJV#8), and unto gentiles as well. Paul preached Christ crucified just as we do in this forum.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Just as prophesied in Psalms:

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

That was penned before crucifixion was ever even invented. What do you suppose is meant by "like a lion, my hands and feet"? Like a lion licking them? Or using tooth or claw to pierce them?

That prophecy is confirmed, in the crucifixion of our Messiah, Dave:

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Mar 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

Luk 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Jhn 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Jhn 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.


Isaiah 53:1. Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? 3. Despised and rejected by men (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&v=11&t=KJV#11), a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=26&v=65&t=KJV#65) and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#26). 6. We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=2&t=KJV#5) 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=15&v=2&t=KJV#2); like a lamb to the slaughter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&t=KJV#29) he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. 8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=gave+up+ghost&t=KJV); because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9. And he gave his grave to the wicked (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=20&t=KJV#14), and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=8&t=KJV#28) in his hand. 11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. 12. Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#38); and he bore the sin of many (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=9&t=KJV#28), and interceded for the transgressors (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=23&t=KJV#34).

Jhn 1:23 He said, I [am] the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=40&t=KJV#3)
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=lamb+sin&t=KJV&sf=5), which taketh away the sin of the world.

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

The passover Lamb of God was crucified, and not a bone of Him was broken.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3080.0

Please do not reply to this post before you address the prior two posts.

Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 11:57:54 AMAnd 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??

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Unfortunately you do not even begin to address the questions I raised. I referring to the CONTEXT and CONTENT of all these letters. You can add to it the fact that in not a single epistle does the writer "Paul" express the slightest interest in visiting any of the sites walked on by his Christ in the Holy Land. Not one. In fact he makes reference to spending time in Arabia, but Bethlehem and Nazareth are totally ignored. The so-called Brother of the Lord James is not revered at all nor is there mention of the mother of Jesus Mary even a single time. Not to mention John the Baptist, who was the Elijah precursor whose story is so important in the gospels. Even reference to Jesus being the Seed of David in Romans ignores any precursor Baptist figure who as Elijah would come before the Messiah.

Then if you want to go further into Acts, you will see how different the Paul in Acts is from the Paul of the epistles. Does the Paul of Acts ever refer to Jews and gentiles obtaining justification through faith, about which the Paul of Galatians, etc. writes extensively?

And if you want to talk about Paul's mission to the gentiles based on his exclusive revelation of the risen Christ, one can only wonder why he spends so much time among Jews in Acts. Indeed, the Jerusalem group expresses no amazement or interest whatsoever at the revelation of the Christ, but once they do accept it it becomes unnecessary for Paul to be the missionary to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews because not only can one person not do everything, but everybody can now do everything.  Evidence is Paul's own visits to Jews when he should be busy with gentiles. What was his exclusive mission anyway that no one else could know about? And how could it be that he would refuse to go to places where others were teaching the gospel if his was an exclusive revelation that everyone had to know about?!

In case you forgot, it is not in Romans that Paul talks about meeting the Jerusalem people, it is in Galatians. And Romans and Galatians strongly look they were written by different people with different agendas.

Quote from: Peter on May 01, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
Please do not reply to this post before you address the prior two posts.

Quote from: Dave2 on April 29, 2012, 11:57:54 AMAnd 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??

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 12:36:22 PM
Unfortunately you do not even begin to address the questions I raised. I referring to the CONTEXT and CONTENT of all these letters. You can add to it the fact that in not a single epistle does the writer "Paul" express the slightest interest in visiting any of the sites walked on by his Christ in the Holy Land. Not one.

Why would he? There was an abundance of witnesses of Jesus hanging around the Holy Land. Even the temple was irrelevant.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

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 May 01, 2012, 12:36:22 PMIn fact he makes reference to spending time in Arabia, but Bethlehem and Nazareth are totally ignored.

Just as we are called to do. We aren't called to preach to the saved, but to the unsaved.

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 May 01, 2012, 12:36:22 PMThe so-called Brother of the Lord James is not revered at all nor is there mention of the mother of Jesus Mary even a single time.

Nor was there reason to. Mary was just a vessel God chose to use. To venerate Mary is much later Roman Catholic Marion heresy, even turned Mary into an intercessor.

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Old Testament or New. The Old Testament saints just didn't recognize that it was the Son of God that was their mediator, because He hadn't been revealed yet.

Oh yea, and since Muhammad got part of his drivel from a defrocked priest, and his cousin was an Ebionite occult priest, his followers venerate Mary too. Indeed Roman Catholics and Muslims even join each other in veneration of Mary at Fatima.
Perhaps you show us where the Gospel calls anyone to venerate Mary?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 12:36:22 PMNot to mention John the Baptist, who was the Elijah precursor whose story is so important in the gospels. Even reference to Jesus being the Seed of David in Romans ignores any precursor Baptist figure who as Elijah would come before the Messiah.

John already had it covered as resisting pointed out in his first reply. The fact that different testimonies mention different elements, from different guys that lived different kinds of lives, is how we can rest assured it wasn't a bunch of guys sitting around a table and comparing notes, but rather independent testimony of Christ.

Oh, cut it out. You know what I mean by venerating or mentioning. The name MARY or JOHN THE BAPTIST is not mentioned once for a simply reason, the religion of the epistles originally did not include them , or the virgin birth, or Bethlehem. Or Nazareth, or Capernaum, or Golgotha or Pontius Pilate...........So much sophistry on such simple straightforward issues.......

Muslims demonize Paul too. Perhaps it's because he so convicts us of sin:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Why don't you try tackling this post. You can cut it into separate elements in reply.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13537#msg13537

Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:44:00 PM
Oh, cut it out. You know what I mean by venerating or mentioning.

Ah, you mean why didn't Paul start us down that slippery slope, to join the Roman church in adopting Mary as an intercessor? Because he wasn't inspired by God TO MENTION MARY. Perhaps so that Christians could can later ask WHERE IN THE GOSPEL DOES IT SUGGEST WE ARE TO WORSHIP MARY!!!!!

But Dave, my friend, you really ought to focus on the prophesies in the Old Testament of Jesus crucifixion. How about it?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:44:00 PMThe name MARY or JOHN THE BAPTIST is not mentioned once for a simply reason, ........

THE SAME ONE. So that folks wouldn't go off worshiping John the Baptist the way the cult of the Mandaeans do.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2805.0

Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 04:44:00 PM...... the religion of the epistles originally did not include them , or the virgin birth, or Bethlehem. Or Nazareth, or Capernaum, or Golgotha or Pontius Pilate...........So much sophistry on such simple straightforward issues.......

Rather than wasting any more of our mutual time, the question you need to focus on is why you reject the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah. A few elements of which are detailed in this post, embellished with links:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13537#msg13537

Those are a few of the verses that have helped your brethren throughout the Christian era, come to know the love of the one true God through a relationship with His Son, Yeshua, the Messiah.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jfjweb/videos

I reject them because they never happened. Do you see a virgin birth story in the Gospel of Mark, John, Thomas or others? And why don't you reply to my previous questions? Add to them why Luke and Matthew have such different nativity stories. Oh well, we could go on and on. The Jesus story is a Roman creation based on the events surrounding Yeshu son of Miriam and Joseph Pandera that are recorded from Jewish tradition in the Talmud, who was hanged on a tree, exactly as it is mentioned even in your Book of Acts.  Of course they got the dates wrong. It happened around 60 BCE under the queen Shlomit Alexandra the wife of King Alexander Jannaeus.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 01, 2012, 09:00:39 PM
I reject them because they never happened. Do you see a virgin birth story in the Gospel of Mark, John, Thomas or others? And why don't you reply to my previous questions? Add to them why Luke and Matthew have such different nativity stories. Oh well, we could go on and on. The Jesus story is a Roman creation based on the events surrounding Yeshu son of Miriam and Joseph Pandera that are recorded from Jewish tradition in the Talmud, who was hanged on a tree, exactly as it is mentioned even in your Book of Acts.  Of course they got the dates wrong. It happened around 60 BCE under the queen Shlomit Alexandra the wife of King Alexander Jannaeus.

Dave2 the Talmud wasn't even compiled until well after the events of the Gospel. The dating in the Talmud is what is off. Secondly, as I pointed out before Paul was writing to those who already had been given the Gospel. So his letters dealt with the growth of their faith. They had already heard the Gospel. And it is the central message of Jesus' death and resurrection that is important. Not the peripherals. And if you wish to be this critical of the NT you should also be so with the OT. There are instances in the OT that mention details of accounts that are not originally recorded there and also leave out things that originally were. You are being willfully obstinate of that fact. If you want to know about the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew ask a specific question so that it can be addressed rather than just assuming we know what you are talking about.

The Talmud preserves historical information about Yeshu and many other subjects. The tradition became associated with the the gospel stories and then the divine savior idea of the epistles.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 08:00:12 AM
The Talmud preserves historical information about Yeshu and many other subjects. The tradition became associated with the the gospel stories and then the divine savior idea of the epistles.

So which is it Dave2. Did the Talmud help form the Gospel or did the Talmud get associated with the Gospel message later? The fact is that the Gospels as we have them have greater textual attestation than any other ancient historical document.

The tradition recounted in the Talmud existed BEFORE the Talmud was redacted, like many other things. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Obviously the Talmud does not tell us EVERYTHING about what happened with Yeshu Pandera. However, there were clearly people who held fast to a belief in Yeshu for a century or two and this belief became adopted by non-Jews who merged it with their messianic beliefs. Remember, please, that Yeshu was never accused in his day of being a false messiah. This became a feature of the later stories that were anchored in the first century.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
The tradition recounted in the Talmud existed BEFORE the Talmud was redacted, like many other things. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Obviously the Talmud does not tell us EVERYTHING about what happened with Yeshu Pandera. However, there were clearly people who held fast to a belief in Yeshu for a century or two and this belief became adopted by non-Jews who merged it with their messianic beliefs. Remember, please, that Yeshu was never accused in his day of being a false messiah. This became a feature of the later stories that were anchored in the first century.

Except that you can point to not a single reference to the Oral law in the entire scriptures and we have documents that have far greater historical attestation than any other ancient document. Including the Talmud. The Talmud may have existed in oral form prior to its' redaction but the point is that you have no way of proving that. And there is ample proof that the Talmud does not in fact date back to Sinai as is traditionally held. The timeline in the Talmud is messy due to the fact that it is a redaction of various sources as a response to the dispersion.

The Talmud is a compendium, a book. What goes back to Sinai is the chain of transmission of the teachings of the Torah in the oral law, methodologies of adjudication and exegesis, and of course historical midrash that is not contained in the Tanakh. Other than that I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, there are many things that cannot be proven, not the least of which is whether the Christian savior is two natures or one nature of two types or one type with two natures, etc. based on human theories. Or for that matter, who wrote the gospels and epistles. For example, there is no evidence that someone named Paul actually wrote any of the epistles. There is no evidence that any of the communities actually received any of the epistles or that they responded. In fact, there is no evidence that they were actually written to the recipients indicated.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 01:07:42 PM
The Talmud is a compendium, a book. What goes back to Sinai is the chain of transmission of the teachings of the Torah in the oral law, methodologies of adjudication and exegesis, and of course historical midrash that is not contained in the Tanakh. Other than that I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, there are many things that cannot be proven, not the least of which is whether the Christian savior is two natures or one nature of two types or one type with two natures, etc. based on human theories. Or for that matter, who wrote the gospels and epistles. For example, there is no evidence that someone named Paul actually wrote any of the epistles. There is no evidence that any of the communities actually received any of the epistles or that they responded. In fact, there is no evidence that they were actually written to the recipients indicated.

We have the text themselves that date back to the times that they claim to be from. We have internal evidence that they are from the time they claim. We have outside sources that let us know that the early Christian communities worshiped Jesus as God. The council you are referring to was to work out how His two natures related to one another. Now contrast that with the fact that we DO NOT have any such outside corroboration of the existence of the Talmud from before its' redaction. We DO NOT have any reference to such an oral transmission in the Torah itself and the fact that it contradicts the Tanach on many things but most of all the fact that God's Word should carry more weight than any man's. But you have hit the point in a round about way. We both accept certain things on a measure of faith. So the only logical way to proceed then would be to evaluate what we can reasonably conclude and continue from there.

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on May 02, 2012, 01:15:12 PMThe council you are referring to was to work out how His two natures related to one another.

Iindeed it was to address the heresies that had been started by Gnostics like Simon the Sorcerer, and confirm the divinity of Christ as revealed in the scriptures. And weed out other texts AS uninspired because of internal errors and such. Not to create tradition through the "courts".

"Are the Rabbis right"
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/listen/are-rabbis-right

You are still avoiding my points. And you are ignoring the fact that MEN were sitting down to *work out* one of the essential if not THE essential theological issues that presumably should have been worked out and known in the religion of the previous 200 or 300 years!!

Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
You are still avoiding my points. And you are ignoring the fact that MEN were sitting down to *work out* one of the essential if not THE essential theological issues that presumably should have been worked out and known in the religion of the previous 200 or 300 years!!

No you are ignoring both of our answers to your points.  The scriptures were not changed. The Council put heretics in their place, and weeded out self-evidently uninspired texts.
Jesus Christ remains the head of the church and the scriptures remain the authority, and specifically NOT men.
EXCEPT for example, in the Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) church WHERE MEN declared the TRADITION OF MEN to be EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE. That's how they made such an awful mess of their church with so much false doctrine, much of which was designed to put their flocks in bondage.
Tradition = Scripture? A two headed dog can't hunt, so MEN pick the TRADITION OF MEN every time.
JUST LIKE YOUR TRADITION OF MEN has you in such a mess that YOU RUN WITH JEW HATING SKINHEAD AND NAZI ANTI-ZIONISTS, only a half century after they killed 8 million Jews. Because Satan has his hand in your traditions of men, just like he does in the Roman church (see Roman Church section), and ALL false doctrine.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 02, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
You are still avoiding my points. And you are ignoring the fact that MEN were sitting down to *work out* one of the essential if not THE essential theological issues that presumably should have been worked out and known in the religion of the previous 200 or 300 years!!

