Why Do You Reject Jesus?

[Ebionite]

You call yourself an Ebionite which is a form of Messianic "Judaism". I'm labeling you in the same sense calling a follower of Muhammad a Muslim is "labeling" them. I also make no secret that I despise Messianic "Judaism".

Messianic Judaism and the Ebionites differ in their acceptance of Paul and his doctrine.

I don't need to make an argument because you are the one making the assertation that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.

If you don't have an argument that's fine, the evidence stands on its own merits.

My argument for rejecting Jesus is because he's an apostate and Christianity contradicts the Torah, I don't need anything else.

Claiming apostasy doesn't fly because of the divergence between Jesus' teachings and Pharisee doctrine and because Rabbinical Judaism originated as Pharasaism. I'm assuming that you hold to one of the Rabbinic schools of thought.

Christianity isn't entirely on the same page as Jesus (Pharisee influence is a big part of that) so the fact that Christianity contradicts the Torah isn't really relevant. Jesus was quite clear about endorsing the Torah.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe he liked to keep it humble but he was aware of who he was as well.

The synoptics don't agree with John, but I don't think that debate will ever be resolved.

 

[Ebionite]

The synoptics don't agree with John, but I don't think that debate will ever be resolved.

It's reasonably clear based on:

1. The differences all favour the Pharisees in the gospel of John.
2. The gospel has insider knowledge that could only have come from a Pharisee.
3. In the gospel the sympathetic Pharisee is Nicodemus.

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:31:3

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Admitting being wrong is admirable, but I am still questioning you seriously believing is was the core of Judaism in the first place.

FWIW, I found him credible and sincere, just susceptible to indoctrination and misinformed. He accepted an idea uncritically, but has been quick to abandon it in this thread.

Like I said, I don’t know much about judaism and I think it’s believable that somebody who doesn’t know much about judaism would believe that if they read it somewhere.

Yes, it is believable that you did that, but it would help you to avoid instances like this one if you had criteria for belief higher than just somebody wrote something somewhere. Skepticism is the doctrine that nothing should be believed without sufficient support, and empiricism is the doctrine that knowledge comes from experience (examining reality).

Some things can't be taught as book learning. Swimming is one, but conversation, values and love are others. All of these involve jumping in getting started. Feedback is needed but there is no set of instructions which would lead to instant mastery.

And these then are the areas where our ideas and ultimately our worldview come from:

• Experience (like learning swimming or where to find a good Italian meal; relatively trustworthy)
• Indoctrination (through repetition without sound argument, like biblical creationism or flat earthism; risky to trust)
• Education (through sound argument, like evolutionary theory [evidenced] and math [pure reason]; trustworthy)
• Intuition (we just know it but can't say how we know it, like that there is a reality outside of consciousness, or that will is free because it feels free, or that there's a god; risky t trust).
• Instinct (we should run from danger; we should seek shelter or companionship; mixed [running from police not so smart])

given the prevalence of anayltic philosophy and a reluctance to see purpose or meaning as anything more than things we make up or arbitrarily choose there is a whole lot of broad stroke indoctrination going on which we almost don't notice because it is so mainstream and prevalent.

It sounds like you're referring to naturalism and critical thinking. Where's the indoctrination you see? The principles that underlie such a worldview derive from reason. Teaching a person how to evaluate evidence and how to decide which ideas should be believed and to what extent is not indoctrination, but rather, one of the great gifts of a formal education. People are aware that university can teach a lot of facts, and might offer professional training, but the greatest gifts are learning how to process information and learning how to learn after school's over.

Being an atheistic humanist, for example, is the default position for a person who chooses reason applied to evidence as his epistemology and reason applied to empathy as the source of his moral values. One does not need to be indoctrinated into that. Any of us can discover that path through mindful living. It's indoctrination that leads us elsewhere.

 

[Jimmy]

The synoptics don't agree with John, but I don't think that debate will ever be resolved.

Meh, 1 out of 4 ain’t bad haha

 

[firedragon]

For the same reasons I would accept Adi Shankara, the Buddha, Muhammad, etc as "teacher(s) etc." Evidence points toward the existence of Jesus as historical as figure.

That said, there is no evidence of his having a greater level of divinity than anyone else that walks the earth.

