dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I respect your choice.
What choice?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I respect your choice.
No offense, but this is not what I was asking for.Advent: Statistical Probability of Jesus Fulfilling Messianic Prophecies
Advent is a period of preparation and purification in readiness to celebrate the first coming of the Lord, Jesus the Messiah. Advent begins November 28 and runs through December 24.www.linkedin.com
History and textual analysis today are guided by scientific principles.I'm just talking History and textual criticism.I think that religious perspective just leads toward bias.
The doctrine of the Atonement absolutely is mainstream, ordinary, traditional, orthodox Christianity. This includes Eastern Orthodoxy. While Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't include the substitutionary models that we find in the western church, it absolutely does teach that Jesus' for our sins.Standard mainstream Christian theology is literally traditional Christianity.
The Church has been the same , from day one.
You haven't looked in Eastern Christian literature.There is 10x more then what Western is offering.You can not find these things , you can only expirience them by studying them and visit places.
Some Books are out of reach , you can not find everything online.
Stop bossing me around. If I've told you no; you need to accept that.I told you , look up the video , 18 minutes of your time, but when there are things to be settled , nobody usually has the time.
You can teach it all you want. It doesn't make it true.We teach that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.
I don't think it was ever Jesus' intent for a new religion to form. He preached only to Jews, telling us to keep the commandments, and how best to do that. That's Judaism.He didn't converted , but he created new movement in some sense.
You are going off on a tangent.So the events prior to that matter.The events that happend had some influence (I am not saying the events alone had influence)
Because the earlier manuscripts don't have it and later manuscripts do. This is not rocket science.How do you know that ?
Scholars. Take it up with them.Who is suggesting that?
Okay, so a scientific approach is out for you. That's fine. I just need to remember that you are anti-science, so that I no longer bring up scientific evidence.Not interested in reconstructed texts.
I'm talking about the consensus of scholars, not sime teeny tiny group. If you don't like what they are saying, take it up with them, not me.That tells only the line of scholars that you follow.
Seriously? Scholars that have spent the time to develop an expertise in Koine Greek don't know how to translate it properly? This makes absolutely no sense to me.They don't know how to translate Koine.
Huh? The Talmud never mentions any trial of Jesus by Pilate. The few places he's mentioned is only in the context of Roman governance.He was so irrelevant that they needed to tell Pilate about his 'blasphemy'.
I did? Well, I don't remember what I said, but when the topic of Jesus in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve comes up, I pretty much give the standard Jewish response: that the serpent is never identified as Satan, and that seed (meaning an uncountable plural) refers to all humanity, not the messiah.You can jump to 'Judaism and Eden and Eve' and see how irrelevant is Jesus.
You yourself replied there.
Because not every Jew or Rabbi who engaged the the Hillel/Shammai debate is relevant. Most simply repeat the ideas of others, or advance ideas that were never taken seriously. If Jesus' arguments with bet Shammai were relevant, they would be mentioned in the Talmud, and they are not.Then why do you say that he was irrelevant ?
Huh? Jews were punished by the Romans because:He was so irrelevant that the Jews were afraid that the Romans could have punished them because of his claims?
Christians.Who do you think that told the Romans about Jesus?
It is a discussion in which you routinely bring up irrelevancies. This sort of thing makes it very frustrating to try to have a rational discussion, and has the potential to send the discussion off on tangent.You can count to 1 milion , it is all the same to me.
To me this is just a discussion.
All translations are woefully inadequate, including those translated by Jews fluent in both Hebrew and English (or Greek).I meant translations from Jewish people.
There are Jewish people who can translate Hebrew to English as best as it gets , or ?
Irrelevant.Interpretations change through time.
The point, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that the mention of an event in a text in no way means the text was contemporary with that event. Philip Freeman discusses Julius Caesar in his book by that name. Does this mean that Freeman wrote it back in the days of Julius Caesar? Or did he write it 2000 years later?Yes , that is how we narrow the choices of authors.
The intent of a letter is very different from a story. A letter is designed to touch base with someone, telling them how things are going in one's life or giving advice. If I wrote a text composed entirely of a lengthy summary of the War of the Roses and mailed it to you, that would be more rightly classified as a historical brief than a letter.Letters , many letters to tell a story.
