By Ted Belman
From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.
Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.
Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.
The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.
Everyone will be happier.
@ bernard ross:
Only to one who thinks the Most High is a physical being with sexual apparatus, and I’d already shown — many, many times — that this is impossible; He was nothing of the sort when He created Adam, He was nothing of the sort when He created the angels, and He was nothing of the sort when He created Christ.
So what I’ve said is NOT in any way ‘reminiscent’ of the myths of pagan gods.
I’ve already addressed this. You assume that any purported comparison necessarily springs from the ‘influence’ of pagan mythology. One could, however, just as readily assert precisely the contrary:
— that the gospel narrative is in fact the REAL article, and that the earlier tales & myths represent flawed foreshadowings of the reality implanted in the collective unconscious of mankind, though only dimly perceived until the actual events occurred.
Talk’s cheap; anybody can make a statement. Calling it a ‘likely coverup’ is YOUR statement.
Even if the nativity story were taken from the pagans — and for all your months and mounds of verbiage, you’ve presented NO evidence that it actually was (yet even if it were) — that would not constitute ‘plagiarism.’ Once again, you’re simply out of your depth.
No plagiarism; no embellishment, no lipstick; no pig; no sale.
It’s impossible to discuss this with you because you lack the huevos to read the story for yourself. All you’ve got to work with is what other people say the NT contains, your personal prejudices, and your limited reasoning capacities.
I don’t have any pig.
But I do know a pig when I encounter one. . . .
@ yamit82:
That sleaze bag hasn’t been right yet in these matters.
Because I make an observation about how dorks like yourself occupy themselves when they’re frustrated, that makes me sexually fixated? — LMAO. The psychobabbling psycho strikes again.
— I’m not the one here who needs sexual releases.
If I really were a fegele, that would make me your type. Sorry, but I’m just not. (Don’t take it personally.) Maybe you’d have better luck hitting on the sleaze bag; he owes you for the support & validation, and maybe.. .. .. ..
@ bernard ross:
Actually my “long stories” turn out to have been no longer than your ‘condensation.’ Obviously it is NOT concision or brevity that is motivating you.
They are not my words. They are your paraphrase, designed to avoid my words.
My words are as restored in the first blockquote atop this post. And what “the folks” by now (those who still bother to read this page, thanks to your vile trashings) are wondering is why you insist on paraphrasing my remarks when they are, in point of fact, no longer than your paraphrasings.
“We”? — who’s the “we”? You & Huff’n’puff?
The question is why you DO rearrange them. It’s clear that you do so not because you have to but because you WANT to.
dweller Said:
Proving Bernard Ross correct once again. You are sexually fixated on male bodily fluids and male sexual organs. You really are a Fegele!!!!!! 😛
@ bernard ross:
The Hebrew they don’t teach in Hebrew school
What happened in the beginning?
Hebrew language is proof of existence of G-d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glWG3coAtEg
dweller Said:
On jewish matters the Jews are credible but anything coming through the christians is not. This is substantiated by 2000 years of lying, stealing, swindling, torturing and slaughtering jews by the christians. I understand your perspective is different because you have a christian perspective.
Bernard Ross Said:
the hearsay and witness attestations of Jews over 2000 years regarding whether the NT is factual is worth a billion times more than the attestations of those who spent 2000 years lying about Jews and ALSO have a vested interest in purporting a narrative to be factual. There is nothing to Christianity without the Jesus narrative and as Christianity is certainly not beyond fabrication to maintain its core myth, hence they could never be of equal value to Jews on Jewish issues. You have already proven this point with your behavior here.
Bernard Ross Said:
No need to complicate or evade. these are the phrases of christians regarding his dying on the cross for the sins of mankind and that all folks can only get salvation through him. I am sure you know exactly what I am talking about. Put it in your words:
did he die for mankind’s sins or your own phraseology
can folks only get salvation through him?
whats your belief on this issue, don’t evade it, I don’t know the christian stories but I have heard these non jewish ideas mentioned. Are you being evasive, certainly this is an important issue regarding your yeshu and your assertions.
dweller Said:
where did your info come from upon which you base this soton story and so called jewish messiahs having brought dead persons back to life and souls from sheol? Did you get this from the same NT which has no jewish attestation as fact? Its quite a story, I never heard it before, it sounds like a christian story to me, I dont remember my rabbi telling this story. Is this an NT story or one of your own?