Excellent. Cheers.

 

[Jimmy]

FWIW, I found him credible and sincere, just susceptible to indoctrination and misinformed. He accepted an idea uncritically, but has been quick to abandon it in this thread.

Yes, it is believable that you did that, but it would help you to avoid instances like this one if you had criteria for belief higher than just somebody wrote something somewhere. Skepticism is the doctrine that nothing should be believed without sufficient support, and empiricism is the doctrine that knowledge comes from experience (examining reality).

And these then are the areas where our ideas and ultimately our worldview come from:

• Experience (like learning swimming or where to find a good Italian meal; relatively trustworthy)
• Indoctrination (through repetition without sound argument, like biblical creationism or flat earthism; risky to trust)
• Education (through sound argument, like evolutionary theory [evidenced] and math [pure reason]; trustworthy)
• Intuition (we just know it but can't say how we know it, like that there is a reality outside of consciousness, or that will is free because it feels free, or that there's a god; risky t trust).
• Instinct (we should run from danger; we should seek shelter or companionship; mixed [running from police not so smart])

It sounds like you're referring to naturalism and critical thinking. Where's the indoctrination you see? The principles that underlie such a worldview derive from reason. Teaching a person how to evaluate evidence and how to decide which ideas should be believed and to what extent is not indoctrination, but rather, one of the great gifts of a formal education. People are aware that university can teach a lot of facts, and might offer professional training, but the greatest gifts are learning how to process information and learning how to learn after school's over.

Being an atheistic humanist, for example, is the default position for a person who chooses reason applied to evidence as his epistemology and reason applied to empathy as the source of his moral values. One does not need to be indoctrinated into that. Any of us can discover that path through mindful living. It's indoctrination that leads us elsewhere.

Indoctrination? I abondoned christianity for 15 yrs. I think it’s good for someone to do some soul-searching on their own. I came back to it for the camaraderie and to be able to rate relate to people and talk about same beliefs. I believed something that no one else believed for 15 years and it was a bit lonesome. Christianity is very similar to the beliefs I held for 15 years so it’s working out well now. I’m back to my roots. So indoctrination isn’t a big reason why I’m a Christian. Maybe for some sure, but not myself.

 

[Whateverist]

FWIW, I found him credible and sincere, just susceptible to indoctrination and misinformed. He accepted an idea uncritically, but has been quick to abandon it in this thread.

Yes, it is believable that you did that, but it would help you to avoid instances like this one if you had criteria for belief higher than just somebody wrote something somewhere. Skepticism is the doctrine that nothing should be believed without sufficient support, and empiricism is the doctrine that knowledge comes from experience (examining reality).

And these then are the areas where our ideas and ultimately our worldview come from:

• Experience (like learning swimming or where to find a good Italian meal; relatively trustworthy)
• Indoctrination (through repetition without sound argument, like biblical creationism or flat earthism; risky to trust)
• Education (through sound argument, like evolutionary theory [evidenced] and math [pure reason]; trustworthy)
• Intuition (we just know it but can't say how we know it, like that there is a reality outside of consciousness, or that will is free because it feels free, or that there's a god; risky t trust).
• Instinct (we should run from danger; we should seek shelter or companionship; mixed [running from police not so smart])

It sounds like you're referring to naturalism and critical thinking. Where's the indoctrination you see? The principles that underlie such a worldview derive from reason. Teaching a person how to evaluate evidence and how to decide which ideas should be believed and to what extent is not indoctrination, but rather, one of the great gifts of a formal education. People are aware that university can teach a lot of facts, and might offer professional training, but the greatest gifts are learning how to process information and learning how to learn after school's over.

Being an atheistic humanist, for example, is the default position for a person who chooses reason applied to evidence as his epistemology and reason applied to empathy as the source of his moral values. One does not need to be indoctrinated into that. Any of us can discover that path through mindful living. It's indoctrination that leads us elsewhere.

Yet an epistemology which exclusively relies on reason and devalues intuition is poorer for it. If we're talking about building up a resource of well documented facts which no one in their right mind would question then sure, reason and science are the way to go. But if you want to share the places in the human soul which really lift and move you, it is very hard to do. Poetry, narrative and music can help but they will never make it into that resource. That is why we also have the arts and humanities to offer leads into the less useful but perhaps even more rewarding domains of our humanity.