The Council was not "working out" one of the essential theological issues of Christianity. It was clarifying the doctrine in a way that it could be comprehended. For example how Christ relates to the Father, and is His nature as God and as man. There was no denial that He was God. Just how exactly that related to His humanity. Again you grant to your own beliefs a consideration that you will not extend to ours. That is that while a doctrine may be evident it needs clarification for those who study it.

Are you a spokesman for the Nicene Council?? You mean to tell me these MEN had divine knowledge to know the nature of the Christ because they were not Talmudic Jewish MEN?
Spare me. Explain why it took almost 300 years according to traditional dating of Christianity to clarify this matter. Where were all the bishops before Constantine, OR did the trinity controversy and confusion only become a philosophical and theological struggle in the 4th century?!

Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 12:32:32 PM
Are you a spokesman for the Nicene Council?? You mean to tell me these MEN had divine knowledge to know the nature of the Christ because they were not Talmudic Jewish MEN?
Spare me. Explain why it took almost 300 years according to traditional dating of Christianity to clarify this matter. Where were all the bishops before Constantine, OR did the trinity controversy and confusion only become a philosophical and theological struggle in the 4th century?!

Dave2, I have tried to be as gracious with you as I can but you are being obstinately contentious. The Scriptures of the NT teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. It also shows that they work independently and and in unison with one another. The Church Fathers ie the disciples of the apostles taught clearly that Christ is God and man. The Nicene Council left records of its' discussion for posterity allowing future generations to know what they were attempting to accomplish. So it isn't a matter of being a spokesman for their Council. You who have defended the Talmud should recognize that every doctrine espoused in Scripture is not always easy to articulate even if it is easy to understand. The difference between you and I however is that when those councils began espousing doctrines that stood in direct conflict with scripture I disregarded them. The trinity is perhaps the most misunderstood doctrine of Christianity and it is for that reason it is dealt with so often and in so much detail. Yahweh is complex in His unity and has chosen to reveal Himself most fully through Jesus His Son. While that is easy for me to understand it may take a bit to articulate to others. I will ask that in future discourse you refrain from being contentious. If you have a question or a point make it and spare me your vitriol.

Are you being contentious when you go after the integrity of the rabbinic tradition of Judaism as a one-way street affair through total unfamiliarity with the subject matter or the sources? There are no actual records from Nicaea because they were said to have been destroyed when Constantinople was destroyed by the Crusades. All you can work from is second-hand statements from biased sources such as Eusebius or Socrates etc. However, I ask you once again, why were the bishops BEFORE 325 not clarifying matters in the previous close to 300 years?? Or did the trinity emerge only from the writings of Tertullian?

Besides, not all believers in Jesus accepted the trinity, whenever it emerged. You don't see a doctrine of trinity in any of the gospels even where there is mention of "the father" or the son and the holy spirit, or the son of man, or "my father" as in John. And the epistles certainly never discuss it at all. In fact the whole notion of the indwelling of the Christ that is found in the epistles is not found as a doctrine in any of the  gospels OR even in the Book of Acts.

It's not even mentioned in the Apology of Justin Martyr, who only discussed the Logos. The Logos is both the Christ and the Paraclete Holy Spirit:
"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).

Indeed, his statement in the Dialogue with Trypho IF he wrote it resembles what is found in the Creed of Sirmium of 351:
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Isn't that similar to 1 Corinthians 10:4 :
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

I am also intrigued by the fact that although the gospel of John says that God gave his only begotten son in Chapter 3:16, in Galatians 1 it is Jesus himself who gave himself for the sins in a slightly gnostic sense:

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

We have been far more than patient with you. This is that last time you will be non-responsive to a post. Even worse you jump from thread to thread, pretending you were never given answers to topics, that you present as if they were never discussed - exactly like Muslims do. And for the same reason. An effort at trying to achieve nothing than wasting our mutual time. You have repeatedly broken your agreement to engage in exchange. If you do other than review the threads you have been engaged in, and reply to all of the posts you ignored, your posts will go into storage until you do. You can start in this thread with my last reply regarding the evil fruit for your anti-Zionist tree, and work your way back from there. While you're at it please detail some of the good fruit in the anti-Zionist tree.

This is very weird. I respond to every posting and question on the three threads. I don't jump anywhere. I have nothing new to add at this point. I have responded with comments in relation to your assertions and lack of knowledge about Judaism. That's all.

See?! You apparently can't help yourself. Another non-responsive answer as if I never wrote my last two posts. Along with suggesting, as if innocently, that you were only presenting Judaism, when your efforts were in fact increasingly in dissing the Gospel. All you've really shown us is how your cult - an extreme minority of Judaism - makes you fruit of an evil tree, just like the cults of the other evil fruit do them.

Dave, your posts of additional subjects will be sent to your spam thread (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3240.0) until you respond to prior posts.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13604#msg13604

It's rather funny. We know that Abraham was in quite a minority as were Daniel, Azariah, Mishal and Hananya. It's always been that way. For 2000 years we have waiting for the messianic kingdom, and we will continue to wait since as Daniel says it is hidden. It sure isn't the Zionist state of Amalek heresy, that's for sure.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 10:01:10 PM
It's rather funny. We know that Abraham was in quite a minority as were Daniel, Azariah, Mishal and Hananya. It's always been that way.

Regarding the traditional continuous-historic context when used to understand new covenant prophecy - that was well known to those of the former age but was lost in the church in the 19-20th centuries - folks in this forum understand that we are in quite a minority in the Christian community today for holding it (though well supported by those of the former age (http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm#day_year)). However as applied to old covenant prophecy, our Christian brethren and Jews join us in that traditional context. Like Daniel's kingdom "beasts" for example, that unfolded gradually, in succession, over a long period of time in the prophet's future.
Regarding the fundamental basis of Christianity and the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah who saves all from dying in sin who have faith in His shed blood - as revealed through the scriptures and historical record - there has not been a Christian throughout the entirety of the Christian era that has not believed in that. If someone denied it, they simply wouldn't be a Christian. We are unanimous in what matters.

But the anti-Zionist minority among Jews you find yourself in, has you supporting the evil rotted fruit of Nazis, skinheads, Aryans, David Duke and the KKK, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam, along with those of Muhammad's followers who are vowed to kill the Jews and drive them into the sea.
Big difference, my friend. And that's no minority but rather most of the world's godless people and godless nation-states, advancing the conquest and subjugation of Israeli Jews and Christians to Muhammad's followers.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 10:01:10 PMFor 2000 years we have waiting for the messianic kingdom, and we will continue to wait since as Daniel says it is hidden.

Because you insist on maintaining your ignorance. Hidden until the "time of the end" is what Daniel said. I showed you miraculous mathematical fulfillment of Daniel's problems that pinned the dates of 1948 and 1967, but the tradition of men you have been taught forced you to refuse to believe it. In spite of the astronomical odds against it being an accident.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13498#msg13498

Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 10:01:10 PMIt sure isn't the Zionist state of Amalek heresy, that's for sure.

That's right. It's God and His people's Zionist state that He declared through an everlasting covenant with His people. His people restored to their land - even in disbelief, but for the sake of His name - just as resisting pointed out.

Look, if you want to think that the barbaric Zionist Fatherland with their Sodom and Gomorrah anti-Torah policies is kosher I am not stopping you.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 03, 2012, 03:06:44 PM
Are you being contentious when you go after the integrity of the rabbinic tradition of Judaism as a one-way street affair through total unfamiliarity with the subject matter or the sources? There are no actual records from Nicaea because they were said to have been destroyed when Constantinople was destroyed by the Crusades. All you can work from is second-hand statements from biased sources such as Eusebius or Socrates etc. However, I ask you once again, why were the bishops BEFORE 325 not clarifying matters in the previous close to 300 years?? Or did the trinity emerge only from the writings of Tertullian?

Dave2 you have got to be joking right? Primary sources from the Council of Nicea.

    A letter from Eusebius back to his church at Caesarea, preserved in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus and in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition.

    A description of the proceedings by Eusebius (who was there) in his Life of Constantine

    Letters from Constantine and from the council passing on its decisions to the churches.

    The 20 "canons" [this just means "rules"] passed by the council.

   Some references to the council by Athanasius, who attended as a deacon before he was bishop; however, his only description of the council is a copy of Eusebius' letter to Caesarea.


Secondly, I wasn't being contentious when showing from a Talmudic source that the rabbis often favor their own decisions over that of God's revealed Word. It isn't to say there aren't true, good or beautiful traditions in Judaism. But you started attacking the epistles of Paul and somehow believe that your own beliefs are immune to scrutiny. And then to top it off purposely ignored responses as if you had not received them and continued on with your assertion.

   

Quote from: Dave2Besides, not all believers in Jesus accepted the trinity, whenever it emerged. You don't see a doctrine of trinity in any of the gospels even where there is mention of "the father" or the son and the holy spirit, or the son of man, or "my father" as in John. And the epistles certainly never discuss it at all. In fact the whole notion of the indwelling of the Christ that is found in the epistles is not found as a doctrine in any of the  gospels OR even in the Book of Acts.

You don't say. There isn't perfect harmony between all believers?!!! OMG!!! You must forgive the sarcasm but given your own disagreement with most of Judaism it seems surprising to me that you would even make it a point. All 4 Gospels teach that Jesus is Divine and this teaching is reiterated in more than 1 epistle. And the gnostic teachings were misrepresentations of John and Paul's writings. That is why both spent time clarifying their teachings.

Quote from: Dave2
It's not even mentioned in the Apology of Justin Martyr, who only discussed the Logos. The Logos is both the Christ and the Paraclete Holy Spirit:
"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).

What exactly is this quote supposed to be proving?

Quote from: Dave2
Indeed, his statement in the Dialogue with Trypho IF he wrote it resembles what is found in the Creed of Sirmium of 351:
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Seriously? IF you would read the entire account Justin is arguing from Genesis 18 that Yahweh appeared in a physical form to Abraham, which He did, and that this was the Logos.

Quote from: Dave2
Isn't that similar to 1 Corinthians 10:4 :
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Paul was explaining that the rock, manna, and water prefigured Christ. A point Christ made in the Gospels.

You misunderstood almost everything I wrote in my posting. Not only that but the Jesus of GMark is not a divine figure. He only becomeos "divine" as the Word in GJohn. My quote from Justin was to show that not everyone believed in the trinity, and it is clear that it only developed in the teachings of Tertullian. Even the epistles did not discuss the doctrine. And the Logos teaching of course is missing from the epistles and synoptics.
And you keep repeating the refrain against the words of the Sages without even understanding Hebrew, Aramaic or the way Judaism developed. I already explained that most divine teachings starting from Adam were in ORAL form. G-d decided to put a portion of the teachings in WRITTEN form at Sinai with the interpretations and methodologies and expansions explained to Moses orally, which were transmitted to the following generations.
Anything can be open to scrutiny, but it has to be done on substantive grounds, not on the basis of personal insults.
FURTHERMORE, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. It is an EXTRA burden of proof because if it is fulfillment, this must be demonstrated factually. And since Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of being the promised Messiah and you admit that you are still waiting for his return after TWO THOUSAND years, that is yet an additional burden of proof to provide. How can anyone even begin to claim this fulfillment if they know nothing of Hebrew or how Judaism operates?

You might want to ask yourself WHY Isaiah 53, which is a hallmark of Christian claims regarding Jesus in the Tanakh is never referred to in a single epistle of Paul, and other references concerning the messiah and Elijah are not mentioned either, not from Isaiah and not from Malachi. If Romans claims that Jesus was of the Seed of David and this is not an interpolation, then why is it never mentioned anywhere else, and why is there no mention of Elijah or John the Baptist as Elijah??

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
You misunderstood almost everything I wrote in my posting. Not only that but the Jesus of GMark is not a divine figure. He only becomeos "divine" as the Word in GJohn.

I did not misunderstand what you wrote. The Gospel of Mark starts off by saying, "Mar 1:1    Â¶    The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Mar 1:2         As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mar 1:3         The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

In its' first Century Jewish context we see in the FIRST verse that Mark is making a claim to Divinity for Christ. And the third verse is quoting Isaiah 40:3 which is a direct reference to Yahweh being applied to Yeshua.

Quote from: Dave2
My quote from Justin was to show that not everyone believed in the trinity, and it is clear that it only developed in the teachings of Tertullian. Even the epistles did not discuss the doctrine.

First, I never claimed everyone believed in the triune nature of God. I only said that the NT teaches it. It makes clear Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And while these 3 are all God they are individual persons within the unity of the Godhead. Second, that quote only shows that Justin Martyr was teaching that the second person of the Trinity was present in Genesis 18.

Quote from: Dave2
And the Logos teaching of course is missing from the epistles and synoptics.

It isn't missing. John approached the Deity of Jesus in a different way than the synoptics and Paul. John's take is in line with Jewish thought of his day. The aramaic Targums of his day expresses much the same idea of a divine Word.

Genesis 1:27 (Targum Pseudo-Jonathon) The Word of the Lord created man
Genesis 15:6 And Abraham believed in the Word of the Lord.
Genesis 31:49 May the Word of the Lord keep watch between you and me.
Exodus 20:1 And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.

