SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

(03-07-2010 05:53 PM)Mary Wrote: [ -> ]

[quote='sheep wrecked' pid='5493' dateline='1267998045']
[quote='Ben Masada' pid='5472' dateline='1267971188'

Quote:The Talmud was not written until 200 CE - 500 CE - it was known orally up to that point, but not written down until then. This is historical.

[quote]Judaism was not "advanced" at the first century. It was in the beginning sketches of it. The Pharisees eventually became the Rabbinical system after the fall of the Jerusalem in 70AD. The Talmud defines Judaism from around the middle ages. The Talmud also defines what the Sanhedrin did in the first century according to Judaism. According to history, the Sanhedrin judged on judicial and legislative cases under Roman authority in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin dissolved soon after the destruction of Jerusalem [70AD] and was never again re-instituted.

Are you trying to teach Judaism to the Jew?

Quote:John 2:1 says nothing of the sort - it is not referring to Jesus' baptism.

Very good! What does John is referring to then? And why did he ignore the wilderness in the life of Jesus? Obviously, he would not be able to harmonize being tempted to change stones into bread with being tempted to change water into wine. Don't you think so?

Quote:Only Messianis say that Jesus confirmed the Law even to the dot of the letter per Matt 5:17-19. Christians know that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant aka "The Law/Torah.

Really! I did not know that Matthew was of the Messianics. Matthew is the one who says so. Are you contesting what he said? And regarding the New Covenant, of course Jesus fulfilled it. He was Jewish, and the New Covenant was made with the Jews. Read Jeremiah 31:31. The House of Israel and the House of Judah as one people did not include Gentiles.

Quote:]John the Jew, the beloved disciple of Jesus, did in fact write the Gospel of John. There is no "Greek mythology" in the book of John. Jesus was not a man that was God. This is where the mistake is made in understanding. God "manifested" Himself as a man, just as He did to Abraham [Gen 18].

I meant by Greek Mythology to preach about Jesus as the son of God. And to say that God manifested Himself in the flesh as a man is not much
of a difference. Besides, Ezekiel had already left very clear that God manisfests His glory in the sight of the nations through Israel, the Jewish
People. Jesus was but one of the People.

Quote:Everlasting life refers to dead and buried Jews?????? [/b]

You didn't read the quotations I gave above in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Let
us read together. According to Isaiah 53:8.9, the Land o Israel is considered the Land of the Living. When Jews are taken into exile, it is as if graves are assigned them among the Gentiles. The Metaphor, "The
Land of the Living," brings the same meaning of evelasting life. Then, when the exile is over, God opens those graves, with Jewish exiles, and
brings the People back to Israel or Land of the Living in a metaphorical resurrection. (Ezek. 37:12)

Quote:Psa 21:4 He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever.

Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

Psa 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Psa 37:18 The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.

Psa 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

Psa 41:12 And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face for ever.

[b]All expressions of eternity above are references to a full living of one's span of life in the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel.

Quote:John 2:1 is talking about the third day after the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask him (John the Baptist) who he was, not the third day after Jesus was baptised.

Nice try, but you haven't suceeded. Here is what happened: On the day John caught sight of Jesus coming toward him... Of course, it was for his turn to be immersed. (John 1:29) The first day afterwards, Jesus was recruiting disciples when two of the disciples of John followed him. (John 1:35) On the next day, or second after his immersion, he was leaving to Galilee. (John 1:43) Then, on the third day, he was celebrating
his wedding in Cana of the Galilee. (John 2:1) Am I wrong with my computation of the facts?

(03-08-2010 11:13 AM)Ben Masada Wrote: [ -> ]Very good! What does John is referring to then? And why did he ignore the wilderness in the life of Jesus? Obviously, he would not be able to harmonize being tempted to change stones into bread with being tempted to change water into wine. Don't you think so?


Really! I did not know that Matthew was of the Messianics. Matthew is the one who says so. Are you contesting what he said? And regarding the New Covenant, of course Jesus fulfilled it. He was Jewish, and the New Covenant was made with the Jews. Read Jeremiah 31:31. The House of Israel and the House of Judah as one people did not include Gentiles.

I meant by Greek Mythology to preach about Jesus as the son of God. And to say that God manifested Himself in the flesh as a man is not much
of a difference. Besides, Ezekiel had already left very clear that God manisfests His glory in the sight of the nations through Israel, the Jewish
People. Jesus was but one of the People.