 

[Eliana]

Messianic Judaism and the Ebionites differ in their acceptance of Paul and his doctrine.

Potato potato. I don't care, it's the same to me.

If you don't have an argument that's fine, the evidence stands on its own merits.

No it doesn't, if it did I'd be in church this Sunday. Just because you believe something doesn't make it by default a fact. If you're trying to convince me or any Jew then you're the one that has to prove it. If you aren't prepared to do so then don't make the claim and then handwave people off when they ask you to back it up.

Claiming apostasy doesn't fly because of the divergence between Jesus' teachings and Pharisee doctrine and because Rabbinical Judaism originated as Pharasaism. I'm assuming that you hold to one of the Rabbinic schools of thought.

Jesus taught things different then the Torah and the Talmud, he is by default an apostate by Jewish law. If you don't think so that's just dandy for you, but I believe HaShem and his word so I do believe him to be apostate.

Christianity isn't entirely on the same page as Jesus (Pharisee influence is a big part of that) so the fact that Christianity contradicts the Torah isn't really relevant. Jesus was quite clear about endorsing the Torah.

What an absurd statement. HaShem said the Torah is binding, eternal and that the universe would end before a single letter would be altered. I will never accept any premise where G-d has changed or reversed himself because that contradicts his own words and stated nature.

 

[Eliana]

FWIW, I found him credible and sincere, just susceptible to indoctrination and misinformed. He accepted an idea uncritically, but has been quick to abandon it in this thread.

Fair enough. I need to give people the benefit of the doubt more.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yet an epistemology which exclusively relies on reason and devalues intuition is poorer for it. If we're talking about building up a resource of well documented facts which no one in their right mind would question then sure, reason and science are the way to go. But if you want to share the places in the human soul which really lift and move you, it is very hard to do. Poetry, narrative and music can help but they will never make it into that resource. That is why we also have the arts and humanities to offer leads into the less useful but perhaps even more rewarding domains of our humanity.

I'm not sure why you thought that I needed to read that. Maybe you misunderstood me or assumed something. My life is very much influenced by the arts, but it's unrelated to how I understand the world, how it works, and my place in it (my worldview).

If you'd like to know what "lifts and moves" me, listen. This is my former band covering an Allman Brothers song. Ricky's singing lead and playing rhythm guitar, my wife is on bass and singing backup in the choruses, and I'm on lead guitar also joining in during the choruses. The drummer is digital. But this has nothing to do with how I decide what's true or how the world works or how we formulate a worldview. This kind of musical improvisation begins with reason and study (left brain, focused thought) when learning chords and scales, and keys and time signatures, but performance is all intuitive (right brain, unfocused thought).

 

[Ebionite]

Potato potato. I don't care, it's the same to me.

Your failure to make that distinction is your problem, not mine. Pauline doctrine has a significant role to play in first century theology.

No it doesn't, if it did I'd be in church this Sunday.

Then you don't understand the evidence relating to the righteous servant, as it contradicts official Christian doctrine.

HaShem said the Torah is binding, eternal and that the universe would end before a single letter would be altered.If you aren't prepared to do so then don't make the claim and then handwave people off when they ask you to back it up.

I can back up all of my claims. You're the one who doesn't care about the actual argument eg the historical distinction between the Christians and the Ebionites.

Jesus taught things different then the Torah and the Talmud, he is by default an apostate by Jewish law.

Rejecting the Talmud doesn't make him an apostate because it is nothing more than religious opinion.
The Karaites reject the Talmud, and that does not make them apostates.

I believe HaShem and his word so I do believe him to be apostate.

Your belief is illogical because HaShem is not the author of the Talmud.

What an absurd statement.

You don't comprehend the argument.

HaShem said the Torah is binding, eternal and that the universe would end before a single letter would be altered.

How is that different to what Jesus said?

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

 

[PearlSeeker]

... according to the Holy Bible.

I don't recejct Jesus but I don't accept mythological stories to be hystory.

 

[Jimmy]

I don't recejct Jesus but I don't accept mythological stories to be hystory.

That’s cool. I think if you’re going by the book 100% you’re doing something wrong. I think one should do some soul-searching and some deep thinking regarding spiritual matters.

