The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think its profitable to argue about whether Moses is Moses. Talk should go back to some common ground. What matters for purposes of this conversation is whether the gospels and other Christian authors were fundamentalist, and it matters if they had their own interpretation of the prophets. Even that is merely tangential to the topic about the 'Scribes'.

 

[Muffled]

]I was referring to the general characteristic of the NT that makes it find fault with Jews frequently, making 'The Jews' 'The Pharisees' and 'Teachers of Law' constantly play the evil foil to the character of Jesus[/COLOR] and sometimes Peter, Paul, Christian Ecclesias, etc. The Inquisition is a relatively recent development, and I was talking about ancient Rome and its tendencies thinking that would best explain the anti-Jew anti-Pharisee kind of comments made in the NT that CMike listed.

Paul is given a very high place among Christians these days. His letters are in the Bible right along with the four gospels, and he is prominent in Acts. Many people base Christianity solely upon the Bible, including Paul's letters. Additionally there is a severe lack of teaching of the Torah laws among Christians, which leaves Christians grasping for some way to interpret Jesus culture. They often slot Paul's letters in as a replacement for a proper study of the Torah law and its culture. Christians today do rely upon Paul for many things.

I'm not sure what puritanism means to you. A lot of people do receive benefit from different branches of the same religion. In a NT context James says that pure religion is to 'Take care of orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unspotted by the world.' It is a somewhat vague statement, but he doesn't mention puritanism.

God was constantly finding fault with Jews in the OT as well, so it isn't that God requires others to see it that way but He expects His people to act right.

Paul was highly educted in the law having studied with Gamaliel, but Paul has the benefit of knowing what it means to be a Christian as well.

It isn't necessary because Christians are saved by Grace. We have the living law with us always.

Puritanism as practiced by the Puritans largely focused on being unspotted by the world. I simply believe that religion should not be defiled by bringing in things that do not belong. For instance I would consider it a defilement to play Ac/Dcs Hells Bells at a church service.

 

[Muffled]

What you say makes no sense, because when Jeremiah said that the law had been changed by the scribes, were Jewish scribes, BC, who had changed the Law.

Jeremiah lived hundreds of years before Christ. Christians were not yet born. The prophet Jeremiah says so:

"...but my people know not the ordinance of the LORD. "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie". (Jeremiah 8:7-8)



The commandments of Jesus Christ abolished death sentences and bondage of the Old Testament. And they were abolished because they were not commandments of God.

The Gospel do not commands men to be slaves to other men. But the Old Testament allows the slavery.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the scribes were changing the Bible. The writing could be extra-biblical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

God was constantly finding fault with Jews in the OT as well, so it isn't that God requires others to see it that way but He expects His people to act right.

Ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away. Christians have a history of antisemitism, and it is because they interpret Judaism through Paul who never attempts to teach Judaism rather assuming that you will be educated already on the basics.

Paul was highly educted in the law having studied with Gamaliel, but Paul has the benefit of knowing what it means to be a Christian as well.

Paul's education cannot make you educated. Paul ran his race but not yours. His spiritual fruit is not yours but his. He says as much, and to refuse to study is to choose ignorance which is darkness.

It isn't necessary because Christians are saved by Grace. We have the living law with us always.

We are still urged to read and study the law of Moses, both those of us who are believing and those of us who are just pretending to believe. We are a mix of those two things, believers and unbelievers. All are urged to drink the milk of the word, and there are plain warnings about this. Choose life or choose death. Be hot or be cold. Love God or don't. "Be filled with the Spirit" is an imperative sentence, not a passive one.

Puritanism as practiced by the Puritans largely focused on being unspotted by the world. I simply believe that religion should not be defiled by bringing in things that do not belong. For instance I would consider it a defilement to play Ac/Dcs Hells Bells at a church service.

I do not consider that to be the "Extremes of puritanism and hedonism" to which I was referring. I'm talking about the excision of other Christians from fellowship and judgemental attitude that the Puritans were famous for. I have encountered this plenty among Christians, because it is a natural impulse. If the person is unhealthy or in some way defective they are cut off like a diseased limb, and any moderation is considered to be equal to corruption. For example a church may believe that if you die with alcohol upon your breath that all of your previous life was empty or that you will go to hell. If you are divorced there is no hope for you. If you...[fill in the blank]...then 'Racca'. Study of the law should soften this like oil softens a wound.