You didn't read the quotations I gave above in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Let
us read together. According to Isaiah 53:8.9, the Land o Israel is considered the Land of the Living. When Jews are taken into exile, it is as if graves are assigned them among the Gentiles. The Metaphor, "The
Land of the Living," brings the same meaning of evelasting life. Then, when the exile is over, God opens those graves, with Jewish exiles, and
brings the People back to Israel or Land of the Living in a metaphorical resurrection. (Ezek. 37:12)

[b]All expressions of eternity above are references to a full living of one's span of life in the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel.

Quote:John 2:1 is talking about the third day after the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask him (John the Baptist) who he was, not the third day after Jesus was baptised.

Nice try, but you haven't suceeded. Here is what happened: On the day John caught sight of Jesus coming toward him... Of course, it was for his turn to be immersed. (John 1:29) The first day afterwards, Jesus was recruiting disciples when two of the disciples of John followed him. (John 1:35) On the next day, or second after his immersion, he was leaving to Galilee. (John 1:43) Then, on the third day, he was celebrating
his wedding in Cana of the Galilee. (John 2:1) Am I wrong with my computation of the facts?

Ben,

Once again - you are missing the point. WE ARE CHRISTIANS who view the Old Testament through the New Testament. We do not interpret Scriptures through a "Jewish mindset", but through a Holy Spirit renewed one through which we have received of Jesus Christ.

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. They are INCOMPATIBLE.

The John 2:1 Scripture is NOT related to the Baptism of Christ. It is YOUR interpretation of the events, not what is "real time". It does not matter that John did not speak of the temptation of Jesus Christ. Every witness tells a different story. There are many examples of ALL the Gospels NOT saying the same thing and some SKIP some events that others do not. It is NOT a big deal.

It seems rather odd that you want to smear the NT text when the Old Testament does not relate events in the identical manner either. Just look at 1 & 2 Kings compared with 1 & 2 Chronicles. Or go back to Torah and compare the differences in how the Law is stated between Exodus, Deut, Numbers, and Leviticus. You are straining at gnats - which is something Jesus said not to do. Did you miss that in your examination of the NT?

Matt 5:17-19 has nothing to do with keeping the Law. The emphasis is on "FULFILLED" - something Jesus completed fully. I am not sure why you care. So what exactly is your point to push keeping the Law to a bunch of Gentile Christians who are not to keep the Law in the first place and who cannot be Jews, according to Judaism, because they believe in Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!

You are not "discussing" - you are accusing and cutting apart God's Holy Word, and dumping Talmudic concepts and anti/counter missionary rhetoric about the New Testament in your posts - of which we are fully aware - it's like "yawn", not again. If you keep posting in this vein, your posts will be moderated - consider this a warning.

Quote: Ben Masada> Are you trying to teach Judaism to the Jew?

Are you trying to teach Christians Christianity, Ben? You who obviously reject Jesus Christ and the New Testament, aka the promised New Covenant fulfilled by Christ, as valid, come to this Christian forum and presume to teach us Christians what it's all about?

It wouldn't matter to me what your heritage was or religious background, because when you enter this forum you agree to the forum rules and acknowledged that this is a Christian forum and those of other faiths discussions will be allowed up to a point. So far you aren't proving you are here to actually discuss anything.

Ben:"All expressions of eternity above are references to a full living of one's span of life in the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel."

What about this then?

Mark 12: 24 -27
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

(03-08-2010 11:13 AM)Ben Masada Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2010 05:53 PM)Mary Wrote: [ -> ]

[quote='sheep wrecked' pid='5493' dateline='1267998045']
[quote='Ben Masada' pid='5472' dateline='1267971188'

Quote:The Talmud was not written until 200 CE - 500 CE - it was known orally up to that point, but not written down until then. This is historical.

[quote]Judaism was not "advanced" at the first century. It was in the beginning sketches of it. The Pharisees eventually became the Rabbinical system after the fall of the Jerusalem in 70AD. The Talmud defines Judaism from around the middle ages. The Talmud also defines what the Sanhedrin did in the first century according to Judaism. According to history, the Sanhedrin judged on judicial and legislative cases under Roman authority in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin dissolved soon after the destruction of Jerusalem [70AD] and was never again re-instituted.

Are you trying to teach Judaism to the Jew?

Quote:John 2:1 says nothing of the sort - it is not referring to Jesus' baptism.

Very good! What does John is referring to then? And why did he ignore the wilderness in the life of Jesus? Obviously, he would not be able to harmonize being tempted to change stones into bread with being tempted to change water into wine. Don't you think so?

Quote:Only Messianis say that Jesus confirmed the Law even to the dot of the letter per Matt 5:17-19. Christians know that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant aka "The Law/Torah.

Really! I did not know that Matthew was of the Messianics. Matthew is the one who says so. Are you contesting what he said? And regarding the New Covenant, of course Jesus fulfilled it. He was Jewish, and the New Covenant was made with the Jews. Read Jeremiah 31:31. The House of Israel and the House of Judah as one people did not include Gentiles.