A video that undermines Christianity highlights several issues, such as questionable identity, the United Nations' stance on ethnic identity, which reports that it is the community that justifies its members and not the other way around, a Christianity based on personal experiences rather than a rational examination of both Scriptures, mixing the Hebrew Bible with the Christian Bible, among other things. If the person in question were a dispersed Jew who had a genuine experience with what Jesus preached in the Gospels, they would logically become a zealous Orthodox Jew, strictly adhering to the Torah, because Jesus lived during the time of the law and had not yet died. All the examples Jesus provided are under the law: Hebrews 9:16-18 "In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, since a will is only valid in the case of death, because it never comes into force while the one who made it is alive." Despite this, the book of Hebrews is not entirely reliable. I couldn’t even finish watching the entire video...Can we say that there are Jews that believe in Jesus?
We not discussing a Koine Greek word, but the English word book.They are not written in standard English , they are written in Koine.
Because the deaths of Peter and Paul, just like the destruction of the Temple, were irrelevant to the theologies Acts is designed to teach.Ok , what was the reason for the author to not mention the death of Peter' and Paul' - the most controversial figures among the Apostles?
Since you clearly want to obfuscate by yanking my words out of context, let me clarify. The destruction of the Temple by the Romans is not something that someone with normal intuition would have been able to foresee. Since precognition doesn't really exist, the only explanation of a reference to the Temple's destruction would have to be that it is written after the event.Yes you can , you can predict outcomes.They might came to be true , or not.
Absolutely, you can absolutely write anything you want. And if another finds your lack of logic too frustrating, the can stop talking to you. So basically, if you want a good rational discussion with others, you need to make a better effort. Of course, if you don't care for those discussions, no harm done. There are quite a few people in this forum who only post to hear themselves talk.I write what i want , when i want,whenever i want.
You can do the same.
If that drives you nuts , you should chill a little bit.
The consensus of scholars is based on evidence. You have created a false dichotomy.You don't present historical facts based on consensus , you present theories and evidence regarding the issue.
I'm fine if we disagree on this, but simply wish my own view to be understood.And then the bias comes to miracles , since miracles do happen.
In only those two instances? Yes, we can agree on that.Ok , so we see direct responce to Christian belief , can we agree on that?
I thought the discussion was those things that were significant to Judaism.They are different beliefs system.Just because mainstream Judaism rejects them , does not make them to be of same value.
"Escape from Jesus: One Man's Search for a Meaningful Judaism " by Shlomoh ShermanCan we say that there are Jews that believe in Jesus?
Just as well G-d is the judge, and not you.Those are apostates.
But you said that reform and conservative Jews are apostates also, didn't you?Those are apostates.
Micah 5 talks about prohecy.No offense, but this is not what I was asking for.
It is quite common for Christians to say there are hundreds of prophecies (you guys can't even agree on how many)
, most of which are not considered prophecies at all by Jews.
After reading all of your answers do i need to say now to you that you should not care what is and what is not productive here,especially not for me - since you took to discuss it like i was trying to boss you in some way , which is not true.Everything that i share is just a suggestion.It really is not productive for you to link me with one of these long lists, and for me to simply say that most of these are not prophecies. It just doesn't advance the conversation.
Micah 5:2,start from there.What I would like instead, is for you to give me two or three of your BEST examples, so that we can home in on those two or three.
I understand , start from Micah 5For example, when I remark that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies, I usually quote one as an example (such as Isaiah 2:4), and that can then be discussed.
Not completly true , but i will prove this to be true while we are discussing.History and textual analysis today are guided by scientific principles.
Whz don't you let me tell what is what in Christianity and stick to Judaism.The doctrine of the Atonement absolutely is mainstream, ordinary, traditional, orthodox Christianity.
Yes because we are born with the ability to sin.That's not much of a choice , it's like selection in nature.We don't know what we will posses and become.Maybe we will sin , maybe not , we don't know.This includes Eastern Orthodoxy. While Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't include the substitutionary models that we find in the western church, it absolutely does teach that Jesus' for our sins.
Yes , i understand that it is pretty unusual.That is why i am carefull about the amount of evidence that i bring.I certainly have not studied EO in the same depth that I've studied Catholicism or Protestantism, but I'm not exactly ignorant either. Indeed, it is pretty unusual for a Jew such as myself to have studied these things at all.
I see that.I've probably spent more time studying the various world religions that my own religion, but this is because it has been a driving force in my life to pin down just what I believe and why, as well as to simply understand others better. I live in a Christian culture, so I view it as necessary to understand those Christians all around me.
Ok , np.Stop bossing me around. If I've told you no; you need to accept that.
1. I have a limited amount of time during the day that I can devote to these forums, so reading long links or watching long videos is absolutely out.
2. I'm here for discussion. If I want to browse the web, I can do that some other time. So if you want me to respond to a point, you will need to say it yourself, or if you are using a website, you will need to quote exactly that part you wish to draw my attention to.
