Dave2's questions

[Dave2]

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.

[Dave2]

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.”

[Peter]

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.

[Dave2]

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.

[Peter]

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.

[Peter]

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

[Dave2]

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.

[Peter]

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). 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.

For 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

It 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.

[Dave2]

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.

[resistingrexmundi]

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.

   

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Dave2]

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?

[Dave2]

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??

[resistingrexmundi]

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.

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.

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,

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.?

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.

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.

[Peter]

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

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, 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 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. 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. 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter 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; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9. And he gave his grave to the wicked, 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 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; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.

[Peter]

..... 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.

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, .......

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, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

....... 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.

[Dave2]

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.

[Dave2]

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.

[resistingrexmundi]

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.

[resistingrexmundi]

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.

[Peter]

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.

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.

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.

[Dave2]

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!

[resistingrexmundi]

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.

[Dave2]

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).

[resistingrexmundi]

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.

[Peter]

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.