You can compare these to the actual verses. And Paul explicitly states Jesus' divinity in several places.

Tts 2:13    looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [fn]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Phl 2:6    who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [fn]grasped,

Quote from: Dave2
And you keep repeating the refrain against the words of the Sages without even understanding Hebrew, Aramaic or the way Judaism developed. I already explained that most divine teachings starting from Adam were in ORAL form. G-d decided to put a portion of the teachings in WRITTEN form at Sinai with the interpretations and methodologies and expansions explained to Moses orally, which were transmitted to the following generations.

You only believe that because the Oral tradition tells you that. Again I ask if the Oral law is so important then why isn't it mentioned ANYWHERE in the Tanach? God's only endorsement for any of His Words are those written in scripture. Just so you know you assume a lot about people you don't know. And why do I need to understand Hebrew to read and understand a passage of the Talmud that explicitly states that the Word of God can be annulled by rabbis and that it took a verse of the Torah and applied a meaning that is the exact opposite of the verse in question. How about actually explaining that before you go on about your methodologies and expansions etc.?

Quote from: Dave2
Anything can be open to scrutiny, but it has to be done on substantive grounds, not on the basis of personal insults.

Says the one who called me ignorant and arrogant for simply disagreeing with him. And I think it is very substantive to doubt the veracity of a supposed Oral tradition that is supposed to be so important to your religion and yet is not mentioned AT ALL in the entirety of the OT scriptures.

Quote from: Dave2
FURTHERMORE, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. It is an EXTRA burden of proof because if it is fulfillment, this must be demonstrated factually. And since Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of being the promised Messiah and you admit that you are still waiting for his return after TWO THOUSAND years, that is yet an additional burden of proof to provide. How can anyone even begin to claim this fulfillment if they know nothing of Hebrew or how Judaism operates?

He fulfilled the prophecies that had to be fulfilled first and assured us in the fulfilling of those prophecies of the rest He will fulfill in His second advent.

He had to atone for sin before the second Temple was destroyed just as Daniel indicated. The Glory of the Second temple was supposed to be greater than that of the First. The talmudic rabbis acknowledge that the Shekinah was not there nor the divine fire. So how was the glory of the Second temple greater? Malachi 3 said that God would visit the 2nd Temple. A prophecy fulfilled when Yeshua visited the Temple and purged it just as God said He would. So if this did not happen then God's Word was wrong and neither one of us need worry about this debate. And there is the fact that Jesus has brought BILLIONS of gentiles to the knowledge of Yahweh. He is a light to the nations just as Isaiah 49 said He would be. So given all that we know He will return in the clouds of heaven just as He said He would and the OT said He would. To answer the post you made on Isaiah 53 I would ask you in what ONE book of the Tanach includes every single detail of traditional Judaisms conception of Messiah? A point I made earlier that you disregarded. You don't seem to realize if you apply the same critical methods to the Tanach that you apply to the New Testament you would fall short to that standard. As I told you before Paul was writing to churches that had already been given the Gospel and it was not necessary or even to be expected that he would cover every single detail every time he wrote a letter. Should we discount Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah because it doesn't contain every detail about the Messiah from Isaiah? Should we discount Genesis 2 because it doesn't line up in every detail with Genesis 1? Your objections are rather superficial.

Sorry if something is redundant, but I came and went from my computer posting this and didn't read yours first.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 10:14:37 AM
You might want to ask yourself WHY Isaiah 53, which is a hallmark of Christian claims .....

If you hadn't been too afraid to click on the links you would have seen that it isn't about "Christian claims" but about what the Apostles revealed through our scriptures. But then I wouldn't be surprised if you already knew that and posted what you did anyway. I have already warned you to QUIT WASTING OUR TIME with things that have been answered ad nauseum. CLICK ON THE LINKS IN ISAIAH 53 THIS TIME. I didn't even finish embellishing with links.

Isaiah 53:1. Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? 3. Despised and rejected by men (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&v=11&t=KJV#11), a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=26&v=65&t=KJV#65) and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=9&t=KJV#14), crushed because of our iniquities (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=23&t=KJV#28); the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#26). 6. We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=2&t=KJV#5) 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=15&v=2&t=KJV#2); like a lamb to the slaughter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&t=KJV#29) he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. 8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=gave+up+ghost&t=KJV); because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9. And he gave his grave to the wicked (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=20&t=KJV#14), and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=8&t=KJV#28) in his hand. 11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. 12. Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#38); and he bore the sin of many (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=9&t=KJV#28), and interceded for the transgressors (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=23&t=KJV#34).

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 10:14:37 AM..... regarding Jesus in the Tanakh is never referred to in a single epistle of Paul, and other references concerning the messiah and Elijah are not mentioned either, not from Isaiah and not from Malachi.

It's not about what Paul doesn't say, but about what Isaiah DID prophesy that was fulfilled with perfection in the Messiah. That's why it's one of the passages that has brought so many Jews - that unlike you were genuinely seeking truth - into relationship with our Messiah over the last 2,000 years. Like some of the testimonies at Jews for Jesus for example.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jfjweb/videos
And books like "Betrayed".
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=555.0

And why Paul did or did not parrot other new covenant Apostles had IN THE FIRST TWO POSTS OF THIS THREAD, but perhaps your faith is in the traditions of men, and your kinship is with the racist world that is coming against Jerusalem, your mind apparently can't function outside of parroting tradition and putting all your effort into DISbelief of the Gospel just as Muhammadans do. Also as already explained Paul didn't worship Mary, or the ground that Jesus walked on, nor the empty, meaningless, useless desolate temple that Jesus replaced, either:

Mat 23:38    Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

...and prophesied the demise thereof - to a T

Mat 24:2    And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm#matt_24_1

You blather on, jumping from subject to subject while ignoring replies, ignorantly picking on Paul like a Muslim, when it's John that you should be out to demonize. But then you you have to reject them all, and the new covenant, to follow your Rabbis.

1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Paul didn't worship men or temples or earth because Christian are not called to because we are not of the world, and our interests not of the things of the flesh of the world, because we are in the kingdom of God.
The new covenant prophets were not carbon copies of each other as already explained to you in the first couple of posts in this thread.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 10:14:37 AMIf Romans claims that Jesus was of the Seed of David and this is not an interpolation, then why is it never mentioned anywhere else, .......

Please quit spewing your ignorance about, and hatred of, the Gospel. Nobody whose only faith and effort is put in DISbelief, will ever find truth.

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7mRr_6NPCRkAoVVXNyoA?p=prophecy%20seed%20david%20town%20bethlehem&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701), and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 10:14:37 AM....... and why is there no mention of Elijah or John the Baptist as Elijah??

Already asked and answered - first post. QUIT WASTING OUR TIME WITH REDUNDANCY AD NAUSEUM.

I was referring to ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE EPISTLES! In any event, you are unable to know the meanings of Jewish prophecies unless you know what they prophets meant. And you cannot know what the prophets meant unless you know Hebrew and Aramaic, and unless you know what the authentic commentators throughout history said on these matters. You cannot just "divine" what the prophets meant off the top of your head, even if you, like early Christian writers, use only the GREEK Septaguint because you cannot rely on the original.
The most famous example is the use of the term "virgin" which although is used interchangeably in the Greek with "young woman" IS NOT interchangeable in Hebrew where a virgin  is a BETULA and a young woman is an "ALMA". You just cannot make things up as you go along.
By the way, you will notice that Isaiah 53 is never cited EVEN ONCE in a single Pauline epistle. Nor is Malachi 3 or 4. Or Isaiah 40 or 42. Paul refers to many citations from the Tanakh but NEVER to any referring to his Christ as the Mashiach from the Tanakh.

For heavens sake, why would you blame anyone who questions what you believe when you feel you have a blank check to do that with anyone else??! If a writer in an epistle calls himself a servant of GOD and an "apostle of Christ" in one place, then it is mysterious why he would call himself a servant of CHRIST in another place.
Or call God the savior in many places and Christ the savior in other places. As if he cannot make up his mind between the epistle of Titus and the epistle of Ephesians or 2 Timothy.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 01:08:26 PM
I was referring to ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE EPISTLES! In any event, you are unable to know the meanings of Jewish prophecies unless you know what they prophets meant. And you cannot know what the prophets meant unless you know Hebrew and Aramaic, and unless you know what the authentic commentators throughout history said on these matters. You cannot just "divine" what the prophets meant off the top of your head, even if you, like early Christian writers, use only the GREEK Septaguint because you cannot rely on the original.
The most famous example is the use of the term "virgin" which although is used interchangeably in the Greek with "young woman" IS NOT a virgin (BETULA) in Hebrew but rather an "ALMA".

There is no single word in Biblical Hebrew that always and only means "virgin". As for the Hebrew word betulah, while it often refers to a virgin in the Hebrew Scriptures, more often than not it has no reference to virginity but simply means "young woman, maiden." In fact, out of the fifty times the word betulah occurs in the Tanakh, the NJPSV translates it as maiden rather than virgin thirty one times. This means that more than three out of every five times that betulah occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it is translated as maiden rather than virgin by the most widely used Jewish translations of our day. Not only so, but the Stone edition of the Tanakh, reflecting traditional Orthodox scholarship, frequently translates betulah as maiden as well. Even in verses where the translation of virgin is appropriate for betulah, a qualifying phrase is sometimes added, as in Genesis 24:16: "The maiden (na'arah) was very beautiful, a virgin, (betulah) whom no man had known." Obviously, if betulah clearly and unequivocally meant "virgin" here, there would be no need to explain that this betulah never had intercourse with a man. Just think of normal English usage; we would never say, "The young woman was a virgin, and she never had sexual intercourse in her life." How redundant. What other kind of virgin is there?

Just consider the absurdity of translating betulah with the word "virgin" instead of "maiden" in some of the following verses. (Note that all of the verses cited here use "maiden" or the like--rather than "virgin" --in both the NJPSV and the Stone edition, which are leading Jewish, not Christian, translations.)

Isa. 23:4; Ezek. 9:6;cf. 2 Chron. 36:17 (it is very common for betulah to be parallel with bahur, "young man"--not young male virgin.

All this aside what kind of sign is a young maiden giving birth? If that is a miraculous then miracles happen everyday.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 01:12:05 PM
For heavens sake, why would you blame anyone who questions what you believe when you feel you have a blank check to do that with anyone else??! If a writer in an epistle calls himself a servant of GOD and an "apostle of Christ" in one place, then it is mysterious why he would call himself a servant of CHRIST in another place.
Or call God the savior in many places and Christ the savior in other places. As if he cannot make up his mind between the epistle of Titus and the epistle of Ephesians or 2 Timothy.

I have explained to you several times now that the letters of Paul were written to people who had already been given the Gospel. He was writing to them and instructing them in daily living and clarifying points from previous encounters. That is why the Bereans were constantly searching the scriptures to see if they were so.

Act 17:10    Â¶    And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Act 17:11         These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Obviously someone writing for over a decade to different groups of people would have different things to say in answer to different groups of questions.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 01:12:05 PM
For heavens sake, why would you blame anyone who questions what you believe when you feel you have a blank check to do that with anyone else??!

You don't have to resort to lying. What I blamed you for was repeating questions that you have already received replies to ad nauseum. Also ignoring point after point in post after post. And as usual you ignore 90% of the reply to you. Please see forum decorum, and the terms you affirmed to abide by, when you joined the forum.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 01:12:05 PMIf a writer in an epistle calls himself a servant of GOD and an "apostle of Christ" in one place, then it is mysterious why he would call himself a servant of CHRIST in another place.
Or call God the savior in many places and Christ the savior in other places. As if he cannot make up his mind between the epistle of Titus and the epistle of Ephesians or 2 Timothy.

This is what I was referring to when I said spewing your abject ignorance to the Gospel. You aren't asking questions, because you don't have an interest in truth, that's why you instead engage in unrighteous speculation about the state of Paul's mind.

Jhn 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

How do you know they "knew" all the aspects of his exclusive gospel when it took 300 years to figure out the nature of the Christ and his persons??
Do you have any evidence that anyone ever received a letter from Paul? Did they reply? Who were the recipients? Wherer did they live? You don't know because no one knows. They simply take it on faith that the recipients got such letters and they knew everything except what Paul decided to include in the letters. Except that your average pastor when he gives sermons he always reminds people of what they already know??
Anyway, in the Torah a "maiden" (whether virgin or not) is called a NAARA. But you will never find a specific designation of a virgin as anything solely other than BETULA.  A bachur is always assumed to be a "virgin."
"Bachurim vegam betulot......." with "Zkenim im Ne'arim......" in psalms.

And the question is not whether a specific miracle CAN happen, but whether there is reliability that it DID happen. There is no record anywhere in the midrashim or Talmud or Zohar or anywhere else of a virgin birth of Yeshu or anybody else. Now a miracle like that would be something worth mentioning. But it isn't there because it never happened. As a matter of fact IF IT HAD, why didn't the gospels of Mark and John mention it, and why didn't the Pauline epistles ever talk about it? Gosh, such a huge piece of information about Mary ignored by the epistles! Paul doesn't even mention her name a single time!

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
How do you know they "knew" all the aspects of his exclusive gospel when it took 300 years to figure out the nature of the Christ and his persons??
Do you have any evidence that anyone ever received a letter from Paul? Did they reply? Who were the recipients? Wherer did they live? You don't know because no one knows. They simply take it on faith that the recipients got such letters and they knew everything except what Paul decided to include in the letters. Except that your average pastor when he gives sermons he always reminds people of what they already know??
Anyway, in the Torah a "maiden" (whether virgin or not) is called a NAARA. But you will never find a specific designation of a virgin as anything solely other than BETULA.  A bachur is always assumed to be a "virgin."
"Bachurim vegam betulot......." with "Zkenim im Ne'arim......" in psalms.

