jewish

[BilliardsBall]

In the area of theology, certainty is very hard to determine.

IMO, the main thing I am certain of is that Jesus' message of the "law of love" resonates with me as it makes so much sense.

But the "law of love" was given by someone we cannot trust for veractity, so how do you know he gave it?!

 

[rosends]

Where were they absolved of traditional observance? Paul went to Rome after rushing back to Jerusalem to take a vow while observing a high holy day.

Let's see...issues of kosher law and sabbath observance being abrogated, arguments against "legalism" and saying that there are fewer laws (and others "fulfilled"), even the idea that a human can bring salvation. All of this is developed from a resistance to religious rules and obligations. Even preaching to non-Jews and not demanding Jewish conversion.

As important or even more important, I find your claim bizarre that these people risked martyrdom for "extreme reform which absolved them of traditional observance". We live by Torah, but we usually don't die by [avoiding] Torah as Jews!

You can find whatever it is you want to find. You don't live by the Torah. What are your laws for proper slaughter as demanded in the Torah? I don't know who your mother is or was but i know that you don't live life as a Jew.

Also, they claimed to have seen the resurrected Yeshua, not merely "we invented new theology".

Yeah...claimed.

I must disagree with you.

OK. You do you.

 

[Hawkins]

dont know much aboit their faith. do they reject jesus completely or do they see him as gods son but reject him anyway?

They rejected the Son of God, then God removed the Temple (or allowed their Temple to be removed) from them till this very day!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They rejected the Son of God, then God removed the Temple (or allowed their Temple to be removed) from them till this very day!

Simplistic rubbish is no less absurd by virtue of it being simplistic.

 

[Flankerl]

They claimed to have seen him the same way Christian authors claimed that there was a huge earthquake and the dead rose in Jerusalem.

Except that no one else wrote any of that down.
But that's how apocalyptic sects are, even today when they congregate around their leader before they kill themselves.

 

[metis]

But the "law of love" was given by someone we cannot trust for veractity, so how do you know he gave it?!

Again, you've taken things to a polar extreme that I was did not say nor imply. What I don't believe is that everything that I read must be correct. The early Church simply did not believe in scriptural inerrancy as that's much more of a recent phenomenon from the 19th century Fundamentalist Movement.

When the western canon was chosen in the 4th century, there was plenty of arguing that went on for roughly 1/2 a century with some books set aside for later evaluation ["Apocrypha"]. If everything was so cut & dry as you seemingly believe, this would not have happened.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let's see...issues of kosher law and sabbath observance being abrogated, arguments against "legalism" and saying that there are fewer laws (and others "fulfilled"), even the idea that a human can bring salvation. All of this is developed from a resistance to religious rules and obligations. Even preaching to non-Jews and not demanding Jewish conversion.


You can find whatever it is you want to find. You don't live by the Torah. What are your laws for proper slaughter as demanded in the Torah? I don't know who your mother is or was but i know that you don't live life as a Jew.

Yeah...claimed.

OK. You do you.

You don't live by Torah, since you do not sacrifice at the Jerusalem Temple, and then alter plain meanings of Tanakh to excuse this disobedience.

Of course, if Temple sacrifices could pay for sin, they would not have needed to be endlessly repeated--they are a temporary covering and a picture of Messiah, who shed His blood to pay for all sin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, you've taken things to a polar extreme that I was did not say nor imply. What I don't believe is that everything that I read must be correct. The early Church simply did not believe in scriptural inerrancy as that's much more of a recent phenomenon from the 19th century Fundamentalist Movement.

When the western canon was chosen in the 4th century, there was plenty of arguing that went on for roughly 1/2 a century with some books set aside for later evaluation ["Apocrypha"]. If everything was so cut & dry as you seemingly believe, this would not have happened.

The early church believed in inerrancy as men of God quoted the entire NT in their 1st and 2nd century correspondence!

Before the early church, the ancient Israelites and the NT writers believed in inerrancy--since their main case that Jesus is sacrifice and Lord is from hundreds of scriptural prophecies.

People arguing canon does not validate or invalidate what is true or false:

Books weren’t taken out of the Bible, since they weren’t in the Bible to begin. For example, the NT was canonized 70 years after the Council of Nicea, so how could that council in 325 CE remove books from a canon that was officiated in 395 CE?

To be canon:

1. A book had to written by or commended by a known apostle

2. It had to have been recognized as authoritative in the writings of the earliest church fathers

3. It’s doctrine had to align with already canonized scripture (the OT)

Suppose 1,000 years from now people claim The Book of Mormon was removed from the Bible? It was never in the Bible, is deemed heretical and has never been recognized as Bible scripture—including by Mormons. Likewise, the gnostic gospels were never seen as scriptural when they were circulated.

And if books were concealed or taken out, doesn't that imply you should read the Bible and that people thought it must be highly important?

The early church needed no canon—the patriarchs passed copies of the letters back and forth, used them, even memorized them, and knew what scriptures were and what false writings (apocrypha) were. When false teachers claimed certain books weren’t included, the councils began to meet to affirm which books were already known to be true, not to “discard some books they didn’t like”. And a "Berean Christian" studies the books for themselves and makes their own decision. However, here are some reasons I do not accept books beyond the 66. These other books:

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by 99.99% of church sects

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times in the OT alone, "This is the Word of God!", indeed, they often say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me!"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible, which is itself often raw, honest writing

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B within the same apocryphal book

8) Shows lack of character: wise Daniel tricking people instead of being an honest witness, the child Jesus strikes a fellow child dead, etc.

9) Do not withstand any type of codes/gematria analysis

 

[rosends]

You don't live by Torah, since you do not sacrifice at the Jerusalem Temple, and then alter plain meanings of Tanakh to excuse this disobedience.