 

[Katzpur]

If you are Christian then you are responsible for all other Christians and those who claim to be including Muslims, Mormons and anybody else who claims to be Christian.

Excuse me? Since when do Muslims claim to be Christian? And FYI, Mormons are Christians. I am a Mormon anad I look to Jesus Christ for my salvation every bit as much as any other Christian does.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Excuse me? Since when do Muslims claim to be Christian? And FYI, Mormons are Christians. I am a Mormon anad I look to Jesus Christ for my salvation every bit as much as any other Christian does.

Muslims always claimed to be Christian. They consider themselves to be Christians and attend Christian churches sometimes, although many other Christians usually don't consider them to be Christians. Mormons, similarly, are often considered to be non-Christian by a large majority of non-Mormon Christians. I ts hard to think of such extremely argumentative groups as all Christian, but they are despite their criticisms of each other. What they all have in common is Jesus Christ, superstar; and Jesus prayed (as recorded in John 17) that all of his disciples would be one the way that he and his father in heaven were one. Somehow.

 

[Brickjectivity]

To clarify that, Katzpur, anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus automatically falls under his prayer of John 17, whether or not they are perfect disciples. Therefore no matter if I disagree with Joseph Smith or all the angels in heaven, if I claim to be a disciple of Jesus then I am one.

 

[Prophet]

I don't think its profitable to argue about whether Moses is Moses. Talk should go back to some common ground. What matters for purposes of this conversation is whether the gospels and other Christian authors were fundamentalist, and it matters if they had their own interpretation of the prophets. Even that is merely tangential to the topic about the 'Scribes'.

I agree with labeling NT writers as fundamentalists. Doctrines of the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus demonstrate this completely in themselves. This said, I am unwilling to extend this label to Jesus or Paul (but yes on Peter). I believe it to be unlikely that Jesus or Paul got to have the final edit in the messages they are accredited with.

I also agree with you that Moses is irrelevant to the topic. However, my opponents in this debate seem to believe that aggrandizing Moses wins them some sort of advantage, some "my big brother can beat up your big brother" kind of deal. While I'm already quite aware that this "point" is not relevant to the debate, I'm happy to share a similar view on Moses, David, Solomon or any other despot, past or present, who can be demonstrated to exploit ignorance of God in the people he rules over.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I also agree with you that Moses is irrelevant to the topic. However, my opponents in this debate seem to believe that aggrandizing Moses wins them some sort of advantage, some "my big brother can beat up your big brother" kind of deal. While I'm already quite aware that this "point" is not relevant to the debate, I'm happy to share a similar view on Moses, David, Solomon or any other despot, past or present, who can be demonstrated to exploit ignorance of God in the people he rules over.

I'm one of your opponents in this debate, and I don't want to talk about Moses. You are bringing up accusations that are controversial and which cannot be supported in the discussion being had, trying to convert Jews to atheism or some other form of their faith apparently. That is how this appears to me. If they say they believe in Moses then that is good enough. You don't trust him and want to pull on his beard. That is a very long conversation though.

I agree with labeling NT writers as fundamentalists. Doctrines of the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus demonstrate this completely in themselves. This said, I am unwilling to extend this label to Jesus or Paul (but yes on Peter). I believe it to be unlikely that Jesus or Paul got to have the final edit in the messages they are accredited with.

Its all very complicated to me.

 

[Prophet]

I'm one of your opponents in this debate, and I don't want to talk about Moses. You are bringing up accusations that are controversial and which cannot be supported in the discussion being had, trying to convert Jews to atheism or some other form of their faith apparently. That is how this appears to me. If they say they believe in Moses then that is good enough. You don't trust him and want to pull on his beard. That is a very long conversation though.

Its all very complicated to me.

I have a talent for making short work of what people thought would be very long and complicated conversations. I'll back off on Moses. I am sorry I got annoyed with CMike's cheerleading post.