Bernard Ross Said:
HMMM, you appear to not get the humor of your assertion: you have quoted a character from your novel as attestation that the events and characters of the novel are factual.
As I have told you before:
bernard ross Said:
looks like you are still citing the fictional characters in your fairy tale as evidence that the events of your fairy tale are true. as you purport it is a jewish tale and as your tale comes through the Christians I would expect some jewish attestation for it as factual.
Yamit Said:
But there is agreement that Celsus is an historical character who had a likely chance of actually existing whereas your narratives characters have not been shown to exist just as your NT itself was never shown to be factual. the notion of it being factual comes through the hands of those who have been telling lies about Jews for 2000 years. They must make up this fairy tale as this fairy tale is the whole basis of the christian religion and without this fairy tale their myth has nothing. Therefore, they cannot be considered to be a reliable witness, source or compiler of anything wrt the Jews unless there is also Jewish attestation and support for their purported “facts” about the Jews. The christians purport that the jewish messiah was the son of the Hebrew G_D and a woman but the Jews have never attested to or supported this as factual in a 2000 year period. The Jews have OVERWHELMINGLY rejected this narrative as factual but for some odd reason you, who claims to being a jew, instead believes the christian narrative about Jews; you choose to believe those who have been libeling, swindling, torturing and slaughtering Jews for 2000 years instead of the Jewish people and their rabbis. As there is no factual historical evidence of events and characters of the NT you can only rely on the christian narratives. if someone swindled and killed my parents and lied about them repeatedly I would be unlikely to take anything they said about my family with any credibility…… but you do. the institutions which brought you this narrative are riddled with evil as attested to by 2000 years of their followers behavior. At the heart of this narrative is your mythical character and NT fable.
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
In other words you have nothing, nada, zilch, bubkiss, rien, zero……
I discerned that as soon as I saw you spinning out your story and insulting me
2000 years, millions of Jews and only you and a few others…… but do not despair they tell your story every Sunday in church.
😛 😛 😛 😛
@ dweller:
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
Oh gosh dweller, is that really your only problem, that I did not acknowledge your speculation? Then let me correct that to show that you were “speculating” so that the folks here can see your long stories condensed into a sentence:
’The Hebrew G_D [probably] catalyzed a process of development in the womb of a Hebrew woman which resulted in the virgin birth of the Jewish messiah’
These are your words but no matter how many times we rearrange your words it still is reminiscent of the myths of pagan gods mating with women which were prevalent in the pagan cultures prior to your God begetting Jewish messiahs with women fairy tales. You may have embellished it with metaphysical descriptions but that is likely an attempt to cover up the carnal pagan nature of its origins. It was still plagiarized from the pagans just like oestre and the 25th of december date: plagiarized and then lipstick was applied. However, I have told you before that whatever shade or brand of lipstick you attempt to apply to your pig it will still NOT be kosher.
@ yamit82:
What boys play with when their other toys have been broken or have otherwise lost their appeal.
My guess would be that it probably came from a Latin term of anatomy in
18th century medicine: the pudendum.
@ yamit82:
No. This is purely Rosenblit’s take on it. He has bought into Justin’s assessment of the situation. But Justin — first of the gentile theologians of Xty (all the previous ones, including Paul, had been Jewish) — was writing well over 100 yrs AFTER the death & resurrection of JC.
He’s begging the question. He assumes that it springs from the ‘influence’ of pagan mythology. One could, however, just as readily assert precisely the contrary:
— that the gospel narrative is in fact the REAL article, and that the earlier tales & myths represent flawed foreshadowings of the reality implanted in the collective unconscious of mankind, though only dimly perceived until the actual events occurred.
After one cuts thru all the verbiage in the essay, what remains is the possibility that the cited prophecies are not the correct ones or are wrongly referenced, because the cited ones (as referenced) are mistaken or mistranslated. Even if, for the sake of discussion, however, one concedes that, it STILL does not follow from this that the events asserted in the narrative are perforce untrue.