If you say that, it means you don't understand the Torah. Not surprising.

Of course, if Temple sacrifices could pay for sin, they would not have needed to be endlessly repeated--they are a temporary covering and a picture of Messiah, who shed His blood to pay for all sin.

This is silly. One repents and has sins atoned but unfortunately, people sin AGAIN. And human blood "paying" for all sin? Ridiculous.

 

[metis]

The early church believed in inerrancy as men of God quoted the entire NT in their 1st and 2nd century correspondence!

That's not even logical, or the Church wouldn't have to have taken half a century to determine what the canon should be. There were serious questions at times dealing with authorship and certain narratives. There are also some narratives that conflict, such as the women's visit to Jesus' tomb, whereas no two agree.

Before the early church, the ancient Israelites and the NT writers believed in inerrancy--since their main case that Jesus is sacrifice and Lord is from hundreds of scriptural prophecies.

Well, not quite, which is one reason why the developed the commentary system still used today. Some narratives don't match, such as the differing census accounts covered in Torah. In some cases, there's a difference in the timing of some events. The Jewish Study Bible is an excellent source, btw, and we used that in conjunction of the Stone Chumash in Torah study at the synagogue I used to belong to.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you say that, it means you don't understand the Torah. Not surprising.

This is silly. One repents and has sins atoned but unfortunately, people sin AGAIN. And human blood "paying" for all sin? Ridiculous.

Jesus's sacrifice was for all sin, including future, for which I offer Him praise.

I do understand Torah--it was another re-reading of Torah that caused me to seek the salvation that I found.

I do agree with you--human blood cannot atone for sin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not even logical, or the Church wouldn't have to have taken half a century to determine what the canon should be. There were serious questions at times dealing with authorship and certain narratives. There are also some narratives that conflict, such as the women's visit to Jesus' tomb, whereas no two agree.


Well, not quite, which is one reason why the developed the commentary system still used today. Some narratives don't match, such as the differing census accounts covered in Torah. In some cases, there's a difference in the timing of some events. The Jewish Study Bible is an excellent source, btw, and we used that in conjunction of the Stone Chumash in Torah study at the synagogue I used to belong to.

And I hope you will find a church that rejects Apocrypha, for these other books:

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by 99.99% of church sects

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times in the OT alone, "This is the Word of God!", indeed, they often say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me!"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible, which is itself often raw, honest writing

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B within the same apocryphal book

8) Shows lack of character: wise Daniel tricking people instead of being an honest witness, the child Jesus strikes a fellow child dead, etc.

9) Do not withstand any type of codes/gematria analysis

 

[rosends]

Jesus's sacrifice was for all sin, including future, for which I offer Him praise.

A sentence that has zero value in Judaism.

I do understand Torah--it was another re-reading of Torah that caused me to seek the salvation that I found.

No, you don't -- not if you make statements like a human died for other people sins including sins that hadn't been committed yet.

I do agree with you--human blood cannot atone for sin.

Now you'll suggest something strange like "God bleeds."

 

[metis]

And I hope you will find a church that rejects Apocrypha, for these other books:

Well, those that chose the canon you use didn't feel the same way, which is why they didn't reject it but put if off for further consideration because of some dissention.

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

Nope. There's only one that has no equivalence and that is praying for the dead.

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible, which is itself often raw, honest writing

Then whatever you do, maybe remove the "Songs of Solomon" and a couple of other books from your Bible.

8) Shows lack of character: wise Daniel tricking people instead of being an honest witness, the child Jesus strikes a fellow child dead, etc.

You're conflating some of the Pseudepigrapha with the Apocrypha. The former was eliminated for consideration by the Council, but the latter wasn't.

I don't blindly believe any scripture is inerrant.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A sentence that has zero value in Judaism.

No, you don't -- not if you make statements like a human died for other people sins including sins that hadn't been committed yet.

Now you'll suggest something strange like "God bleeds."

Have you never read, "Behold, I am the God of all flesh, nothing is too difficult for me"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, those that chose the canon you use didn't feel the same way, which is why they didn't reject it but put if off for further consideration because of some dissention.

Nope. There's only one that has no equivalence and that is praying for the dead.

Then whatever you do, maybe remove the "Songs of Solomon" and a couple of other books from your Bible.

You're conflating some of the Pseudepigrapha with the Apocrypha. The former was eliminated for consideration by the Council, but the latter wasn't.

I don't blindly believe any scripture is inerrant.

I used to feel the way you do, then I realized it's not a blind belief. The scripture is prescient utterly through prophecy and contains many scientific accuracies, also, Gematria/Bible codes show its divine/super nature.

 

[rosends]

Have you never read, "Behold, I am the God of all flesh, nothing is too difficult for me"?

"וכי העתידות עלומות ממני"

but if you prefer a God who bleeds, have at it...

 

[metis]

I used to feel the way you do, then I realized it's not a blind belief. The scripture is prescient utterly through prophecy and contains many scientific accuracies, also, Gematria/Bible codes show its divine/super nature.

There is virtually no way possible to determine the level of accuracy or inaccuracy thus, imo, it's best to look at the general teachings and possibly use that which seems helpful.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"וכי העתידות עלומות ממני"

but if you prefer a God who bleeds, have at it...

Huh? Our God commanded Abraham to slay his son, and slew His Son.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is virtually no way possible to determine the level of accuracy or inaccuracy thus, imo, it's best to look at the general teachings and possibly use that which seems helpful.

Huh? A set of documents that has thousands of 100% accurate, fulfilled prophecies, and thousands of embedded codes, doesn't show its level of accuracy?!