It's not about what we want , it is about what it represents in our culture.If it isn't true to you , fine.You can teach it all you want. It doesn't make it true.
Well not so.I don't think it was ever Jesus' intent for a new religion to form. He preached only to Jews, telling us to keep the commandments, and how best to do that. That's Judaism.
No i am saying the oposite.You are going off on a tangent.
You are simply refusing to acknowledge the fact that a Jewish canon already existed at the time of Jesus and Paul: Moses (Torah), the Prophets, and some would say the Psalms.That an additional section was added at a later date is irrelevant.
That's not an argument itself.Because the earlier manuscripts don't have it and later manuscripts do. This is not rocket science.
Are the basis of your opinions , limited to Scholars?Scholars. Take it up with them.
There is nothinh scientific to talk about.Okay, so a scientific approach is out for you.
So Miracles don't happen in Jewish culture or what?That's fine. I just need to remember that you are anti-science, so that I no longer bring up scientific evidence.
Ok , that's fair.I'm talking about the consensus of scholars, not sime teeny tiny group. If you don't like what they are saying, take it up with them, not me.
They make errors sometimes.Seriously? Scholars that have spent the time to develop an expertise in Koine Greek don't know how to translate it properly? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Yes , but he is mentioned in the Epistiles of Ignatius of AntiochHuh? The Talmud never mentions any trial of Jesus by Pilate. The few places he's mentioned is only in the context of Roman governance.
I don't know much about what you wrote last.I did? Well, I don't remember what I said, but when the topic of Jesus in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve comes up, I pretty much give the standard Jewish response: that the serpent is never identified as Satan, and that seed (meaning an uncountable plural) refers to all humanity, not the messiah.
How would Jesus ideas would be mentioned if he was considered as apostate?Because not every Jew or Rabbi who engaged the the Hillel/Shammai debate is relevant. Most simply repeat the ideas of others, or advance ideas that were never taken seriously. If Jesus' arguments with bet Shammai were relevant, they would be mentioned in the Talmud, and they are not.
Yes that is between 66–74 CEHuh? Jews were punished by the Romans because:
1. We would not accept Roman polytheism.
2. We had a whole bunch of Jews claiming to be the messiah pushing back on Roman rule.
3. We started two wars for independence from Rome.
Before he was crucified?Christians.
When you say they are irrelevant you need to explain why.It is a discussion in which you routinely bring up irrelevancies.
But i will not adjust myself and speak about things that necessitate me to adopt to your set of beliefs.This sort of thing makes it very frustrating to try to have a rational discussion, and has the potential to send the discussion off on tangent.
But if you know Hebrew you would know why these translations are inadequate , and where is the issue?All translations are woefully inadequate, including those translated by Jews fluent in both Hebrew and English (or Greek).
They were relevant in the time of the Prophets , but they are not of importance when they surround the NT events.Irrelevant.
Correct.The point, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that the mention of an event in a text in no way means the text was contemporary with that event.
You are Begging the Question.Philip Freeman discusses Julius Caesar in his book by that name. Does this mean that Freeman wrote it back in the days of Julius Caesar? Or did he write it 2000 years later?
FineIOW you cannot use the fact that Acts discusses the journeys of Paul to prove it was written contemporary to those journeys.
But he existed , and he was an important Christian missionery , and every rational thinker will ask themself why is his death not mentioned if he was so important.That's what comes as a burden of knowledge when you are so well-informed about certain area of study.It can be written any time after those events, including, as scholars suggest, sometime from 80-90 BCE.
You have to prove a point firsy , and we might check everything that is written or ask a third person to see what is stated.If you still can't understand this point, I don't know what to say at this point. I have very clearly lined out the logic. If you don't get it, that's on you.
You speculate too much on irrelevant rhings and much less on important things as matter od discussion.The intent of a letter is very different from a story. A letter is designed to touch base with someone, telling them how things are going in one's life or giving advice.
This has to do with Fallacies of irrelevanceIf I wrote a text composed entirely of a lengthy summary of the War of the Roses and mailed it to you, that would be more rightly classified as a historical brief than a letter.
We don't need to discuss English , it's irrelevant , won't you agree?We not discussing a Koine Greek word, but the English word book.
Acts was not designed to be anything.Because the deaths of Peter and Paul, just like the destruction of the Temple, were irrelevant to the theologies Acts is designed to teach.
That's what this is aboutSince you clearly want to obfuscate by yanking my words out of context, let me clarify. The destruction of the Temple by the Romans is not something that someone with normal intuition would have been able to foresee.