And the question is not whether a specific miracle CAN happen, but whether there is reliability that it DID happen. There is no record anywhere in the midrashim or Talmud or Zohar or anywhere else of a virgin birth of Yeshu or anybody else. Now a miracle like that would be something worth mentioning. But it isn't there because it never happened. As a matter of fact IF IT HAD, why didn't the gospels of Mark and John mention it, and why didn't the Pauline epistles ever talk about it? Gosh, such a huge piece of information about Mary ignored by the epistles! Paul doesn't even mention her name a single time!

You missed the point. The point is that there is no single Biblical hebrew word for virgin and so context must decide what the translation should read. In the context of Isaiah 7:14 a miraculous sign isn't miraculous if it is just a young woman. And bahur is not always assumed to be "virgin" given the fact that there are verses where there chastity isn't the issue and it brings me to another point I missed. A young maiden would infer virginity unless the verse is suggesting a lack of chastity on the part of the young maiden.

And I have pointed out time and again that details in one story not being mentioned in another parallel account doesn't suggest anything except that the other authors had other intentions with their narrative. If you apply this same level of criticism to the Tanakh you would find it coming up miserably short. So I tell you what Dave2. You will not be online tomorrow so how about when you return you stick to a SINGLE point and we discuss that and only that since you seem to be floundering all over the place.

Excuse me, but if my memory serves me correctly there are 14 epistles containing thousands of words, and the name Mary or her role as a virgin is not found in a single one, nor, for that matter is the Elijah figure of John the Baptist. Indeed, the fact of the crucifixion under Pilate and the virgin birth are missing from the first Nicene Creed in totality, only to somehow be recalled back 60 years later. Of course there were a number of other councils in the 340s and 350s where the attendance was even lower than at Nicea and a generic virgin birth was mentioned with a crucifixion, but Mary and Pilate were still unknown. Who can understand that EVEN in the Book of Acts Mary is only mentioned in passing once. Incredible I dare say. Something should strike you as rather unusual in all these things, which your ordinary modern pastor would mention frequently in any of his sermons.
On the other hand, these doctrines were themselves ostensibly established at councils that recognized specific patriarchs/bishops include the bishop of Rome who is known as the Pope, so I never understood why evangelicals would accept any of it, or for that matter why Martin Luther did.

At least I will give you credit for not launching into personal condemnations of me like Peter does. In any case, tomorrow I will be off for the Sabbath, and my 24 hour deadline has been extended simply because you have not put me under the attack of the inquisition (whoops, wrong word).

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Excuse me, but if my memory serves me correctly there are 14 epistles containing thousands of words, and the name Mary or her role as a virgin is not found in a single one, nor, for that matter is the Elijah figure of John the Baptist. Indeed, the fact of the crucifixion under Pilate and the virgin birth are missing from the first Nicene Creed in totality, only to somehow be recalled back 60 years later. Of course there were a number of other councils in the 340s and 350s where the attendance was even lower than at Nicea and a generic virgin birth was mentioned with a crucifixion, but Mary and Pilate were still unknown. Who can understand that EVEN in the Book of Acts Mary is only mentioned in passing once. Incredible I dare say. Something should strike you as rather unusual in all these things, which your ordinary modern pastor would mention frequently in any of his sermons.
On the other hand, these doctrines were themselves ostensibly established at councils that recognized specific patriarchs/bishops include the bishop of Rome who is known as the Pope, so I never understood why evangelicals would accept any of it, or for that matter why Martin Luther did.

At least I will give you credit for not launching into personal condemnations of me like Peter does. In any case, tomorrow I will be off for the Sabbath, and my 24 hour deadline has been extended simply because you have not put me under the attack of the inquisition (whoops, wrong word).

Dave2 I have already addressed these assertions and you have chosen to ignore them. You can pick a single point to discuss when you return and that is it. Jumping all over the map with accusations is just a waste of time.

Regarding resisting's last post, I have picked the single point for you to start with, in the next post. Then you can pick any point that you believe resisting or I did not answer. Then resisting will pick what he believes you did not address, etc.. From now on we will all engage, by selecting only prior points and posts, that each of us believes the other did not reply to, and each such point will be exhausted before moving on. No new points or subjects are to be raised until all are satisfied that we have received answers to all of our prior points and posts. I will begin with the earliest points that were missed or ignored, and recommend that Dave select from the earliest missed points and move forward from there, when it is his turn. Things will be more organized that way.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 04, 2012, 01:08:26 PMIn any event, you are unable to know the meanings of Jewish prophecies unless you know what they prophets meant. And you cannot know what the prophets meant unless you know Hebrew and Aramaic, and unless you know what the authentic commentators throughout history said on these matters.

Don't be ridiculous. You sound just like a Muslim claiming that the reason I see Muhammad is revealed as an imperialistic, mass murdering, terrorist, thief, is because I can't read Arabic. You dither on as if I am using some sort of a personal unique translation or understanding for passages like Isaiah 53 (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13640#msg13640), that are widely known, and that Jews have come into relationship with Christ through for nearly 2,000 years. Passages where the new covenant prophets/Apostles themselves confirm fulfillment of the old covenant prophesies.

Try a new covenant word search like - fulfilled
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?criteria=fulfilled&page=2&sf=5&t=KJV
or - written
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?criteria=written&page=6&sf=5&t=KJV

You desire to believe that somehow the vast majority of Jewish scholars and your brethren misunderstand, because their conclusions are inconsistent with what you personally choose to believe, from the Rabbis you choose to follow, as if they are infallible. You are at odds with the vast majority of your Jewish brethren that also follow Rabbis and Jewish scholars, that happen to have a different understanding than yours do and thus are Zionists. The truth becomes evident when we consider that the Rabbis you choose put you in the company of anti-Zionists that include godless, racist, Jew hating, skinheads, Nazis and the KKK, as well as Muhammadans who are vowed to kill Jews and drive them into the sea, along with the rest of the godless world that is gathering against Jerusalem, thereby advancing Islamic conquest and subjugation of Israeli Jews and Christians.

But the fact is, that your "courts" are exactly like you Dave. Doing everything in their power to avoid the truth, by painting a picture consistent with what they were predisposed to believe through their flesh to begin with, and then all sitting around and nodding at each other in agreement as if theirs were the only true understanding.

Read it this time Dave:

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

That was penned before crucifixion was ever even invented. What do you suppose is meant by "like a lion, my hands and feet"? Like a lion licking them? Or using tooth or claw to pierce them?

ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY AND SUCCINCTLY THIS TIME DAVE, AND QUIT IGNORING OUR POSTS WHILE DITHERING ON, REPEATING QUESTIONS AS IF YOU HADN'T ALREADY ASKED THEM AND RECEIVED ANSWERS TO THEM. Every post you reply with that obfuscates, dithers, or introduces a new subject or point, will be moved to spam until you can be honest enough with yourself and us to give a direct answer.

That prophecy was confirmed, in the crucifixion of our Messiah:

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Mar 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

Luk 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Jhn 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Jhn 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

As confirmed by Jesus in His own prophecy of His crucifixion, death and resurrection:

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

Matthew 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, 18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

Quote from: Dave2 on May 05, 2012, 10:11:12 PM
I am sorry, but your last posting is hard to follow. Perhaps you could rewrite it and make it easier to follow.

Perhaps I didn't make the font in the question large enough. I'll try an 18 font this time.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 05, 2012, 10:11:12 PMIn the meantime I was intrigued that the author Romans agrees that the faith in the One God is for Jews and Gentiles, and that everything falls under the Torah/halacha:

31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Please read the instruction again:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13651#msg13651

There is no more "in the meantime" dithering on with unrelated subjects, instead of answering.
Your post contained material beyond the scope of answering the question, so it went to Dave2's parking thread.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3240.0
Saying you couldn't follow the subject was related to the subject. Everything else in your post was unrelated.
NO NEW SUBJECTS. If that was an old subject that you believe was left UNANSWERED earlier, then I will return it to this thread, as your selection, of a prior question or point that you believe was unanswered, WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN. AFTER you answer the question that I selected and we exhaust THIS SUBJECT.

Dave, please answer the question that follows directly and succinctly.

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

That was penned before crucifixion was ever even invented. What do you suppose is meant by "like a lion, my hands and feet"? Like a lion licking them? Or using tooth or claw to pierce them?

Sorry, Peter. You can accuse me of being dense. But I really do not get the gist of your question here, no matter how loudly you should in large fonts.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 01:10:50 PM
Sorry, Peter. You can accuse me of being dense. But I really do not get the gist of your question here, no matter how loudly you should in large fonts.

Then instead of asking, I'll answer. The answer is that "like a lion" His "hands and feet" was a prophecy of when Jesus's hands and feet were pierced by nails when He was crucified. Look at the rest of the verse as well.

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Do you see the prophecy from the old covenant scriptures that was fulfilled in the new covenant Gospel?

Sorry, I don't see that at all. Not only because the psalm is in the past tense and reflects all the suffering of King David at the hands of King Saul and then Absalom, but because you can pick and choose anything you want anywhere for anything you want.
Shall I give you all the "prophecies" in the Tanakh and even in the NT for Mohammed?!
Or even better, there are loads of great prophecies for the messiahship of SHABTAI ZVI.
Would like to see a few?
Here's one from Habbakuk 2:4: TZADDIK BE-EMUNATO YICHYE - A righteous person shall live in his faith. The first letters of the three Hebrew words spells the name TZVI for Shabtai Zvi.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 03:02:59 PM
Sorry, I don't see that at all. Not only because the psalm is in the past tense...

Sorry Dave, but that's a non-starter.
For example: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/hebrew-tenses
More: search bible prophecy of future written in past tense (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AsWNKTKxXi.nZct8XY8p_bGbvZx4?p=bible+prophecy+of+future+written+in+past+tense&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701)
It's called "the prophetic perfect" (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7maq36ZPDWYAVtxXNyoA?p=%22The+Prophetic+Perfect%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=)
Same goes for Isaiah 53

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 03:02:59 PM.... you can pick and choose anything you want anywhere for anything you want.
Shall I give you all the "prophecies" in the Tanakh and even in the NT for Mohammed?!

It would seem Muhammad is prophesied in the NT, as well as his Islamic kingdom "beast":
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Unfortunately Muhammad is not prophesied where Muslims - through their Greek sophist styled liars like Ahmed Deedat - wish he were, and I have and addressed their nonsense ad nauseum. Perhaps much later we will request that you make the case for Muhammad in scripture (other than Revelation and the more general prophesy of false prophets (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=false+prophets&t=KJV&sf=5)), as Muhammad's followers attempt to, just for the entertainment value of watching you squirm. Come on Dave!

Don't get sidetracked by the above replies. Please stay on topic by addressing only the following:

Just because you desire to reject the truth doesn't mean it will magically become false. The verses in question have all the same three elements. Pierced hands and feet, clothing divided, and lots cast. Let alone that the new covenant fulfillment declares it is the fulfillment!

Jhn 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Jhn 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. 

Just as Jesus' specific reference to Psalms in His own prophecy of His crucifixion!
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

Can't you see how stunning your self-imposed blindness is? And from following the traditions of men that have even cast you into the company of Nazis, skinheads and the KKK. Here's what Jesus said to such as the men you follow:

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.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 03:02:59 PM
Sorry, I don't see that at all. Not only because the psalm is in the past tense and reflects all the suffering of King David at the hands of King Saul and then Absalom, but because you can pick and choose anything you want anywhere for anything you want.
Shall I give you all the "prophecies" in the Tanakh and even in the NT for Mohammed?!
Or even better, there are loads of great prophecies for the messiahship of SHABTAI ZVI.
Would like to see a few?
Here's one from Habbakuk 2:4: TZADDIK BE-EMUNATO YICHYE - A righteous person shall live in his faith. The first letters of the three Hebrew words spells the name TZVI for Shabtai Zvi.

Actually, Psalm 22 is the prayer of a righteous sufferer, brought down to the jaws of death and then rescued and raised up by God in answer to prayer, a glorious testimony to be recounted through the ages. As such, it applies powerfully to Yeshua the Messiah, the ideal righteous sufferer, surrounded by hostile crowds, beaten, mocked, crucified, and seemingly abandoned by man and God, but delivered from death itself and raised from the dead by the power of God, a story now celebrated around the globe. That's why he quoted words from this psalm with reference to himself when he hung on the cross. How strikingly they apply to him! What is also interesting is that some of the great Rabbinic commentators--including Rashi--interpreted the psalm as a prophecy of Israel's future suffering and exile, not as the story of David's past suffering. Not only so, but a famous Rabbinic midrash composed about twelve hundred years ago said that David spoke of the Messiah's suffering in Psalm 22. We can therefore say with confidence that the application of this psalm to the death and resurrection of the Messiah is in keeping with the clear meaning of the text.

For example, at the outset of his comments on this psalm, Rashi says, "They [meaning the people of Israel] are destined to go into exile and David recited this prayer for the future" Commenting on the words "I am a worm" in 22:6[7], Rashi notes that David "refers to all Israel as one man," and he interprets specific verses with reference to later historical figures such as Nebuchadnezzar(22:14[15]). In fact, Rashi explains verse 26[27] with reference to "the time of our redemption in the days of our Messiah," then interprets verses 27-29[28-30] with reference to the Gentile nations turning to the Lord, the end of the age, and the final judgment. These certainly are future events, also underscoring the worldwide redemptive implications of this psalm.