@ yamit82:
But you have no independent corroboration — no independent ‘attestation’ — that God ever MADE any such promises to the Jewish people.
You cannot speak of ‘keeping a promise’ if you cannot establish that a promise has been made.
As an unobjective partisan, YOU would find anything to be “enough for [you].”
Some Jews will. Not yourself, however.
You assume you can confine him to a formula, but when — not “if,” but when — he appears, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONTROL HIM, and you’ll be just as threatened by him as the in-country leadership was the first time around.
You have no idea as to what I do or don’t understand
— and that’s obvious.
dweller Said:
Not up on your 1920’s slang what’s pud???
In simple contextual English pls., if you can?
@ yamit82:
That it was a ‘question’ — and not a statement — was not at all clear.
If you truly WANT a straight answer, you’ll ASK a straight question.
If you just want to spar with me, you can go pound sand. (If you can’t find any sand, you can go pound your pud.)
@ yamit82:
Pure, unmitigated psychobabble from a babbling psycho.
And what was that? — that I’m a ‘woman’? Even if he believed that, there would have been no reason to say or imply it in this context if he didn’t find the implication contemptible.
You can’t get around what he said; it’s right out there in black & white,and on full display. He was inadvertently exposing the inside of his own consciousness and letting out the truth of his actual attitude toward women, and you’re just covering for him because that’s the price you pay for HIS support of you.
But this isn’t a one-off for him. He’s done this many, many times before, using allusions to “running away like a little girl,” etc, etc. It’s clear-beyond-cavil that he harbors a contemptuous view of women.
Whoo-wee, can you sling it!
Amazing that you can pile it that high without it falling over. (Do you pack it with rebar?)
dweller Said:
Question was clear enough but if you find it too hard to respond to tough theological conundrums that would be understandable.
@ yamit82:
Virgin Birth/conception, yes.
‘Immaculate Conception,’ no.
As to your other ‘question’ (assuming it was a question, and not a statement COUCHED as one):
— If you’ll dispense with all the goop & glop, and just offer it in a straightforward way (as you did the above inquiry), I’ll give you a straightforward answer.
@ dove:
Cool!!! Used to like em. Didn’t know they were still around.
Thanks!!!
@ yamit82:
When I saw this it reminded me of this song. I recently saw this band live when they were on a Canadian tour. They have stood the test of time and now have a following of all age groups.
The song is ‘NEVER BREAK THE CHAIN’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lpVCL00fPAc
@ honeybee:
@ mrg3105:
@ bernard ross:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUlM2a2tsOM
JPost/Maariv poll: Likud 26 ZU 22 BY 13 JAL (=Joint Arab List, for future reference) 12 YA 11 UTJ 8 Koolanu 7 Shas 6 Meretz 6 YB 5 Yachad 4
dweller Said:
I belive because I and the Jewish people are still around ans by all measures of logic and history we shouldn’t be.
G-d seems to have kept his word or promises to the Jewish people as it was written in our (Jewish) Bible. That’s enough for me!!!!
We will also know our ‘King Messiah’ if he ever appears by the same methodology, by his actions and the resultant outcomes. You don’t understand Jews and that’s obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6k1jHAYtbI#t=1238
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydwxy9yqhzM
Interesting Walla poll: Likud 26 ZU 23 BY 12 Arabs 12 YA 10 Koolanu 8 UTJ 7 Shas 7 YB 7 Meretz 4 Yachad 4
dweller Said:
Let’s test your stated claim:
THE NEW TRINITY: DO WE ALL PRAY TO THE SAME GOD?
Essentially, Christianity, while ostensibly revering the Hebrew Bible and even incorporating its Greek-language translation — pejoratively denominated by Christianity as the “Old Testament” — into the Christian Bible, believes that Judaism’s doctrinal errors caused the God of Israel to raise up Christianity in its place as its true spiritual heir and the bearer of God’s “New Covenant”, as manifested in the “New Testament” portion of the Christian Bible. Accordingly, Christianity proclaims that, in order to transmit the “New Covenant” to Humankind, God’s Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with Jesus — thereby rendering him the Son of God — without altering her prior status as a biological virgin (see Matthew 1:18-25; and Luke 1:26-38).