 

[Katzpur]

Muslims always claimed to be Christian. They consider themselves to be Christians and attend Christian churches sometimes, although many other Christians usually don't consider them to be Christians.

I have never once in my life heard a Muslim claim to be a Christian, although I have, on many occasions, heard Muslims speak highly of Jesus Christ. That's not the same thing at all. Start a thread in the Islamic DIR asking, "Are Muslims Christians?" and see what kinds of responses you get.

 

[Katzpur]

To clarify that, Katzpur, anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus automatically falls under his prayer of John 17, whether or not they are perfect disciples. Therefore no matter if I disagree with Joseph Smith or all the angels in heaven, if I claim to be a disciple of Jesus then I am one.

I would agree with that. If you claim to be a disciple of Jesus, I would be the last person alive to tell you that you aren't one.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have never once in my life heard a Muslim claim to be a Christian, although I have, on many occasions, heard Muslims speak highly of Jesus Christ. That's not the same thing at all. Start a thread in the Islamic DIR asking, "Are Muslims Christians?" and see what kinds of responses you get.

Ok. Hopefully it will be a short thread.

I would agree with that. If you claim to be a disciple of Jesus, I would be the last person alive to tell you that you aren't one.

The problem with Mormons is that you're so lovable. I honestly can't stand it. People in other religious groups should be ugly and clearly evil and not as good as us.

 

[Katzpur]

The problem with Mormons is that you're so lovable. I honestly can't stand it. People in other religious groups should be ugly and clearly evil and not as good as us.

I think I'm going to take that as a compliment.

 

[Prophet]

Brickjectivity:

At least a few Jews here have denigrated Jesus and made accusations upon him which would be highly controversial to fundamentalist Christians. Why no passionate defense of unity when that happened?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Brickjectivity:

At least a few Jews here have denigrated Jesus and made accusations upon him which would be highly controversial to fundamentalist Christians. Why no passionate defense of unity when that happened?

There are many religious and secular reasons, and my reasons have increased over time. I have discovered Jews are not being vicious but are acting as friends when they attack Jesus, which is their duty, and 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend. (Prov 27:6)' Besides, they have done a lot of good both for Christians and for people in general -- historically especially the USA. We can take a few insults can't we? Also they don't claim to be Jesus disciples, so unity isn't an issue. Last, maybe they are right, and maybe Christians are blind. Should Christians punish them for being concerned?

There is a principle I learned in Judges 6:31 and Proverbs 26:2, which you might call the 'Killing the Buddha' principle - an undeserved curse will not come to rest, and a sign of a false religion is one that can't take an insult. Also "Great peace have they which love they law and nothing shall offend them..." (Psalms 119:165 probably not accurately translated). Here is another one "Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult." (Prov 12:16)

Jesus is supposed to be tough, and if he isn't then perhaps there is no point in continuing. He said anyone who speaks against the 'Son of man' is forgiven, but not anyone who speaks against the 'Holy Spirit'. (Mat 12:32) This means that when Jews talk against Jesus there is no risk for them, but when Christians speak against the Law we endanger ourselves -- according to Jesus. Christians are the ones who must tread lightly, not the Jews.

 

[metis]

IMO as a Jew, we shouldn't be attacking Jesus, and my experience has it that most of us don't. We may disagree over the nature of Jesus and some of the teachings that have been attributed to him, but there's simply no reason for us to attack him. Actually, much of what he appears to have taught we very much have endorsed, and the Sermon on the Mount, for example, proposes a very Jewish approach.

 

[Prophet]

There are many religious and secular reasons, and my reasons have increased over time. I have discovered Jews are not being vicious but are acting as friends when they attack Jesus, which is their duty, and 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend. (Prov 27:6)' Besides, they have done a lot of good both for Christians and for people in general -- historically especially the USA. We can take a few insults can't we? Also they don't claim to be Jesus disciples, so unity isn't an issue. Last, maybe they are right, and maybe Christians are blind. Should Christians punish them for being concerned?

While you generalize, I have independently discovered that some Jews actually ARE vicious... just like every other group of people. I feel I can demonstrate rather clearly that some Jews here are not at all interested in being my friend by their own testimony. If my memory serves right, one even gave an interpretation of Torah law that defends their "duty" to hate me.