There is no need, however, even to press this argument about the futuristic interpretation of Psalm 22, since it does not have to be prophetic to be applied to the Messiah, for two primary reasons: (1) Many events in the life of David were repeated in the life of the Messiah, since David, in many ways, was the prototype of the Messiah; and (2) as part of the canon of Scripture, Psalm 22 was the psalm of the righteous sufferer miraculously delivered from death, and without doubt, many righteous sufferers have recited the words of this psalm to the Lord in their times of distress. But none could recite it with as much meaning and application as could Jesus the Messiah, the ideal and ultimate righteous sufferer, resurrected from death itself, resulting in worldwide praise whereas the author of the psalm (according to tradition, David) may have spoken of his own situation with some poetic hyperbole, there was no hyperbole when applying the words to Yeshua.

Little wonder, then, that this was understood to be a Messianic psalm by the writers of the NT. In light of all this, it is very interesting to see how Pesikta Rabbati, the famous 8th century midrash, put some of the words of this psalm on the lips of the suffering Messiah (called Ephraim, but associated with the son of David), citing Psalm 22:8, 13-14, and 16 in the context of the Messiah's sufferings. In fact, the midrash explicitly states that "it was because of the ordeal of the son of David that David wept, saying "My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:16)

I will add more later. I have company right now.

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on May 06, 2012, 03:56:35 PMThat's why he quoted words from this psalm with reference to himself when he hung on the cross.

In case Dave didn't understand that reference:

Psalms 22:2 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#46) [You are] far from my salvation [and] from the words of my moaning.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

What do you think Dave? Are you going to suggest "...because you can pick and choose anything you want anywhere for anything you want."?

I think you take things too seriously. Of course the author GMatthew or any other book can apply whatever ideas he wants. After all, the entire Tanakh was available in his Greek languages. What's the big deal.
But you should see all the scriptural references used by the Sabbateans to show that Shabtai Zvi WAS the real Messiah. There is no end to these exercises when there isn't a strict tradition of teachings on all these matters. As we say, Eyn Ledavar Sof - There is no end to the matter.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 06:57:13 PM
I think you take things too seriously. Of course the author GMatthew or any other book can apply whatever ideas he wants. After all, the entire Tanakh was available in his Greek languages. What's the big deal.
But you should see all the scriptural references used by the Sabbateans to show that Shabtai Zvi WAS the real Messiah. There is no end to these exercises when there isn't a strict tradition of teachings on all these matters. As we say, Eyn Ledavar Sof - There is no end to the matter.

Oh I see. So it can't apply to the Messiah if Matthew says it does but when I show you that even the Midrash express such an idea you just shrug it off. Well if that is the way you wish to go about things then I think that is as far as we can go on this matter. And while the NT was disseminated in greek scholars have recognized the hebraisms in the NT particularly the book of Matthew for a long time now.

And Matthew believes in the Law of Moses just like the Midrash. So what? Obviously there are overlap and similarities. But as I said before, since Christianity claims to be the *fulfillment* of Judaism, it has the burden to prove it so. And showing a similar view on something doesn't do it.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 09:28:30 PM
And Matthew believes in the Law of Moses just like the Midrash. So what? Obviously there are overlap and similarities. But as I said before, since Christianity claims to be the *fulfillment* of Judaism, it has the burden to prove it so. And showing a similar view on something doesn't do it.

Dave2 I have been as gracious with you as I can. You raise objection after objection and side issue after side issue and when these have been addressed you either ignore them or treat them as of little consequence. You were so adamant that the psalm did not refer to the Messiah and now that it has been demonstrated from your own traditions that it can be applied and rightly so to the Messiah you shrug it off. If that is the extent of your arguments and objections I have to wonder what your real goal is here.

I think I have been fair to you in answering your questions. I have taken quite a bit of time to do so. SO it is time for a little mutual exchange. My question to you is what has Yahweh done outside of Yeshua to bring gentiles into a knowledge of Him and His scriptures?

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on May 06, 2012, 09:45:00 PMYou were so adamant that the psalm did not refer to the Messiah and now that it has been demonstrated from your own traditions that it can be applied and rightly so to the Messiah you shrug it off. If that is the extent of your arguments and objections I have to wonder what your real goal is here.

There is no extent of his argument because he has not been able to even begin to make one. Instead he chooses childlike rebellion entirely devoid of reason. But then the purpose in our engaging types like him, is for the sake of his brethren that follow, that may be genuinely seeking the truth and will see that he stands naked.

Dave even understands that the traditions of the men he follows have joined him with Jew hating Nazis, skinheads, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam, David Duke and the KKK, and Soviets, whose anti-Zionism is advancing the Islamic conquest, and subjugation of Israeli Jews and Christians to Muhammad's followers. His support for Islamic conquest doesn't seem to concern him any more than the 2 million slain or displaced by Muhammad's followers - in the Sudan alone - likely does. Perhaps he believes those Jew hating anti-Zionists listed are all bound for glory. The difference for Dave is that before he came here he may have been able to plead ignorance when he stands before our creator in judgment.

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on May 06, 2012, 09:45:00 PMMy question to you is what has Yahweh done outside of Yeshua to bring gentiles into a knowledge of Him and His scriptures?

Let's finish this topic before introducing another one. According to the terms I requested (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13651#msg13651) of us, after we finish with this topic it will be Dave's turn, to request an answer to a PRIOR question or point that he believes we didn't answer. Then it's your turn.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 06, 2012, 06:57:13 PM
I think you take things too seriously. Of course the author GMatthew or any other book can apply whatever ideas he wants. After all, the entire Tanakh was available in his Greek languages. What's the big deal.

So Dave, are you denying that Jesus existed?
Or are you denying that Jesus was crucified?

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him.....

Or are you denying that Jesus' hands and feet were pierced?

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me.

Or are you denying that they parted Jesus' garments and cast lots as indicated in Psalms?

19.They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

(Mat 27:35 continued).....and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Or are you only denying that Jesus said the following, exactly as Psalms says?

Psalms 22:2 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#46) [You are] far from my salvation [and] from the words of my moaning.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The gospels say different things about a man whose existence in the first century is not credible.
Even the Pauline epistles do not identify his Jesus with the Baptist or Pilate in the first century.  The epistles say nothing about these verses and say nothing about Malachi or Isaiah messianic prophecies at all, including Isaiah 53. That is because the epistles exhibit a religious tradition different from that of the gospels which themselves differ on traditions and beliefs. Not to mention the Epistle to the Hebrews which introduces a different typology again.

I've got to chime in here

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
The gospels say different things about a man whose existence in the first century is not credible.

Dave, the 4 gospels were written by 4 different authors, each using their own perspective. Of course they say different things. But there are also many common things between the gospels. As far as his existence, there is plenty of evidence, including the writings of Jocephus, a historian of that time.

QuoteEven the Pauline epistles do not identify his Jesus with the Baptist or Pilate in the first century.  The epistles say nothing about these verses and say nothing about Malachi or Isaiah messianic prophecies at all, including Isaiah 53. That is because the epistles exhibit a religious tradition different from that of the gospels which themselves differ on traditions and beliefs.

Dave, that is because the subjects of the epistles were not directly about the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. The fulfillment of those prophecies by Jesus of Nazareth was taken as fact by the writers of the epistles, so they did not need to rehash that subject. They were about how Christ-followers were to live their lives.

QuoteNot to mention the Epistle to the Hebrews which introduces a different typology again.

Dave, look at the full title of Hebrews. It is "The Letter to the Hebrews" (ESV)
It was to Christ-followers who grew up in and followed Jewish traditions and religious beliefs. So, again, just a different perspective.

You seem to spend a lot of time throwing up straw arguments in order to avoid answering questions and facing the truth, in order to justify your own beliefs.

Quote from: Mike S on May 07, 2012, 07:37:28 AM
I've got to chime in here

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
The gospels say different things about a man whose existence in the first century is not credible.

Dave, the 4 gospels were written by 4 different authors, each using their own perspective.

Mike, he has already been told the same thing you wrote, seems like 5 or 10 times. With his back against the wall, he has now chosen to dismiss the New Testament as a work of fiction, so please let Dave, resisting and I continue without interruption. This chat has been going on for many days, and coming in after the fact you will be adding things that have already been discussed, allowing Dave to use you as an opportunity to obfuscate.
Because Dave ignored point after point in post after post, I finally had to set up rules for this exchange, as detailed in this post:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13651#msg13651

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
The gospels say different things about a man whose existence in the first century is not credible.

So then in spite of the available evidence you are denying that Jesus ever existed.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2572.0

In spite of all the reference to Him in the Talmud, before those passages were removed, and then restored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

Does everybody in what you admit is your tiny group among Jews, deny that Jesus existed?
If I asked those men who create the tradition that you follow, if they believe that Jesus existed, would they answer "no"?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 07:05:36 AMEven the Pauline epistles do not identify his Jesus with the Baptist or Pilate in the first century.  The epistles say nothing about these verses and say nothing about Malachi or Isaiah messianic prophecies at all, including Isaiah 53.

Was that intended to be some kind of a joke? Is the only time a prophecy considered to be fulfilled when a prophet declares it to be fulfilled? Much less that each and every prophet and Apostle must declare it to be fulfilled, for it to be fulfilled?

Yet we can see, how after the prophecies are fulfilled, how perfectly they were fulfilled in the Lamb of God. Not even a bone of Him was broken.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3080.0

Isaiah 53:1. Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? 3. Despised and rejected by men (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&v=11&t=KJV#11), a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=26&v=65&t=KJV#65) and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#26). 6. We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=2&t=KJV#5) 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=15&v=2&t=KJV#2); like a lamb to the slaughter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&t=KJV#29) he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. 8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=gave+up+ghost&t=KJV); because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9. And he gave his grave to the wicked (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=20&t=KJV#14), and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=8&t=KJV#28) in his hand. 11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. 12. Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#38); and he bore the sin of many (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=9&t=KJV#28), and interceded for the transgressors (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=23&t=KJV#34).

Over and over you suggest an Apostle left something out, even though others include it. AND AGAIN (how many times now Dave? seem 5? 10?), as in all the other times you repeated this foolishness, the answer remains - that they are not carbon copies of each other is how we can know their accounts are independent yet complementary, demonstrating their divine inspiration.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 07:05:36 AMThat is because the epistles exhibit a religious tradition different from that of the gospels which themselves differ on traditions and beliefs. Not to mention the Epistle to the Hebrews which introduces a different typology again.

Since you believe that Jesus did not exist, then you must believe the Gospel is a work of pure fiction, in spite of the evidence, this chat is complete. If I have unfairly characterized your view, then please let me know.

I'll add Psalms 22 from the Tanach for the benefit of those that come after you, that are honestly seeking truth. I plan to continue to embellish it with links.

Psalms - Chapter 22

1. For the conductor, on the ayeleth hashachar, a song of David.
2. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#46) [You are] far from my salvation [and] from the words of my moaning.
3. My God, I call out by day and You do not reply, and at night I do not keep silent.
4. But You are holy; You await the praises of Israel.
5. Our ancestors trusted in You; they trusted and You rescued them.
6. They cried out to You and they escaped; they trusted in You and they were not shamed.
7. But I am a worm and not a man; a reproach of man, despised by peoples.
8. All who see me will mock me (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#29); they will open their lips, they will shake their head.
9. One should cast his trust upon the Lord, and He will rescue him; He will save him because He delights in him.
10. For You drew me from the womb; You made me secure on my mother's breasts.
11. Upon You, I was cast from birth (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=1&t=KJV#22); from my mother's womb You are my God.
12. Do not distance Yourself from me, for distress is near; for there is none to help.
13. Great bulls have surrounded me; the mighty ones of Bashan encompassed me.
14. They opened their mouth against me (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=14&t=KJV#61) [like] a tearing, roaring lion.
15. I was spilled like water (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=19&t=KJV#34), and all my bones were separated; my heart was like wax, melting within my innards.
16. My strength became dried out like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my palate (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#34); and You set me down in the dust of death.
17. For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=crucified+him&t=KJV&sf=5)
18. I tell about all my bones (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=19&t=KJV#36). They look and gloat over me (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=15&t=KJV#18).
19. They share my garments (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=19&t=KJV#24) among themselves and cast lots for my raiment. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=27&t=KJV#35)
20. But You, O Lord, do not distance Yourself; my strength, hasten to my assistance.
21. Save my soul from the sword, my only one from the grip of the dog.
22. Save me from the lion's mouth, as from the horns of the wild oxen You answered me.
23. I will tell Your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise You.
24. You who fear the Lord, praise Him; all the seed of Jacob, honor Him, and fear Him, all the seed of Israel.
25. For He has neither despised nor abhorred the cry of the poor, neither has He hidden His countenance from him; and when he cried out to Him, He hearkened.
26. Because of You is my praise in the great congregation; I pay my vows in the presence of those who fear Him.
27. The humble shall eat and be sated; they shall praise the Lord, those who seek him; your hearts shall live forever.
28. All the ends of the earth shall remember and return to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall prostrate themselves before You.
29. For the kingship is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations.
30. They shall eat all the best of the earth and prostrate themselves; before Him shall all those who descend to the dust kneel, and He will not quicken his soul.
31. The seed that worships Him; it shall be told to the generation concerning the Lord.
32. They shall come and tell His righteousness to the newborn people, that which He has done

Peter, thank you for avoiding my point. You did not address the fact that the pauline epistles make no mention even a single time in thousands of words of either Pilate, the Baptist or Mary. No mention of Isaiah 53 in a single epistle or Malachi 3 or 4 in reference to Elijah or the Baptist preceding the Christ. No mention of any other messianic verses in Isaiah either. Nor do the epistles mention the Son of Man.
Mike, you also forget about some salient points. It's not just a question of different "perspectives." It's that they had different information about who their Jesus was. After all, neither GMark nor GJohn have a nativity story, and the two stories that do exist have different information about "what happened." If you look at a comparative chart you'll see that, and the fact that GJohn not only did not know about many of the parables in the other gospels, but that his introductory doctrinal idea of the Word becoming flesh, which is popular in the 4th creeds, is nowhere to be seen either in the epistles or the other gospels.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 09:50:13 AM
Peter, thank you for avoiding my point. You did not address the fact that the pauline epistles make no mention even a single time in thousands of words of either Pilate, the Baptist or Mary. No mention of Isaiah 53 in a single epistle or Malachi 3 or 4 in reference to Elijah or the Baptist preceding the Christ. No mention of any other messianic verses in Isaiah either. Nor do the epistles mention the Son of Man.
Mike, you also forget about some salient points. It's not just a question of different "perspectives." It's that they had different information about who their Jesus was. After all, neither GMark nor GJohn have a nativity story, and the two stories that do exist have different information about "what happened." If you look at a comparative chart you'll see that, and the fact that GJohn not only did not know about many of the parables in the other gospels, but that his introductory doctrinal idea of the Word becoming flesh, which is popular in the 4th creeds, is nowhere to be seen either in the epistles or the other gospels.