The dogma of the “Virgin Birth” — springing from the influence upon early Christianity of pagan mythology in which a god has sexual intercourse with a human female, thereby resulting in the birth of a demigod — is scripturally based upon Christianity’s mistranslation of the Hebrew-language word “alma” in the Prophet Isaiah’s famous declaration (see Isaiah 7:14) that the “young woman” would give birth to a son named “Immanuel” (a child whom Christianity identifies as Jesus, despite the fact that nowhere in the “New Testament” is Jesus ever referred to — by his family or by others — as Immanuel). The “New Testament” explicitly relies upon Isaiah’s Prophecy, as mistranslated and, more importantly, as truncated, when it asserts: “All of this [the virgin birth of Jesus] took place in order to fulfill what the Lord had said through the Prophet: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son; and they will call him Immanuel’ — which means ‘God With Us.'” (Matthew 1:22-23). Furthermore, it is pointed out that the meaning of the name “Immanuel”, after the application of standard Hebrew-language syntax, is: “God is with us” (i.e., God is watching over us), and not, as the “New Testament” (under the influence of pagan mythology) translates: “God With Us” (i.e., God has become one of us). Moreover, the text of the “New Testament” itself negates any implication that the future son of Joseph and Mary was intended to be called by any name other than “Iesous”, which is rendered from the Greek language into the English language as “Jesus” (see Matthew 1:21 where, in its English-language translation, an unidentified Angel instructs Joseph to call his future son by the name Jesus; and see Luke 1:31 where, in its English-language translation, the Angel Gabriel instructs Mary to call her future son by the name Jesus).
The Christian Bible — consisting of the “New Testament”, which was composed in the Greek language, and the “Old Testament”, which is a Greek-language translation of the Hebrew Bible — mistranslates the Hebrew-language word “alma” (“young woman”) in Isaiah 7:14 as “parthenos”, being a Greek-language word meaning “virgin”, and then imports that very same mistranslation into the flawed and incomplete repetition of Isaiah’s prophecy that is found in Matthew 1:23. The word “alma” does not denote a virgin. Rather, that word describes an adolescent female without regard to her virginity. In other words, the word “alma” describes a woman’s chronological status rather than her sexual status, although the latter is certainly implied by the former. The Hebrew-language word “betulah” means “virgin”, and consequently that word explicitly describes a woman’s sexual status. As such, “betulah” is the word used in the Hebrew Bible whenever it wishes to explicitly identify a woman by the fact that she has not yet engaged in sexual intercourse, despite the fact that the Hebrew Bible often employs the term “alma” (“young woman”) with the implication that the identified woman is also a “betulah” (“virgin”).
However, even if the “alma” (“young woman”) of Isaiah’s prophecy was, in fact, a “betulah” (“virgin”) — as is likely to have been the case before she was married to her husband — the historical context of the Prophecy demonstrates that the Prophecy does not even refer to the time period of Jesus, namely, the very end of the First Century B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) through the beginning of the First Century C.E. (the Common Era) when Judea (successor entity to the biblical kingdoms of Judah and Israel) was a captive province of the Roman Empire, but rather to events that had occurred more than 700 years prior to Jesus’ purported birth circa 4 BCE, namely, the coordinated invasion, then in progress, of the southern kingdom of Judah during the reign of King Achaz by the armies of the northern kingdom of Israel (during the reign of King Pekah) and the Empire of Aram (during the reign of King Rezin). Moreover, since the context of the Prophecy renders it certain that the young women was someone with whom King Achaz was personally acquainted circa 735 BCE, it is obvious that: (1) this woman could not have been the “Virgin Mary” of the “New Testament”, and (2) this woman’s prospective son Immanuel could not have been the “Jesus” of the “New Testament”.
Furthermore, a review of the complete Prophecy in context also demonstrates that the small portion thereof that heralds the birth of the child Immanuel is not even the subject of the Prophecy. For, that most famous snippet of the Prophecy is merely predicting an interim event, the occurrence of which is intended by the Prophet Isaiah only to provide compelling proof — in the Words of the Prophecy: a “Sign” — to the faithless King Achaz of Judah that the final events predicted by the Prophecy will, in fact, also come to pass. What are the final events that constitute the subject of the Prophecy? These final events are the impending destructions of the Empire of Aram and then of the northern kingdom of Israel, both by the Assyrian Empire (under King Shalmaneser IV and under his successor King Sargon II), and the subsequent (unsuccessful) invasion of Judah, also by the Assyrian Empire (under King Sennacherib, son of and successor to King Sargon II).
