Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - resistingrexmundi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
General Discussion / My Shame
« on: May 08, 2015, 01:09:41 AM »
I am here to formally apologize for my absence and lack of participation here. I have had personal hurdles to overcome but it is no excuse. God has been good to me and I should have shown my appreciation. I recently discovered a dear friend of mine passed. Someone I believe was touched by God to bring enlightenment to a very dark world. I fear what his passing means. To that end I hope that I can conquer my struggles and continue his work.

God bless,

rrm

2
Recently I have seen where the Gospel is setting fire in the heart of Muhammad's stronghold. I am praying for these saints. All too often we talk about the persecution of Christians in the "First World", and while I don't take away from the opposition we face in America or Europe, I want to emphasize that the people in the middle east face this reality in a way we, in the "free" world, can't even imagine. I want to pose this challenge. Let us pray for these brothers and sisters in the "heart of darkness" (Islam controlled). They need our support. My own challenges pale in comparison. Let us be spiritual warriors and bring our prayers to bear on this situation

4
Islam - General / Historical Critique of Islam.
« on: November 17, 2014, 10:34:20 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0

Enjoyable lecture of a knowledgeable man.

5
Islam - General / Islam: What the West needs to know
« on: November 16, 2014, 08:02:48 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KUR3dpCjm0

This is a link to a documentary that will give anyone seeking a true understanding of Islam a good foundation to build off of.

6
Books / The Truth about Muhammad by Robert Spencer
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:39:25 PM »
A thorough review of the founder of the world's most intolerant religion. Well researched and heavy with citations to source material. I've personally read it multiple times.

7
Books / Religion of Peace by Robert Spencer
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:34:52 PM »
A thorough study of Islam as it is understood and taught in the most orthodox Islamic countries. Well written with careful investigation and citation of sources. A necessary addition to anyone's library who hopes to understand the religious violence around the world in Islamic countries and their neighbors.

8
Books / Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate by Michael R. Licona
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:31:48 PM »
I was walking down the Religion section of Barnes and Noble years ago and the title of this book stuck out to me like a neon sign. Because if there was one meeting I would love to see the most, second only to that of Jesus and Muhammad, is the meeting between Paul and Muhammad. There has been no figure in the New Testament that has received more animosity and vitriol from Muslims than Paul.

The premise of the book is a futuristic face-off between Paul and Muhammad where a computer program with advanced algorithims causing each representation to answer as they would according to what they wrote in the respective texts they authored. It may seem odd but it was a suspenseful read and I am picking it up for the third time today to begin it again.

9
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 13, 2012, 04:35:06 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.

10
BrotherJW YouTube video discussions / Re: Zionism in Modern History
« on: May 13, 2012, 12:45:12 PM »
This is totally unimportant. No one invited a massive influx of Zionist colonists into the Holy Land at the expense of the people already living there. And as far as identity is concerned, where did AMERICANS come from? Where did the Afrikaaners come from? Where did Canadians come from? The point is not where people come from but how they treat each other.

Dave2, does it not even bother you to make such a point when you consider the fact that much of the land that currently makes up Israel was privately bought. Does it not seem hypocritical to make such a point when Jewish citizens are constantly under threat of death by Palestinian militants and no Jew or Christian has freedom in Muslim controlled countries and yet these rights are extended to them in Israel?

11
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 13, 2012, 12:41:28 PM »
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?

12
BrotherJW YouTube video discussions / Re: Zionism in Modern History
« on: May 13, 2012, 02:36:44 AM »
My reply to this extensive posting: SO WHAT?

A few points that were raised in the above posts

1. Many people years before Zionism had formed saw in the Bible a re-establishment of the Jewish nation

2. Zionism was not the grand conspiracy theory brain child of one man or even a group of men but rather the response of many to the conditions of the earth and their own understanding of scripture. And Israel's establishment was predicted to the year.

13
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 13, 2012, 02:32:54 AM »
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?

14
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 07, 2012, 11:01:44 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.

15
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 07, 2012, 10:07:59 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?

16
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 06, 2012, 09:45:00 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?

17
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 06, 2012, 07:19:28 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.

18
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 06, 2012, 03:56:35 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.

19
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 04, 2012, 09:29:43 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.

20
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 04, 2012, 02:08:17 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.

21
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 04, 2012, 01:30:31 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.

22
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 04, 2012, 01:25:35 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.

23
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 04, 2012, 11:47:15 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.

24
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 04, 2012, 09:18:43 AM »
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: Dave2
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.

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.

25
Judeo-Christian - General / Re: Dave2's questions
« on: May 03, 2012, 01:00:21 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23