Dave2 you have not stuck to the agreement. AND you have conveniently forgotten that things like this happens in the OT. Why is Genesis 1 and 2 so different? Are you willing to put the OT to the same level of scrutiny that you apply to the NT?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 09:50:13 AM
Peter, thank you for avoiding my point.

It is no more of a point this time, then all the other times you dithered on with it.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 09:50:13 AMYou did not address the fact that the pauline epistles make no mention even a single time in thousands of words of either Pilate, the Baptist or Mary. No mention of Isaiah 53 in a single epistle or Malachi 3 or 4 in reference to Elijah or the Baptist preceding the Christ. No mention of any other messianic verses in Isaiah either. Nor do the epistles mention the Son of Man.

WE'VE ANSWERED THIS FOOLISHNESS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Paul did not worship Mary or even express a mild interest in Mary any more than any of the other Apostles did. Nor did Paul worship the ground that Jesus walked on, nor did he have an interest in the empty, dead, desolated, obsolete, old covenant temple of Herod. Any subjects he did not write about, such as Messianic prophecies that you mention, or any other subjects that he did not write about, he didn't write about BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INSPIRED TO WRITE ABOUT THEM!!!! This is because Paul was writing in the Spirit and not in the flesh, as the men that you follow do, who dictate what you are to believe through the flesh. On that note, rather than talking about what Paul didn't say - which would be a ridiculously irrelevant exercise completely disconnected from reality - let's look as something Paul DID say in regard to putting your faith in men:

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Put it in simpler terms.
SO WHAT!!! if Paul didn't say what you wish he had said? Do you think Paul should be under an obligation to have written what you dictate? Can't you see how ridiculous your non-point is? But it's exactly what another group of liars - the Muslims - do. "Well if blah, blah, then why didn't so and so say blah, blah, blah?"
The same effort at obfuscation to run and hide from all that is written in the Gospel, and for the same reasons, regarding the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the passover Lamb of God.
Since you can't seem to handle more than one sentence at a time I'll try to number them from now on.

1.What did the Gospel writers have to gain, by creating a fictional first century character, and then writing books about Him, the subject of which is His crucifixion?
Why were they willing to be tortured and murdered for the fiction they created?

2. AGAIN, does everybody in what you admit is your tiny group among Jews, deny that Jesus existed?
If I asked those men who create the tradition that you follow, if they believe that Jesus existed, would they answer "no"?
Why don't you try being honest with me, and with yourself for a change, and give me an honest answer to this question.

There is no sense in getting aggravated. And I REPEAT: I was not talking about WORSHIPPING Mary. I was talking about ANY mention of the mother who gave birth to Christ as a miracle of the virgin birth, period. There is no sense in avoiding the other issues: that the epistles make no mention of the Baptist or of Pilate, or the storylines and aphorisms contained in the gospels. Or a nativity story, or Judas, etc. etc. Now don't get mad, just think about it. Nothing is mentioned even in passing like any good pastor would do in giving a sermon to his flock. Nothing in all of the thousands of words of all those epsitles. Nothing of Isaiah 53 or Malachi 3 or 4 concerning an Elijah figure.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 10:50:26 AM
There is no sense in getting aggravated. And I REPEAT: I was not talking about WORSHIPPING Mary.

It's clear that you're just putting your effort into purely squandering our time now. READ IT AGAIN.

"Paul did not worship Mary or even express a mild interest in Mary..."
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INSPIRED TO.

Your mind seems broken in the very same fashion that Muhammad's followers minds, are when they are dithering on as automatons, while working from an Ahmed Deedat script.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 10:50:26 AMI was talking about ANY mention of the mother who gave birth to Christ as a miracle of the virgin birth, period. There is no sense in avoiding the other issues: that the epistles make no mention of the Baptist or of Pilate, or the storylines and aphorisms contained in the gospels. Or a nativity story, or Judas, etc. etc. Now don't get mad, just think about it. Nothing is mentioned even in passing like any good pastor would do in giving a sermon to his flock. Nothing in all of the thousands of words of all those epsitles. Nothing of Isaiah 53 or Malachi 3 or 4 concerning an Elijah figure.

Asked and answered. Now please answer the 2 numbered questions in this post http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13688#msg13688 regarding Jesus and the crucifixion.
If you try to introduce even a single element of any other subject in reply every such post will go to spam. Quit being non-responsive and obfuscating with additional subjects.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 10:50:26 AM
There is no sense in getting aggravated. And I REPEAT: I was not talking about WORSHIPPING Mary. I was talking about ANY mention of the mother who gave birth to Christ as a miracle of the virgin birth, period. There is no sense in avoiding the other issues: that the epistles make no mention of the Baptist or of Pilate, or the storylines and aphorisms contained in the gospels. Or a nativity story, or Judas, etc. etc. Now don't get mad, just think about it. Nothing is mentioned even in passing like any good pastor would do in giving a sermon to his flock. Nothing in all of the thousands of words of all those epsitles. Nothing of Isaiah 53 or Malachi 3 or 4 concerning an Elijah figure.

So what. The epistles were not gospel narratives. They were instructions for Christians who had already received the Gospel. And I ask you since Daniel did not mention the same Messianic prophecies as Isaiah does that mean they didn't happen? And Paul quotes from the gospels in his epistles showing they were already in circulation. You are purposely putting all your effort into not understanding.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 07, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Peter, I honestly don't know what it is you are demanding on your Board from me.

Then why don't you try reading my last post and replying to it instead of ignoring it. I even numbered the questions for you. Everything unrelated to those two points goes to spam. If any additional unrelated material is included in answer, then the whole post goes to spam storage until you do answer directly and succinctly. http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=26.0

Here are the questions again.

1.What did the Gospel writers have to gain, by creating a fictional first century character, and then writing books about Him, the subject of which is His crucifixion?
Why were they willing to be tortured and murdered for the fiction they created?

2. AGAIN, does everybody in what you admit is your tiny group among Jews, deny that Jesus existed?
If I asked those men who create the tradition that you follow, if they believe that Jesus existed, would they answer "no"?
Why don't you try being honest with me, and with yourself for a change, and give me an honest answer to this question.

Try it again Dave.

2. AGAIN, does everybody in what you admit is your tiny group among Jews, deny that Jesus existed?

Does your group deny that Jesus existed AT ALL? YES OR NO

If I asked those men who create the tradition that you follow, if they believe that Jesus existed, would they answer "no"?

Would your Rabbis deny that Jesus existed AT ALL? YES OR NO

Let me add:

Would your Rabbis deny that Jesus was killed in the first century? YES OR NO

There is no source at all in traditional Jewish sources for the existence of the NT Jesus in the first century. I have not taken a poll of all Orthodox Jews and their rabbis. But I can say that anyone who knows about the sources on this subject agrees with me. The Jesus of the NT gospel stories is based on Yeshu ben Pandera.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 09, 2012, 02:05:08 PM
There is no source at all in traditional Jewish sources for the existence of the NT Jesus in the first century. I have not taken a poll of all Orthodox Jews and their rabbis.

I asked if the Rabbis that YOU put in authority over YOU believe that Jesus existed.
Why don't you put you big boy pants on and simply answer the question?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 09, 2012, 02:05:08 PMBut I can say that anyone who knows about the sources on this subject agrees with me. The Jesus of the NT gospel stories is based on Yeshu ben Pandera.

STOP THE OBFUSCATION. You have been avoiding this question for days. I didn't ask if they believed in a "NT Jesus" or if you believed in the Gospel Jesus.

What I asked about is if they believe that figure existed at all. A 1st century figure that claimed he was the Messiah.

If the historical figure - that most of the rest of the world at least believe existed - existed.
And if the men in authority over you believe that historical figure was killed.

I don't think you read properly. I wasn't saying anyone BELIEVED in the NT Jesus but was talking about believing he EXISTED.
And no, the rabbis I know who are familiar with this subject do not believe the Jesus of the NT ever existed. They agree that the person in the NT was modeled after Yeshu ben Joseph Pandera of the Talmud who was hanged after stoning on the eve of Passover not for pretending to be a messiah but for teaching heretical ideas and deceiving the Jews. It changed into a messianic story long after the fact. Satisfied now??

Quote from: Dave2 on May 09, 2012, 09:21:35 PM
I don't think you read properly. I wasn't saying anyone BELIEVED in the NT Jesus but was talking about believing he EXISTED.
And no, the rabbis I know who are familiar with this subject do not believe the Jesus of the NT ever existed.

So they deny that there was any historical person in the first century claimed to be the Messiah.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 09, 2012, 09:21:35 PMThey agree that the person in the NT was modeled after Yeshu ben Joseph Pandera of the Talmud who was hanged after stoning on the eve of Passover not for pretending to be a messiah but for teaching heretical ideas and deceiving the Jews. It changed into a messianic story long after the fact. Satisfied now??

I just needed for you to say it Dave. That is amusing. Faith in unbelief, outside of reason, just like an atheist. My you and yours DO suffer from self-imposed blindness! Ignoring the historical reality, while creating your own fictional history, just like the followers of Muhammad did. Even the famous agnostic that the Muslims like to trot out - Bart Ehrman - understands that the historical evidence for Jesus existing and having been crucified is simply too overwhelming and compelling to deny. This while by your own admission, the fiction that you believe regarding the basis that you pretend the Gospel is spun from, isn't even close to the same story. Isn't even related to a Messiah or crucifixion. A simple stoning, like Stephen and other disciples who proclaimed Christ crucified, were murdered by. So let's see how far you can spin your story Dave.

1. So how did it happen Dave? If Jesus didn't exist, then you must be making the claim that the people who wrote the Gospel, somehow just decided to sit down and write a work of pure fiction, with each never even having met a person who claimed to be the Messiah, and never having been exposed to a single one of the events they proclaimed?

2. How did their accounts tell the very same story, when according to you, they started out with an entirely different story? Did they all get together and plot each one's individual account?

3. What did they expect to gain by conspiring to create such a fantastic fiction Dave? Why would somebody do such a thing Dave? Was the reason that they created this fiction from thin air just so they could be tortured and killed for their testimony of the Messiah? Perhaps they were just masochists?

There were many messianic claimants in history. Many stories, which we call "mayselach" in Yiddish. Of course the gospels were made up with aphorisms and moralizing found even in the words of Hillel the Pharisee. So what? It wasn't the first time, nor the last time, was it?
And we have been warned about new ideas circulating that are not authentic to Judaism:
]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 09:36:36 AM
There were many messianic claimants in history. Many stories, which we call "mayselach" in Yiddish. Of course the gospels were made up with aphorisms and moralizing found even in the words of Hillel the Pharisee. So what? It wasn't the first time, nor the last time, was it?
And we have been warned about new ideas circulating that are not authentic to Judaism:
]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”

But blessedly we can know through the boatloads of fulfilled prophecy that it is the same God that spoke through the scirptures. As another example:

Psalms 2.7. I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you.

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

But then our conversation is over Dave. You have gone out on a limb so far beyond any sort of reason or reality and even your brethren, that it is pointless to engage further in discussion. Let alone your ignoring the content of our posts until you are dragged kicking and screaming into reply. Just as in the case of atheists, who put their faith in disbelief while even refusing to consider the evidence, so you go.

Except that despite the fact that you know so little Jewish history, Hebrew, Aramaic or how Judaism works you fulfill the verse referring to stiffnecked people!! How can a person be so stiffnecked when he cannot even be conversant in the subject of dispute. Even Jerome and Augustine and later commentators learned Hebrew well to be able to discuss these matters.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 11:33:05 AM
Except that despite the fact that you know so little Jewish history, Hebrew, Aramaic or how Judaism works you fulfill the verse referring to stiffnecked people!!

Sure Dave. Just like the Muslim's claim that the reason I see Islam's books painting Muhammad as a mass murdering, child doing, imperialistic conquering, female prisoner abusing, thief, is because I don't know Arabic.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 11:33:05 AMHow can a person be so stiffnecked when he cannot even be conversant in the subject of dispute. Even Jerome and Augustine and later commentators learned Hebrew well to be able to discuss these matters.