 

[Eliana]

Your failure to make that distinction is your problem, not mine. Pauline doctrine has a significant role to play in first century theology.

I don't care about the distinction, and It has nothing to do with the validity of your claim.

Then you don't understand the evidence relating to the righteous servant, as it contradicts official Christian doctrine.

Ah yes, the "repeat myself and insist I'm correct over and over" argument. Very effective, you must be a professor.

I can back up all of my claims. You're the one who doesn't care about the actual argument eg the historical distinction between the Christians and the Ebionites.

WELL THEN WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??? I already asked you to back it up.

DeRpIdY DeRp DeRp

Rejecting the Talmud doesn't make him an apostate because it is nothing more than religious opinion.
The Karaites reject the Talmud, and that does not make them apostates.

Well guess what? It actually does make them apostates according to Jewish law, which I follow. So are the Samaritans, Reformed, Reconstructionist, Conservative and whoever is Jewish and rejects it.

Your belief is illogical because HaShem is not the author of the Talmud.

Correct. The first five books, the Torah, are the only books directly authored by HaShem. The Nevi'im, the Ketuvim and the Talmud are second to it. Welcome to Judaism 101. Clearly you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

You don't comprehend the argument.

Sorry, I must have missed the part where you made one. Please link me to it.

How is that different to what Jesus said?

He taught that certain laws were no longer in effect, such as kosher laws. Have you even read the bible? Because I have.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

Well, too bad he didn't keep on that track.

You are either very arrogant and think you are by default correct, therefore do not need to be bothered to prove your case... or you just like arguing. If your next post to me is more irrelevant garbage or doesn't lay out your case for Isaiah 53 then I'm going to ignore you as the uneducated blowhard you come off as.

EDIT: Now that I've gone over your posting history I see you frequently make claims, offer no evidence when asked, and then insist the other person doesn't understand what your saying or insult them as unable to. You insist you know more about Hebrew then native speakers, more about Judaism then Jews, more about the scientific method then people with actual degrees. You're also a run of the mill anti-vaxxer/conspiracy promoter.

You are a walking Dunning-Kruger experiment made flesh, and I suggest people not waste their energy on you.

 

[Whateverist]

Thanks for sharing your playing. I really enjoyed that.

I'm not sure why you thought that I needed to read that. Maybe you misunderstood me or assumed something. My life is very much influenced by the arts, but it's unrelated to how I understand the world, how it works, and my place in it (my worldview).

I thought I might be barking up the wrong tree when I read:

• Intuition (we just know it but can't say how we know it, like that there is a reality outside of consciousness, or that will is free because it feels free, or that there's a god; risky to trust).

I agree that when it comes to having confidence in our representations of reality intuition isn't the kind of thing you want your rope tied to. And yet there are places you can't get to with science and reason alone. It is also good to remember that our representations of reality aren't the real thing no matter how predictive they may be. But I need to be careful about making you the foil for my thoughts when you may actually be part of the choir. Leastwise I sense some overlap while also noting possible points of disagreement which is fine.

It is hard to say what is wrong with analytic philosophy and over reliance on science. They're certainly not vehicles for indoctrination in the way religion and politics can be. But I do think they are favored to a degree which leads to people devaluing intuition and imagination which can and should be pillars of knowledge too, especially relating to our theory of mind. I do think you know this when you say:

My life is very much influenced by the arts, but it's unrelated to how I understand the world, how it works, and my place in it (my worldview)

But doesn't your background in the arts influence what you take yourself and others to be, and aren't we all part of the world too? I don't make music but I am greatly moved by it and have ongoing creative outlets of my own, now mostly just making my garden but formerly visual arts too. My wife is a well known fiber artist but all her friends are as much into making their gardens as they are whatever medium they work in and are known for. The husband of one of them is a sculptor, the first time he visited, he looked around and said this is sculpture (like someone tripping). Of course he was right. But a pleasure/nature preserve garden is an ongoing process and never finally an art object so it is also different from sculpture.

I'd share a picture or video but I don't think I can on this site.
I was a philosophy undergrad and while I admire a number of analytic philosophers there are some who seem a bit robotic to me, like Dennett. It warps people to try and see the world and themselves as if from outside themselves, as though they can just set aside their being embodied with a connection to depths not directly under our dominion.