Moreover, the Prophet’s use of the Hebrew-language word “oat” (“sign”) in his Prophecy to describe that compelling proof (i.e., the interim event) is telling. For, the word “oat” is used in the Hebrew Bible exclusively to denote an empirical event (e.g., the incontestable fact of birth rather than the contestable means of conception). Had the Prophet intended, instead, to convey to King Achaz that such compelling proof would exist by faith (e.g., a supernatural conception) rather than by observation, then he would not have employed the inappropriate word “oat”. Rather, the Prophet would have employed the Hebrew-language word “nes” (“miracle”) or one of its equivalents.
Here, then, is Isaiah’s complete Prophecy in context:
To discover the complete fulfillment of Isaiah’s Prophecy during the reign of Achaz, King of Judah, and during the reign of his son and successor Hezekiah, King of Judah (approximately 700 years before the purported time of Jesus), please see II Kings 16:1-9; 17:1-6; and 18:1-37; and II Chronicles 28:1-8; and 32:1-23. The misuse of Isaiah 7:14 in order to justify the fable of the virgin birth of Jesus and the latter’s messianic pretensions represents only one of the many mistranslations, misquotations and erroneous summarizations of the Hebrew Bible which appear throughout the “New Testament” and form the theological basis of Christianity. (For a more blatant — albeit less scripturally significant — example of such dishonesty, the reader is referred to Jude 1:14-15 which quotes a prophecy of doom allegedly uttered by Enoch, an antediluvian descendant of Adam, despite the fact that nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does Enoch utter even a word, let alone a prophecy.)
In Christian belief, Jesus descended to Earth in human form as the Messiah, was martyred for Humankind’s collective sins and was thereafter resurrected from death. Through the “New Testament”, the Christian deity informs all human beings that, henceforth, they may only achieve forgiveness for “Original Sin” (as well as for their individual sins) through the active intercession of Jesus, as Son of God, after acceptance of him as their Savior (see Ephesians, Chapters 1 & 2).
In contrast, the Torah makes it clear that the Jewish people do not require any supernatural intermediary between themselves and God. As declared by the Gentile prophet Balaam concerning the Children of Israel: “‘It is God [Himself] Who brought them [the tribal descendants of Jacob who are called the Children of Israel] out of Egypt according to the Power of His Loftiness. For, there is no [need to use] Divination in Jacob and no [need to use] Sorcery in Israel [in order to achieve communion with God]; now it is said [directly] to Jacob and Israel what God has wrought [for them].'” (Numbers 23:22-23).
dweller Said:
You seem to think that saying it will make it so. But what makes something so is what it IS, not what YOU say it is.
BR and I have used the same contextual references to you without any reference to your gender a myriad of times, as it goes to your oft exposed dysfunctional often insane degenerate personality quirks. He was just stating the obvious truth about you by calling a “SPADE a SPADE”. It goes w/out saying that I agree with him and I don’t have like you a malicious bone in my body. Hatred of you for sure but not maliciously hateful. 😛
@ dweller:
Was the fictional mother of yeshu (Mary) born in sin, lived in sin and probably died in sin; ( according to your Geezit fantasy)???
Do you hold with only the virgin birth concept or the immaculate conception concept???
@ bernard ross:
Don’t know what you mean by “died for the sins of all people.”
It’s not the kind of language that I would be likely to use, so you couldn’t have gotten it from me.
Nor does “salvation” sound like the kind of term which would be familiar to you.
So, suppose you tell me what you understand such expressions to mean.
Once we’re on the same page, it may be possible for me to address your questions.
@ bernard ross:
Whereby Mr SlimeBag here has unwittingly let it be known that he views a woman as an inferior variety of man. . . .
Little by little, he continues to expose his true attitude toward women.
@ yamit82:
IOW: You believe it not because it’s one hearsay but because it’smany such. But as I said, the numbers do not affect the nature of the matter. Hearsay is hearsay. (And a chain of transmission is, in the end, just another extended hearsay.)