Quote:]John the Jew, the beloved disciple of Jesus, did in fact write the Gospel of John. There is no "Greek mythology" in the book of John. Jesus was not a man that was God. This is where the mistake is made in understanding. God "manifested" Himself as a man, just as He did to Abraham [Gen 18].

I meant by Greek Mythology to preach about Jesus as the son of God. And to say that God manifested Himself in the flesh as a man is not much
of a difference. Besides, Ezekiel had already left very clear that God manisfests His glory in the sight of the nations through Israel, the Jewish
People. Jesus was but one of the People.

Quote:Everlasting life refers to dead and buried Jews?????? [/b]

You didn't read the quotations I gave above in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Let
us read together. According to Isaiah 53:8.9, the Land o Israel is considered the Land of the Living. When Jews are taken into exile, it is as if graves are assigned them among the Gentiles. The Metaphor, "The
Land of the Living," brings the same meaning of evelasting life. Then, when the exile is over, God opens those graves, with Jewish exiles, and
brings the People back to Israel or Land of the Living in a metaphorical resurrection. (Ezek. 37:12)

Quote:Psa 21:4 He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever.

Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

Psa 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Psa 37:18 The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.

Psa 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

Psa 41:12 And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face for ever.

[b]All expressions of eternity above are references to a full living of one's span of life in the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel.

Quote:John 2:1 is talking about the third day after the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask him (John the Baptist) who he was, not the third day after Jesus was baptised.

Nice try, but you haven't suceeded. Here is what happened: On the day John caught sight of Jesus coming toward him... Of course, it was for his turn to be immersed. (John 1:29) The first day afterwards, Jesus was recruiting disciples when two of the disciples of John followed him. (John 1:35) On the next day, or second after his immersion, he was leaving to Galilee. (John 1:43) Then, on the third day, he was celebrating
his wedding in Cana of the Galilee. (John 2:1) Am I wrong with my computation of the facts?

Yes, I think you are: John says that he had seen the dove descending on Jesus, so the baptism had already happened sometime in the past, he didn't say "yesterday" he'd seen it, He is indicating Jesus to the priests and his own disciples as the Messiah. You are twisting the scripture to suit your beliefs.

vs 32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."

(03-08-2010 12:19 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Ben Masada' pid='5502' dateline='1268061189']

Matt 5:17-19 has nothing to do with keeping the Law. The emphasis is on "FULFILLED" - something Jesus completed fully. I am not sure why you care. So what exactly is your point to push keeping the Law to a bunch of Gentile Christians who are not to keep the Law in the first place and who cannot be Jews, according to Judaism, because they believe in Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------

Very good! I am going with you on this one. What is the difference between "keeping" the Law and "fulfilling" the Law? None, I am sure. But when you say that Jesus fulfilled them fully, what do you mean, that they have been abolished on the cross, according to Paul? (Ephe. 2:16)

I agree with you that those laws in Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:17-19 are not for Christians. These have the Noahite laws. Besides, Jesus was not delivering the Sermon of the Mount to Gentiles but to the
Jews, as he made it very clear that the Law remains to be fulfilled by all of us just as he did.
Ben
Ben

(03-10-2010 10:38 AM)Ben Masada Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2010 12:19 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ]Matt 5:17-19 has nothing to do with keeping the Law. The emphasis is on "FULFILLED" - something Jesus completed fully. I am not sure why you care. So what exactly is your point to push keeping the Law to a bunch of Gentile Christians who are not to keep the Law in the first place and who cannot be Jews, according to Judaism, because they believe in Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------

Very good! I am going with you on this one. What is the difference between "keeping" the Law and "fulfilling" the Law? None, I am sure. But when you say that Jesus fulfilled them fully, what do you mean, that they have been abolished on the cross, according to Paul? (Ephe. 2:16)

I agree with you that those laws in Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:17-19 are not for Christians. These have the Noahite laws. Besides, Jesus was not delivering the Sermon of the Mount to Gentiles but to the
Jews, as he made it very clear that the Law remains to be fulfilled by all of us just as he did.
Ben

Fulfilled means accomplished, completed, done. It does not mean to keep doing what has already been finished.

I am curious, seeing that you call yourself a Jew, why you should care about what Jesus said? If you do not believe He is the Messiah, then for you, the New Testament is not valid and the words Jesus spoke are a myth/legend.

For Christians, who believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Noahide laws mean nothing. They are a Rabbinical designation for Gentiles, not what God instituted or commanded and cannot be found in Scripture, but in the Talmud - which denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God - and denigrates Him, calling him a ba$tard.