This kind of musical improvisation begins with reason and study (left brain, focused thought) when learning chords and scales, and keys and time signatures, but performance is all intuitive (right brain, unfocused thought).

So I've been told. I don't doubt it. It's like you have to give your muse something to work with.

 

[Ebionite]

WELL THEN WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??? I already asked you to back it up.I don't care about the distinction, and It has nothing to do with the validity of your claim.

Wrong, it is relevant to my claim that "Messianic Judaism and the Ebionites differ in their acceptance of Paul and his doctrine."

Ah yes, the "repeat myself and insist I'm correct over and over" argument. Very effective, you must be a professor.

You have been unable to rebut my claim.

WELL THEN WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??? I already asked you to back it up.

Where, exactly, did you do that?

Well guess what? It actually does make them apostates according to Jewish law, which I follow. So are the Samaritans, Reformed, Reconstructionist, Conservative and whoever is Jewish and rejects it.

Your law is irrelevant, truth is what matters here.

Correct. The first five books, the Torah, are the only books directly authored by HaShem. The Nevi'im, the Ketuvim and the Talmud are second to it. Welcome to Judaism 101. Clearly you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

So you think that I must be ignorant because I'm correct?

Sorry, I must have missed the part where you made one. Please link me to it.

Link

He taught that certain laws were no longer in effect, such as kosher laws.

No, that was Peter's vision, which was interpreted as meaning that the gospel was to be taken to the gentiles.

Here is some text relating to working on the sabbath:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Matthew 12:1-8

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

doesn't your background in the arts influence what you take yourself and others to be

Not to my knowledge. Aesthetic experience is private - what sounds nice or looks nice, or smells or tastes appealing.

And it's not about anything. It's a spiritual experience, a rapture in the extreme and sublime when subdued.

Here's a mural in the living room. The gods are Horus and Anubis, or woofer and tweeter to their friends, and the cave leads to and from the womb. But this doesn't influence what I take myself or others to be:

My point is that while I am analytical about the world outside, that knowledge is used to facilitate the inner life, which is where I (and you) live. All of that other understanding facilitates having such meaningful experiences.

You're likely familiar with Plato's horse (the passions) and rider (reason). The rider manages the experiences that arouse and activate the passions. The passions are where we live, not the rider. Absent the passions, the rider becomes bored and eventually despondent (anhedonic depression). Absent the rider, we flame out early.

 

[Link]

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

I agree Israelites as a nation can be referred to as servant, but not "the righteous servant". You did a good job, I agree with a Bahai interpretation which is rare.

 

[Eliana]

Wrong, it is relevant to my claim that "Messianic Judaism and the Ebionites differ in their acceptance of Paul and his doctrine."

Does anyone speak a version of English this guy can understand?

Dude, I don't give a rats behind. I also don't care about the differences between Calvinism and Baptists, Mormonism vs Watchtower, Catholic vs Anglican. None of this is relevent to Isaiah 53.

You have been unable to rebut my claim.

I don't have to rebut it. We're the ones you're trying to convince, not the other way around.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where, exactly, did you do that?

Here we have the evidence you don't actually read what people say to you, at least not very closely. Maybe I should have asked more directly with smaller words.

Your law is irrelevant, truth is what matters here.

It's Jewish law, which I believe in, not "my" law. I don't care if you believe in it, I do. This is also irrelevant to Isaiah 53.

So you think that I must be ignorant because I'm correct?

No, you're ignorant of core Jewish theology. When you said HaShem didn't write the Talmud it wasn't because you knew the distinctions in terms of scriptural authority, you were trying to insult/dismiss it. It's fine that you don't believe in it, I do though.

No, that was Peter's vision, which was interpreted as...


Here is some text relating to working on the sabbath:

I don't care one iota what Peter, the pope, Mary, the apostles, Jesus or Joseph said. I certainly don't care what the Christian bible says because I don't believe in it. You're talking to an observant Jew, when you're talking to a Christian then you can cite the bible since they also believe in it. If Isaiah 53 is a Messianic verse then that should be demonstrable within it's own text.

It's almost Shabbat, I look forward to your non-answer tomorrow night.