Quite so; I agree. This is the Presumption-of-Veracity argument, and it certainly is a BETTER one than your Hearsay-qua-Multiple-Chains-of-Transmission pleading.
Of course, it is precisely the SAME case I’ve given you for the Gospel narrative — an argument which you selectively reject in the latter instance.
Objectively speaking, however, if you accept it for the one, you must accept it for both. OTOH, If you reject it for the one, you must reject it for both; no way around that.
@ mrg3105:
Not at all hard. Moreover, it’s quite conclusive and thoroughly reliable.
Translation: You been trying to set up a straw man, so you could knock it down. It’s a forensic contrivance.
Where, precisely, have I said or suggested anything of the sort? Show me, please, the unedited remark (in its context) where you contend that I have said that.
Another straw man (you do seem fond of such things). Show me where I’ve said or implied what you claim. Identify the specific post.
When I quote from NT it is rarely (if ever) for purposes of ‘presenting evidence’ — rather, most often, to ILLUSTRATE a point I’ve already made. If you can find exceptions to this policy & pattern of mine, you’re welcome to show them to me.
And where do you find evidence of his trying to convince the Roman military of this? (Have you considered switching to decaf? — gradually, of course; caffeine withdrawal can be a bear!)
If your assertion is not in NT, then where IS it?
QTC, I listen all the time, but you don’t see what I’m listening to. . . .
I’m not (and have never been) a Xtn. Always liked JC, but never thought he was ‘God’ — and the purported ‘divinity’ of Christ is the shared sine qua non amongst self-professed “Christians” for membership in the club. So your assumption about me is simply wrong.
I used to make my living with my voice; yet I have, to this day, never gotten used to the sound of it. However, I do recognize it. And I know the difference between the sound of my voice and the sound of His …
Do YOU know the difference between the sound of yours & the sound of His?
If you harkin to his voice tanach@ mrg3105:
Not so, I gave you a possible alternative reading of Braishit
In a modern context with the language and understanding that we have today based on scientific knowledge of today. As far back as the Ramban there was an understanding of E=mc2 and he got it from his teachers. He explained dark matter, and identified time as part of the creative process. Ramban held there was a single physical creation the then the laws of nature did the rest. That matches our scientific understanding today with the concept and apparent discovery of the echo of the Big Bang.
You and I differ though on one specific point that I am not prepared to concede. I hold the whole of the NT and christian narrative is a total fiction. There was no Historical youshka nor any of the other noted characters in their narratives.
I debate their theology because they deny mine and have always sought to graft themselves into Judaism. They have exercised gross identity theft against us and we should never leave the field of battle to any of them.
I think you should reacquaint your self with Devarim Chapter 30
mrg3105 Said:
Well somebody has too, other wise you would be bereft of an edumaction, Darlin You need to be Thanking yamit82 for kindness.
@Yamit
You don’t need to quote Bereishit at me.
Pascal was wrong because he was questioned as a scientist, but he answered as a ‘philosopher’.
You are doing same.
And, by ‘expounding’ on the comparative prose of Beraishit and astrophysics,
you are making the same error scientists have committed for much of Science history.
@dweller, its hard to submit conscience to the scientific methods, isn’t it?
So dweller, I have been waiting for the t-word.
And, this calls for a cliché – “You can’t handle the truth!”
I will now explain to you why your ‘argument’ is so bankrupt.
What we have here is argument over the Law, a testament is a form of contract,
in as much as it now forms the core of legal systems in most, even Islamic nations.
You argue the Law is now owned by Xtianity by the virtue of JC’s ‘sacrifice’
We argue that your argument is not an argument because it has no evidence to support the ‘proof’
Ultimately arguments about law are reserved for the courts.
In courts sides are asked to present arguments based on evidence.
Evidence can be either physical, or witness testimony
What you want is NEW RULES.
This is where you get to present anything you think is evidence,
but where I do not get to present my evidence at all!
So you keep quoting out of the NT, yet most of this WOULD BE witness testimony
ONLY IF it was reliably attributed, to identifiable individuals, who could be attested as RELIABLE.