There is a principle I learned in Judges 6:31 and Proverbs 26:2, which you might call the 'Killing the Buddha' principle - an undeserved curse will not come to rest, and a sign of a false religion is one that can't take an insult. Also "Great peace have they which love they law and nothing shall offend them..." (Psalms 119:165 probably not accurately translated). Here is another one "Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult." (Prov 12:16)

The principle of "Killing the Buddha" while one I agree with, I don't get why you are using it here. As I understand it, it is about self-reliance in understanding divine matters. The opposite of this would be to take law or Buddha's words as Truth without question.

What, exactly, separates a deserved curse from an undeserved curse? Don't ALL curses rob peace and steal rest?

Jesus is supposed to be tough, and if he isn't then perhaps there is no point in continuing. He said anyone who speaks against the 'Son of man' is forgiven, but not anyone who speaks against the 'Holy Spirit'. (Mat 12:32) This means that when Jews talk against Jesus there is no risk for them, but when Christians speak against the Law we endanger ourselves -- according to Jesus. Christians are the ones who must tread lightly, not the Jews.

I'm afraid that your interpretation of Matthew 12:32 is yet another Buddha on the road I must kill with my probing questions. Why is speaking against the law dangerous? I won't take Jesus' or anyone else's word for it. I want a reason.

 

[Brickjectivity]

While you generalize, I have independently discovered that some Jews actually ARE vicious... just like every other group of people. I feel I can demonstrate rather clearly that some Jews here are not at all interested in being my friend by their own testimony. If my memory serves right, one even gave an interpretation of Torah law that defends their "duty" to hate me.



The principle of "Killing the Buddha" while one I agree with, I don't get why you are using it here. As I understand it, it is about self-reliance in understanding divine matters. The opposite of this would be to take law or Buddha's words as Truth without question.

What, exactly, separates a deserved curse from an undeserved curse? Don't ALL curses rob peace and steal rest?

Is inability to handle controversy similarly a "sign of a false religion"?



I'm afraid that Matthew 12:32 is yet another Buddha on the road I must kill with my probing questions. Why is speaking against the law dangerous? I won't take Jesus' or anyone else's word for it. I want a reason.

Its all my own opinion first of all. The verses I quoted except for two are in wisdom literature. Speaking against the law is irreligious, because the Law is a dispensation of the 'Holy Spirit'. A Christian doesn't speak against the Holy Spirit. An irreligious person might, so its only a religious reason not to do it. Aside from that I think the law was advanced for its time and has been kept relevant or has stayed relevant. It is a valuable tool both for historical purposes and for many others.

Jews feel a duty to hate you? That is naive. Don't believe it unless they throw real rocks. That's what I think.

Curse in this context refers to an accusation, so if Jesus doesn't deserve it then it doesn't stick permanently -- doesn't come to rest. No big deal.

Killing the Buddha I compare to defending a Baal as in "If Baal is really a god then he can defend his own altar." Well if its true for Baal then shouldn't it be true for Christianity? If I defend Christianity then am I not proving that I don't really believe in it? Yes, because then I am show that I believe it is vulnerable. If its real, then it will stand on its own. To me this is Killing the Buddha in a Christian context. A Christian isn't required to defend their faith but only to live it.

IMO as a Jew, we shouldn't be attacking Jesus, and my experience has it that most of us don't. We may disagree over the nature of Jesus and some of the teachings that have been attributed to him, but there's simply no reason for us to attack him. Actually, much of what he appears to have taught we very much have endorsed, and the Sermon on the Mount, for example, proposes a very Jewish approach.

internet forums like these are a marvellous invention. Centuries have passed with very little conversation between Christians and Jews, but now suddenly anyone may speak with anyone else instantaneously from 12,000 miles away! So much insulation is gone all of a sudden.

 

[metis]

It's a violation of halacha (Jewish Law) to hate a person just because we may disagree with them, and it isn't proper to wish harm on a person for the same reason. OTOH, it is acceptable under halacha to hate a person if they want to do us harm, but that must change if they repent of any such actions.