It wasn't my claim of fulfillment of prophecy but the Apostle's.
Yet you reject that profound truth, to believe that somehow God gave the guys who run your little cult the sole franchise on truth, even as the tradition of the men you put in authority over you drives you into hatred for your own Jewish brethren, while putting you in the company of the evil rotted Jew-hating fruit of the anti-Zionist tree, along with Nazis, skinheads, Soviets, Muslims, David Duke and the KKK. And yet you don't seem to be able to see the difficulty with all that.

Truth based on WHAT?? On the fact that Jesus has not come back in 2000 years? On the fact that he did not fulfill the prophecies of peace on earth and God's kingdom? On the fact of all the contradictions between the Epistles and the Gospels and within the gospels and between the gospels and the epistles? The Truth is that the Torah was given to the Jewish People for eternity and the covenant of Abraham and Sinai is for eternity. Both Christianity and Islam have claimed to be the fulfillment of Judaism and neither has accomplished that at all.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 06:27:25 PM
Truth based on WHAT??

Truth based on the evidence (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2572.0) that you and your ilk have run and hid from for almost 2,000 years. Unlike the Jews for Jesus (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/), as just one example.
Truth based on the scriptures that your flesh oriented posts are generally devoid of.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 06:27:25 PMOn the fact that Jesus has not come back in 2000 years?

Exactly. As further confirmed by the miraculous fulfillment of the math problems I showed you, that indicate that we are only now in what Daniel's prophecy calls the "time of the end".
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13498#msg13498
Anyone that would suggest that those problems are some sort of an weird mathematical and textual accident, would have to be astronomically ignorant to mathematical probability and statistics.
The restoration of Jews to their covenant land as another miraculous fulfillment, that attest that we are in the time of the end.

Amusingly, even as you attempted to mock, your awaited Messiah's arrival has eluded you for 3500 years, including the last 2,000 years after He was made manifest, yet you remain clueless. Even as you can see that Yahweh arranged to have your desolate temple destroyed, and prevented replacement thereof in this new covenant era. You still can't see the temple of God (http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm) in this Christian era, because of your obstinate disobedience to Yahweh. Even railing against your fellow Jews while embracing Nazis, skinheads, Muslims (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X8dhrzQCHY) and the KKK. Floating around in darkness without a compass to guide you. Going through the motions dictated by the men that you put in authority over you.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 06:27:25 PMOn the fact that he did not fulfill the prophecies of peace on earth and God's kingdom?

I am in the kingdom of God my friend, and no longer of this world. Christ rules and reigns with a rod of iron in His kingdom today! Man is fallen, and born in original sin, ever since Adam's fall. The kingdoms of this world have also been Satan's legal possession ever since Adam's fall. Things of this world are prophesied to only get worse, before the second coming of the our blessed Messiah, the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 06:27:25 PMOn the fact of all the contradictions between the Epistles and the Gospels and within the gospels and between the gospels and the epistles?

All you blathered about in here, were things that in your personal opinion you personally think should have been included in the Epistles, that weren't. Because you could only think of things in terms of the flesh, rather than the Spirit.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 06:27:25 PMThe Truth is that the Torah was given to the Jewish People for eternity and the covenant of Abraham and Sinai is for eternity.

I couldn't agree more! YOU are the one who rejects those everlasting covenants and rejects Yahweh for restoring His people to their covenant land - not for their sakes - but for His name's sake (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3218.msg13726#msg13726).

So what is a Jew in this new covenant era Dave?

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Those same men you praise and place in authority over you that have you married to Nazis, skinheads, Muslims (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X8dhrzQCHY) and the KKK.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 10, 2012, 06:27:25 PMBoth Christianity and Islam have claimed to be the fulfillment of Judaism and neither has accomplished that at all.

Sure Dave. That's why you are in a tiny splinter cult that even separates themselves from the .02% of the world's Jewish population, while those of us that recognize Jesus is the Messiah compose more like 1/4 to 1/3 of the world's population. A real failure of our Messiah, who rules and reigns in his kingdom today, eigh Dave?

Whereas the ridiculous notion of Muhammadanism is unsupported in terms of scripture, history, archaeology and geography. in other words a preposterously non-starter. It is your anti-Zionist cult that relates more closely to anti-Zionist Islam, than the Christianity, particularly since Muslims must proclaim the EXACT OPPOSITE of the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel.

Your Zionism post was moved to the appropriate thread:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3218.msg13734#msg13734

You call it a cult when you don't even know what a cult is unless you clearly prefer to label anything a cult that you don't agree with. Zionism is a cult an atheistic non-kosher pseudo-messianic cult started by that scum of a fake Jew, Theodor Herzl, may his name rot in hell. Go do some studying of 20th century Jewish history and start with the 1880s. He hated Judaism and he will never get out of the hell prepared for him for his sins which make Jeroboam ben Nevat look like a holy man alongside Herzl.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:15 PM
You call it a cult when you don't even know what a cult is unless you clearly prefer to label anything a cult that you don't agree with.

One hallmark of a cult is folks that follow men. Like Muhammad, Charles Taze Russel, Joseph Smith, Charles Manson, and the men whose tradition you follow, that even join you with other anti-Zionist cults like Nazis, Muslims and the KKK.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:15 PMZionism is a cult an atheistic non-kosher pseudo-messianic cult started by that scum of a fake Jew, Theodor Herzl, may his name rot in hell. Go do some studying of 20th century Jewish history and start with the 1880s.

Typical device of anti-Zionists, to begin the history of Israel at the end of the 19th century when the term "Zionism" was coined, while conveniently ignoring the early 19th century when the restoration of the Jews to their land actually began, in order to advance your anti-Zionist lies.

Exposing your abject ignorance to history - not only of the historicity of Jesus (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7lkJSq5PIFkAXHtXNyoA?p=historicity+of+Jesus&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=) as exhibited earlier (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13721#msg13721) - but to the history of your own people. http://petewaldo.com/zionism.htm

Anyway, you are demonizing the wrong guy. The guys you really need to go after are those like John Adams for championing (http://jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=1810&endyear=1819) the idea, and Rabbi Shmuel Salant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Salant) who arrived in Jerusalem in 1841, and under whose tenure as chief rabbi the population of Jerusalem grew from 5,000 to 30,000.

Any gentile, and particularly any Jew that could leaf through the history (http://jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=1700&endyear=1709) of how Jews were treated in gentile lands, and not understand the need for a place where they could live by their own laws and determine their own destiny - particularly in the land that God gave them through an everlasting covenant - would seem no Jew at all. Perhaps just a New York city dwelling bag of hot air that proclaims to know what's best for the Israelis, even as he labors to advance Islamic conquest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X8dhrzQCHY), and subjugation of Israeli Jews and Christians (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3414753,00.html) to Muhammad's followers. No surprise then that you are so obsessed with demonizing Paul, just like your anti-Zionist Muslim partners do:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Regarding the blasphemy of your accusations against God, for restoring His people to their covenant land to end the profaning of His Holy name (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3218.msg13737#msg13737), thereby demonstrating His power in a way that even heathens can understand - let alone your blasphemy against our Messiah:

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:15 PMHe hated Judaism and he will never get out of the hell prepared for him for his sins which make Jeroboam ben Nevat look like a holy man alongside Herzl.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you want to talk about Zionism as the active political movement started by that jerk Herzl, may his name rot in hell, or you can talk about other groups who simply wanted Jews to follow the Torah loyally without political aspirations of worldly western hedonism. When you get your back against the wall, you jump back 100 years further.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 12, 2012, 11:21:55 PM
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you want to talk about Zionism as the active political movement started by that jerk Herzl, may his name rot in hell, or you can talk about other groups who simply wanted Jews to follow the Torah loyally without political aspirations of worldly western hedonism. When you get your back against the wall, you jump back 100 years further.

Let me ask you something Dave2. Do you believe that God wishes for one of His own to have so much hatred for anyone. Even someone you consider an enemy? Do you think God wishes anyone to be in hell?

Of course we hate those who hate G-d and his Torah, whether they are born Jews or non-Jews. Similarly, we love those who love G-d and his Torah, whether they be Jews or non-Jews. As King David said in psalm 139, "Mesanecha Ani Esneh." I hate those who hate You.
As far as Gehennom is concerned, we know that Korach and his evil group went there, as did many others, both Jews and non-Jews. Many people get the idea that the Torah/Tanakh show favoritism to Jews, which is totally untrue.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 11:58:13 AM
Of course we hate those who hate G-d and his Torah, whether they are born Jews or non-Jews. Similarly, we love those who love G-d and his Torah, whether they be Jews or non-Jews. As King David said in psalm 139, "Mesanecha Ani Esneh." I hate those who hate You.
As far as Gehennom is concerned, we know that Korach and his evil group went there, as did many others, both Jews and non-Jews. Many people get the idea that the Torah/Tanakh show favoritism to Jews, which is totally untrue.

Dave2, you are in serious bondage my friend. God is the Father of all and He weeps when one of His are lost. You should know that David often spoke in hyperbole. Particularly in his anger. David would not raise a hand against Saul because he was one of God's anointed. He could easily have hated Saul but he didn't. Also God gave commandments to help and love your enemy. Psalm 35 is a great example of the psalmist loving those who hated him. Exodus 23:4-5 is another example of this principle in play. If God expects us to love those who do wrong to us don't you think it would be hypocritical if God didn't keep the same standard for Himself?

For heaven's sake. Don't give me the example of Saul. He was a great righteous man following the Torah in all respects who committed some mistakes for which he had to pay dearly as you know. We are commanded to hate evil and to separate from the heretics. Three times a day we recite in our prayers:
"To the Informers let there be no hope, and let all the Sectarians be lost, and let all the Enemies of your People be cut off, and let the Intentional Evildoers quickly be broken, suppressed, finished, and give up quickly in our days. Blessed are You who breaks the Sectarians and puts down the intentional evildoers.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 02:57:11 PMWe are commanded to hate evil and to separate from the heretics.

So are we.
Not hate heretics or any persons.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 02:57:11 PM
For heaven's sake. Don't give me the example of Saul. He was a great righteous man following the Torah in all respects who committed some mistakes for which he had to pay dearly as you know. We are commanded to hate evil and to separate from the heretics. Three times a day we recite in our prayers:
"To the Informers let there be no hope, and let all the Sectarians be lost, and let all the Enemies of your People be cut off, and let the Intentional Evildoers quickly be broken, suppressed, finished, and give up quickly in our days. Blessed are You who breaks the Sectarians and puts down the intentional evildoers.

Saul wasn't the only example I gave and you still didn't answer the question. Would God hold us to a standard He Himself doesn't keep? And even if Saul was the only example surely you realize that whether or not you consider him righteous he was still David's enemy and vicariously God's. And yet David did not hate him.

A serpent seed doctrine holder claims he doesn't hate Jews. Then goes on to say just those Jews that in his opinion are not Jews. He justifies his hatred by saying that since God expressed a hatred of a person he is justified in doing the same.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3134.msg13390#msg13390
I'll see if I can dig up post with the old testament reference that he uses (not that it matters).
Interesting that he and Dave both hate Jews, and both base their hatred on Zionism. Both running with Nazis, skinheads, Muslims and the KKK in doing so.

Edit add: Found it. hillbillybushcraft (forum ID Michael2) believes it's OK for him to hate persons, because God expressed His personal hatred for Esau. http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3134.msg13391#msg13391

And since Arnold Murray relabeled - just some - Jews who he claimed were the seed of a sexual union between Satan and Eve, by name "Kenites" his followers say they don't hate Jews, but only "Kenites".
As many times as he was asked, he could never explain how he selects which Israeli Jews to hate from those he chooses not to hate.

So Dave, do you hate all Jews in Israel, or just those Jews that believe that Yahweh restored them to their land in accordance with bible prophecy?

Perhaps you have difficulty reading English. I never said that people who do not believe like me are not Jews. However, just as you do, I believe people are IN ERROR. Jews have been subject to 64 years of incessant Zionist propaganda accompanied by all the bribery and other means of ensuring support, mainly through FEAR MONGERING. But it's not a big deal. This "state" with all its murder, idolatry and immorality will come to an end with its desecration of the Torah and the name of God.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 06:55:50 PM
Perhaps you have difficulty reading English. I never said that people who do not believe like me are not Jews. However, just as you do, I believe people are IN ERROR.

We see. Faithful Jews in Israel whose lives revolve around their synogogues and faith based communities, that God restored to their covenant land for the sake of His name's sake in fulfillment of so much bible prophecy, are in error, while your tiny cult couples you with anti-Zionist Nazis, skinheads, Muslims and the KKK, in advancing the Islamic conquest of Israel and subjugation of Israeli Jews and Christians.

1. Do you really believe it just a weird coincidence that you find yourself in the company of all those Godless people that favor genocide of Jews?
That you are fruit of the same anti-Zionist tree.

DO NOT try to change the subject to atheists or unfaithful Israeli Jews, but restrict your answers to these 5 questions solely as regards FAITHFUL Israeli Jews.

(http://www.petewaldo.com/119f44d0.jpg)

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 06:55:50 PMJews have been subject to 64 years of incessant Zionist propaganda accompanied by all the bribery and other means of ensuring support, mainly through FEAR MONGERING.

Since it's impossible for anybody to be that ignorant I'll chalk it up to a poor choice of terms.
It isn't fear mongering when leaders of nation-states proclaim "Israel must be wiped off the map …",
supported by majorities of their people:

(http://www.blogwrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/prepared_for_the_real_holocaust_1-vi-233x300.jpg)

(http://underneaththestairwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/god-bless-hitler.jpg)

2. Please click on this 4 minute video and tell us if you think that if the 4/5 majority of Israelis (Jews), turned the government over to Hamas, it would change the murderous nature of this Islamic leader's heart, that is inspired by their "holy" books.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X8dhrzQCHY

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 06:55:50 PMBut it's not a big deal. This "state" with all its murder, .....