(03-07-2010 11:59 AM)YYZ Skinhead Wrote: [ -> ]If the guys who transcribed the NT weren't Jewish, what were they?

Jesus was Joseph's son in the way that an adopted baby is his adopted parents' son. Since He came in Human form as a flesh-and-blood Child, He needed His adoptive parents to care for Him as His earthly Body grew, like any other human baby. "Begotten" the way it is used in Scripture apparently means "born naturally", ergo God's only begotten Son = God's Son carried and born naturally. Jesus's Human Body was conceived supernaturally and born naturally.

Insulting the admins is never a good idea.

---------------

Jesus was a Jewish man, and according to Judaism, an adopted child can never inherit the genealogical trait which would make him to belong to the Tribe of the father. Since Joseph was the one from the Tribe of Judah, and you claim that Jesus was only adopted by him, Jesus could not be from the Tribe of Judah. Therefore, he could not have been the Messiah. Mary was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. Read Luke 1:5,36. Mother lineage defines only the Jewishness of the child but not his Tribal affiliation.
Ben

---

(03-10-2010 10:36 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2010 10:38 AM)Ben Masada Wrote: [ -> ][quote='sheep wrecked' pid='5504' dateline='1268065172']

Matt 5:17-19 has nothing to do with keeping the Law. The emphasis is on "FULFILLED" - something Jesus completed fully. I am not sure why you care. So what exactly is your point to push keeping the Law to a bunch of Gentile Christians who are not to keep the Law in the first place and who cannot be Jews, according to Judaism, because they believe in Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------

Very good! I am going with you on this one. What is the difference between "keeping" the Law and "fulfilling" the Law? None, I am sure. But when you say that Jesus fulfilled them fully, what do you mean, that they have been abolished on the cross, according to Paul? (Ephe. 2:16)

I agree with you that those laws in Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:17-19 are not for Christians. These have the Noahite laws. Besides, Jesus was not delivering the Sermon of the Mount to Gentiles but to the
Jews, as he made it very clear that the Law remains to be fulfilled by all of us just as he did.
Ben

Quote:Fulfilled means accomplished, completed, done. It does not mean to keep doing what has already been finished.

In that case, why had Jesus to say that whoever does do the same as he did by fulfilling the Law down to the letter, won't be worthy the Kingdom of God? Read Matthew 5:18,19. Why do you make it so hard to understand what he said?

Quote:I am curious, seeing that you call yourself a Jew, why you should care about what Jesus said? If you do not believe He is the Messiah, then for you, the New Testament is not valid and the words Jesus spoke are a myth/legend.

Jesus was a Jewish man who lived according to Judaism. The NT misrepresent Judaism by picking up a Jew to teach that the Greek Mythology of a son of God is possible in Judaism. This is Replacement Theology.

Quote:For Christians, who believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Noahide laws mean nothing. They are a Rabbinical designation for Gentiles, not what God instituted or commanded and cannot be found in Scripture, but in the Talmud - which denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God - and denigrates Him, calling him a ba$tard.

I don't believe Jesus was a ********* He had a father in Joseph. The charge of his being a ******* is due more to those who deny this assertion.

---

EDITED BY ADMIN. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE SPAM/WORD FILTER BY TYPING THE OFFENSIVE WORD DIFFERENT WAYS AND/OR VIA MULPTIPLE POSTINGS. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE ABILITY TO START THREADS HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO HAVING AT LEAST 50 POSTS BEFORE THAT IS ALLOWED.

[quote='Ben Masada' pid='5532' dateline='1268494298']

Jesus was a Jewish man, and according to Judaism, an adopted child can never inherit the genealogical trait which would make him to belong to the Tribe of the father. Since Joseph was the one from the Tribe of Judah, and you claim that Jesus was only adopted by him, Jesus could not be from the Tribe of Judah. Therefore, he could not have been the Messiah. Mary was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. Read Luke 1:5,36. Mother lineage defines only the Jewishness of the child but not his Tribal affiliation.
Ben

---

Well you just wiped out two tribes of Israel and gave portions of the land to gentiles. If there is no tribal relation thru adoption then Ephraim and Manasseh can not be tribes as they are Joseph's sons adopted by Israel and inherited land as sons and their mother was Egyptian making them gentiles.

Genesis 46:20 Now to Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.

Genesis 48:5 "Now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.

Joshua 14:4 For the sons of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim, and they did not give a portion to the Levites in the land, except cities to live in, with their pasture lands for their livestock and for their property.

Joshua 16:4 The sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, received their inheritance.

Ben, who do you think Isa 53:4-12 is talking about hope you find out.