The author could have predicted based on belief and me and you can't do nothing about it.Since precognition doesn't really exist, the only explanation of a reference to the Temple's destruction would have to be that it is written after the event.
You can not make me to adjust to certain criteria just because they don't satisfy your line of reasoning.Absolutely, you can absolutely write anything you want. And if another finds your lack of logic too frustrating, the can stop talking to you. So basically, if you want a good rational discussion with others, you need to make a better effort. Of course, if you don't care for those discussions, no harm done. There are quite a few people in this forum who only post to hear themselves talk.
FalseThe consensus of scholars is based on evidence. You have created a false dichotomy.
I hear youI'm fine if we disagree on this, but simply wish my own view to be understood.
I do not think God went through the trouble to design the laws of nature only to turn around and break them.
Therefore regarding miracles there only remains three possibilities.
- That a miracle is simply something that is rare and astounding and for which we have no scientific explanation YET. It doesn't mean that in the future we won't have such as scientific explanation.
- That the person claiming a miracle is lying, or at least embellishing.
- That the person is truthfully relaying what they believe to be a miracle but who either does not know or simply dismisses known natural explanations of the same event.
Just as well G-d is the judge, and not you.
But you said that reform and conservative Jews are apostates also, didn't you?
How many times are people in this thread going to keep asking some version of this question, which I have already answered?
No… they are Jews believing in the Jewish Yeshua Hamashiach. All I am saying is there is not a few who believe in Jesus. I wonder if, as this next one suggest, there are manh ore but they are afraid of the repercussions like this next one...Those are apostates.
No, we don't agree. We are discussing the meaning of the word "book." It's an English word. Greek is irrelevant to the discussion.We don't need to discuss English , it's irrelevant , won't you agree?
Every book in the New Testament is designed to teach Christianity.Acts was not designed to be anything.
All predictions of the future are based on intuition. Sometimes it is informed intuition, as with someone who has gathered a great deal of facts, and then projects based on those. Sometimes not. Some people have a better sense of intuition than others. But in all cases, intuition is notoriously unreliable. Nor do they allow us to intuit past a certain degree -- there are many things that happen that were inconceivable to people in the past.You don't have to have some intuition to predict such things.It may be predicted only on the basis od belief.
Belief in WHAT? No one in 33 CE could have envisioned the destruction of the Temple, just as no one in 1900 could have predicted the use of 3D printing to make guns.The author could have predicted based on belief and me and you can't do nothing about it.
It is really a bad idea for you to make this assumption. You don't know me. The fact that I disagree with you is no reason for you to conclude that I am less educated.The difference between us is probably me knowing more of data sureounding the NT.
I think we both hold scholars in esteem. I often get into trouble with others for saying that a person has no right to claim expertise if they haven't put in the time and effort to get an advanced degree. We get all sorts of armchair "experts" who are offended by that.False
The consensus of Historians is based on evidence,but not every NT scholar is a Historian.
To be able to think outside of religion , the best way proven to be adequate is to think like a Historian.
Not all Scholars understand evidence as Historians do.
Just by being a scholar on the NT does not make you a Historian.You have to satiafy certain criteria and be consistent with other Historical accounts.
You don't get this title on piece of paper , you earn it.
Oy vey. Enough with the irrelevancies. I looked up Deut 10:21 and it has no relationship to our discussion.I hear you
Just I am surpised on what you said when i look up Deuteronomy 10:21
So allow me to reiterate your belief to firmly establish what your group of Jews believe and teach. You believe that reform and conservative Jews as some are here, are apostate Jews. That does not include Jews for Jesus or atheists born and possibly raised as Jews.How many times are people in this thread going to keep asking some version of this question, which I have already answered?
No… they are Jews believing in the Jewish Yeshua Hamashiach. All I am saying is there is not a few who believe in Jesus. I wonder if, as this next one suggest, there are manh ore but they are afraid of the repercussions like this next one...
All in the statement that there are Jews that do believe contrary to your statement...
So which Jewish teacher do you agree with? As has been noted here, take two Jews and you get three opinions, right? I live near a large Orthodox Jewish community and on Saturdays, if the weather is nice you see men and women walking with their children. There is a big picture of M. Schneerson. You probably know who he is. Do you think he could be the Messiah?I'm not interested in the opinion of a Muslim, or any non-Jew, on Jewish law.
How about Maimonides? Interested in his opinion? I really appreciate his belief that God is going to resurrect the dead. I hope you do, tooI'm not interested in the opinion of a Muslim, or any non-Jew, on Jewish law.