Cut the crap Dave. The "state" is who the majority of Israelis - the vast majority of whom were born there - elect to run their country. Even some Muslims - who enjoy more freedom in Jerusalem than they would in any Muslim controlled country on earth - vote for a strong Israeli self-defense too. The issue is self-defense from very committed enemies who are driven by Satan.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 06:55:50 PM..... idolatry and immorality .......

3. The immorality of Israeli Jews whose lives revolve around their synagogues and faith based communities, but who don't want their kids blown up on school buses?
And this judgment by a New York based Reform Jew?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 13, 2012, 06:55:50 PM...... will come to an end with its desecration of the Torah and the name of God.

You are the only one who has desecrated the name of God, by suggesting He is in error for restoring His people to their land, SPECIFICALLY FOR HIS NAME'S SAKE. At least hereafter you will not be able to plead ignorance when you stand before God in judgment, but desecrate His name with your eyes wide open through your desired to have His name continue to be profaned.

"Among Israeli Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Jew), 72% are Sabras (Israeli-born), mostly second- or third-generation Israelis..." just as surely as the vast majority of your New York neighbors were born in the U.S. - even New York.

4. So you hate all Israeli Jews who desire to defend their families and the rest of the innocent civilians that are targeted in their community (and in so doing also the families of Israeli Christians and Muslims) from enemies that are avowed to wipe them out to the last?
Enemies that specifically TARGET Israeli CIVILIANS in random attacks without discrimination as to whether they are Jews, Muslims, or children.
http://endtimes-biblereport.com/Issue_5.html

5. How many months, much less years, would you want your government to restrain itself, if bomb carrying rockets were dropping into your neighborhood Dave?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eeGBv5JPEY
".... terror only intensified (http://oriforisrael.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/another-day-of-terror-another-day-of-rockets-on-israel/) when Israel completely and fully withdrew from the Gaza Strip, when it handed it in full to the Palestinians! They of course find it easy to forget that it wasn't until two years after the withdrawal, two years of continued rockets that a blockade was put up to prevent the smuggling of these rockets, of these weapons."

This is the bottom line Dave.

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"

Yet you side with all those Godless reprobate cults that champion the genocide of Jews, and Muslims that instigate fighting toward the Islamic conquest of Israel. Supporting their ambition to turn Israel into another sharia law ruled, multiple wife and concubine beating, child doing, female circumcising, mass murdering, Islamist terrorist slave state.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2984.0

(http://www.petewaldo.com/10658920.jpg)

First answer resisting's question, and then address the 5 points in my post.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13766#msg13766

If you give other than direct and specific answers I am going to give you 5 days off to come up with some. If you come back and obfuscate it will be 10 days, etc. You have repeatedly broken your commitment (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2982.msg13772#msg13772) to engage in exchange as described in the registration agreement. Wasting our mutual time through further obfuscation with unrelated answers will no longer be tolerated.

God is a judge and he will and does judge every person for their sins. There is no such thing as free love except to the extent that punishment is generally designed to purify one's soul from sin. As far as weapons are concerned, check who has the worst US-made weapons. The Palestinians or the Zionists. Who has F16s, helicopter gunships, Merkava tanks and phosphorus powder used against civilians and not a comparable army?
Who has 230 nuclear warheads? Who gets to bomb civilian neighborhoods from the comfort of their aircraft over a cup of coffee and who shoots missiles from their fancy US-made ships at Palestinian fishermen?

Perhaps 5 days off will give you enough time to compose answers to our posts. I recommend addressing mine by number.
In the meantime you will have the ability to log in, but not to post.

No more dithering on when you return. From now on you must quote that portion of a post that you are responding to. You can find instructions for quoting here: http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=39.0
If you fail to quote the specific portion of a post that you are replying to, your post will be sent to spam.

It doesn't matter what unrelated things you post, in order to avoid engaging in an exchange, the embarrassing result is always the same Dave. That's because of the side you have chosen.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2984.0

Quote from: Dave2 on May 14, 2012, 05:13:01 PM
God is a judge and he will and does judge every person for their sins. There is no such thing as free love except to the extent that punishment is generally designed to purify one's soul from sin.

So sad that you serve such a different God than we do. Interesting to note that one out of every 9 verses in Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah"'s book regard punishment. That's why Muhammad's followers are motivated by the punishments of Muhammad's imagination rather than love.
So why the refusal to tell us exactly what brand of Jew you are, when asked over and over, Dave? What are you ashamed of?

Quote from: Dave2 on May 14, 2012, 05:13:01 PMAs far as weapons are concerned, ......

I covered the subject of weapons in it's entirety in the single undeniable quote that I copy and pasted previously:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"

Do you think the Israelis could somehow defend themselves and their children from the random rocket launching, suicide bomb vest wearing, school bus bombing Muslim aggressors without weapons? Or as your cult with the street signs suggest, should they simply roll over and let Hamas rule over them?

"Neturei Karta call for dismantling of the state of Israel ....."

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/NKUSA.ORG_at_AIPAC_protest_2005.JPG/300px-NKUSA.ORG_at_AIPAC_protest_2005.JPG)

http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2795.0
"In contrast, a poll of 507 Arab-Israelis conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute in 2007 found that 75 percent profess support for Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state which guarantees equal rights for minorities. Israeli Arab support for a constitution in general was 88 percent.[31]"

Just as it has been between Jews and Arabs in Israel for 2 centuries, for those Arabs that wish to live side by side with the Israeli Jews in peace, while enjoying mutual prosperity.

We need only look to the examples of all of the Islamic slave states around the world, let alone the darkness of evil descending on innocents in Gaza through Islamic rule - that you are responsible for Dave - to understand why that poll went the way that it did:

"Christians can only continue living safely in the Gaza Strip (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3272.0) if they accept Islamic law, including a ban on alcohol and on women roaming publicly without proper head coverings,..."
"The militant leader said Christians in Gaza who engage in "missionary activity" will be "dealt with harshly."
"I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza,"
"Also the activities of Internet cafes, pool halls and bars must be stopped," he said. "If it goes on, we'll attack these things very harshly."

Internet access to information begins to be limited, as the darkness descends on the innocent thanks to you, and Satan's anti-Zionist minions, Dave.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2795.0

Yet in regard to weapons, all God's people needed was a couple antique guns and a few flaming barrels to drive off the very well armed attacking aggressor Muslim hordes - the enemies of God's people - when He restored His people to their land. A nation of miracles by God's hand:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3280.0

Quote from: Dave2 on May 14, 2012, 05:13:01 PM...... check who has the worst US-made weapons. The Palestinians or the Zionists. Who has F16s, helicopter gunships, Merkava tanks and phosphorus powder used against civilians and not a comparable army?

Indeed. One is an army that wears uniforms so the enemy can tell the difference between a combatant and a civilian, while the other side is a bunch of cowards that shield their activities and rocket launching with their own women and children, right in their own neighborhoods. Just as prophesied of Muhammad's Islamic beast/kingdom with jihad as the pinnacle of worship:

Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Phosphorous power is used to produce a smokescreen, so that soldiers can get closer to the enemy, in order to reduce the chances of civilian casualties. Since the enemy insists on using civilians as shields, accidents and collateral casualties are inevitable.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 14, 2012, 05:13:01 PMWho has 230 nuclear warheads?

The people that God gifted with more restraint, than any people in the history of mankind, from using them. Despite facing one of the ugliest and most satanically driven enemies in the history of mankind. The perfect choice to hold those weapons as a deterrent to protect God's people from Satan's Muslim aggressors.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 14, 2012, 05:13:01 PMWho gets to bomb civilian neighborhoods .....

The Israelis never target civilians, in spite of the fact that their enemy is so cowardly they hide themselves as civilians, among civilians, while being such cowards that they SPECIFICALLY TARGET CIVILIANS in their own attacks of aggression. You know Dave, you make it increasingly difficult not to believe, that you are a Muslim engaging in taqiyyah.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 14, 2012, 05:13:01 PM...... from the comfort of their aircraft over a cup of coffee and who shoots missiles from their fancy US-made ships at Palestinian fishermen?

Sure. The Israelis are waging war against so-called "Palestinian" fishermen. Perhaps you are referring to "civilian" ships that are used to mask imports of rockets and arms. But then you speak in such vague generalities I wouldn't be surprised if you are making it up. Can't even you begin to see who is inside you, and doing the speaking for you, Dave?
The weapons you allude to are called "smart bombs" for a reason. They are designed to target the enemy with precision, while reducing collateral civilian casualties. Yet the people you support specifically target innocent, non-combatant, men, women and children, with unguided rockets, suicide vests and school bus bombs.

Do not address this post until we have thoroughly vetted the posts that you avoided when you posted this one. Then we will move to the older posts that you ignored. When you return in 5 days you will be limited to this thread, and in accordance with the rule you compelled me to impose on our discussion in order to help you to engage in exchange. (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13651#msg13651) Quote the posts or at least number your replies in accordance with the numbers I assigned my questions. If you try posting unrelated replies, or post in any other threads before this one, you'll have 10 days off to compose your replies.
Under your current 5 day ban you have the ability to log in, but not post.

Quote from: Peter on May 11, 2012, 04:39:57 PM

Quote from: Dave2 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:15 PM
You call it a cult when you don't even know what a cult is unless you clearly prefer to label anything a cult that you don't agree with.

One hallmark of a cult is folks that follow men. Like Muhammad, Charles Taze Russel, Joseph Smith, Charles Manson, and the men whose tradition you follow, that even join you with other anti-Zionist cults like Nazis, Muslims and the KKK.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:15 PMZionism is a cult an atheistic non-kosher pseudo-messianic cult started by that scum of a fake Jew, Theodor Herzl, may his name rot in hell. Go do some studying of 20th century Jewish history and start with the 1880s.

Typical device of anti-Zionists, to begin the history of Israel at the end of the 19th century when the term "Zionism" was coined, while conveniently ignoring the early 19th century when the restoration of the Jews to their land actually began, in order to advance your anti-Zionist lies.

Exposing your abject ignorance to history - not only of the historicity of Jesus (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7lkJSq5PIFkAXHtXNyoA?p=historicity+of+Jesus&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=) as exhibited earlier (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13721#msg13721) - but to the history of your own people. http://petewaldo.com/zionism.htm

Anyway, you are demonizing the wrong guy. The guys you really need to go after are those like John Adams for championing (http://jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=1810&endyear=1819) the idea, and Rabbi Shmuel Salant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Salant) who arrived in Jerusalem in 1841, and under whose tenure as chief rabbi the population of Jerusalem grew from 5,000 to 30,000.

Any gentile, and particularly any Jew that could leaf through the history (http://jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=1700&endyear=1709) of how Jews were treated in gentile lands, and not understand the need for a place where they could live by their own laws and determine their own destiny - particularly in the land that God gave them through an everlasting covenant - would seem no Jew at all. Perhaps just a New York city dwelling bag of hot air that proclaims to know what's best for the Israelis, even as he labors to advance Islamic conquest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X8dhrzQCHY), and subjugation of Israeli Jews and Christians (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3414753,00.html) to Muhammad's followers. No surprise then that you are so obsessed with demonizing Paul, just like your anti-Zionist Muslim partners do:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Regarding the blasphemy of your accusations against God, for restoring His people to their covenant land to end the profaning of His Holy name (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3218.msg13737#msg13737), thereby demonstrating His power in a way that even heathens can understand - let alone your blasphemy against our Messiah:

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

Quote from: Dave2 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:15 PMHe hated Judaism and he will never get out of the hell prepared for him for his sins which make Jeroboam ben Nevat look like a holy man alongside Herzl.

Dave like so many anti-zionists, want to accuse a few men, as if they could be responsible for the fulfillment of a prophecy that is so stunning, that even "the heathen" shall know He is Lord. On a quick glance at this thread I didn't see the point made that the restoration of Jews to their land was also anticipated by Christians through Bible prophecy, centuries before that restoration ever began to take place.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm#christians_on_zionism

John Owen 1616-1683: "The Jews shall be gathered from all parts of the earth where they are scattered, and brought home into their homeland."

Thomas Brightman 1562-1607: "The restoring of the Jewes and their callinge to the faith of Christ after the utter overthrow of their three enemies is set forth in livelie colours." "Shall they return to Jerusalem again?" "There is nothing more certain: the prophets do everywhere confirm it and beat upon it."

Matthew Henry: "If God will build Jerusalem for the people and their comfort, they must inhabit it for him and his glory. The promises and privileges with which God's people are blessed, should engage us to join them, whatever it costs us."

Isaac Newton: “Hence I observe these things, first that the restauration of the Jewish nation so much spoken of by the old Prophets respects not the few Jews who were converted in the Apostles days, but the dispersed nation of the unbelieving Jews to be converted in the end when the fullness of the Gentiles shall enter, that is when the Gospel (upon the fall of Babylon) shall begin to be preached to all nations. Secondly that the prophecies of Isaiah described above by being here cited by the Apostle is limited to respect the time of the future conversion and restitution of the Jewish Nation, and thirdly that the humour which has long reigned among the Christians of boasting our selves against the Jews, and insulting over them for their not believing, is reprehended by the Apostle for high â€"mindedness and self-conceipt, and much more is our using them despightfully, Pharisaicall and impious”

In 1641 Oliver Cromwell stated, "And it may be, as some think, God will bring the Jews home to their station, 'from all the isles of the sea,' and answer their expectations 'as from the depths of the sea.'