On the other hand you do not allow presentation of witness testimony from the Talmud,
THE REST OF THE LAW, where individuals ARE identifiable and reliable witnesses.
The process of finding truth is however inescapably clear to anyone with but a smidgeon of familiarity with law
– there is a process of discover of facts.
Every time you open your mouth over something in NT,
you make it blindingly obvious that you have never looked inside the Talmud because your statements contradict THAT EVIDENCE,
which of course you hold inadmissible.
So I will now explain to you what sins JC was crucified for.
He was stupid enough to try and convince the Roman military, many of them not even Latins,
that Torah is THE WAY.
This is not in NT, and he wasn’t the first.
There was an entire movement that thought “if only we could convert Romans to Torah Law”.
And the reason I know this is because crucifixion is a very unusual punishment as far as Romans go who were usually much more efficient about killing.
Here though Romans wanted to make a point.
One of the early great arguments of the Church was the correct shape of the ‘true cross’.
This was decided based on the majority opinion of the GREEKS present based on the tradition that it was T-shaped.
But of course its only T-shaped in GREEK.
One sect however retained the alternative shape which was rejected, the X-shape of the ‘true cross’, now known as the St.Andrew’s Cross.
This is because the X was the way T was written in both Aramaic and Hebrew in the Ivri script.
And, unlike every other letter in the Ivri alephbet that had a meaning attached that commenced with the letter,
the X stood for EMMETT, Truth, because Truth goes to the humble, and doesn’t mind coming last for there it stands next to Aluf.
The Romans clearly identified that the Jews referred to their Law as Truth, which implied that Roman law wasn’t.
So they decided to correct the Jewish opinion by crucifying the would-be missionaries on their truth-X-crosses.
JC sacrificed himself not for Truth of the Torah, but because he didn’t complete his education.
Had he done so, he would have known that YOU CAN’T CONVINCE SOMEONE UNLESS THEY ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN.
Like the Roman military that occupied Israel, you are also NOT INTERESTED TO LISTEN.
No Xtian is.
And, this happens to be the definition of stupid, as I mentioned before.
This is why we Jews, even the ‘non-religious’, keep saying Shema.
Its a daily reminder that whatever we do NOT TO BE STUPID and listen.
This is one of the other menings within the passage about Moshiakh I quoted from Sanhedrin.
…if you will listen to His voice
You however are listening only to the sound of your own voice!
@ bernard ross:
Not me. But it does seem unquestionably to be where YOU’ve been led — though not by any thirst for truth.
……….MY KEISTER.
@ bernard ross:
You can keep creating these false dichotomies all day long if you like; it will not change the reality:
— Hearsay is hearsay, regardless of WHOSE hearsay it is.
Of course you can. What you ‘see’ tells you what you want to ‘see,’ doesn’t it, genius.
It’s not about persons, or about the equating of persons. It’s about the nature of hearsay, and the broadly recognized limitations to its reliability.
GOD says HE is no respecter of persons either. Maybe you’d like to lay your dumb-assed line on Him too:
— “I can see why YOU would equate those with a vested interest in the defamation of Judasim VS the Jews when it comes to Jewish events…..”
It just figures that you would try to tie this to Curio. You were an asshole with him, just as you’re an asshole with me. . . for insisting that he get a fair hearing. You’re such a putz.
Well, I sure as blazes wouldn’t choose YOU. Your mindset has altogether too much in common with that of the swindlers, libelers, torturers & slaughterers.
— Wouldn’t trust you — your intentions OR your judgment — from here to the front door.
You’re not a seeker; you’re a partisan — and they are two distinctly different creatures.
@ mrg3105:
(I think you meant Lavan, not ‘Lot.’)
Humility is never about a man’s relationship to other men.
It’s always about his relationship to God — his receptivity to His leading.
It may (or may not) be apparent in one circumstance or other in his relation to other men. But when it IS apparent in re other men, it is only indirectly so, and by reflection on his relation to God.
@ bernard ross:
He lost his heretofore guaranteed claim on every soul that dies.
On the outskirts of every town there used to be a kind of “no man’s land,” a shadowy area between what was lawful & what wasn’t. It still exists on the “moral” outskirts of a city or town if not on its physical outskirts. (Physically, it’s more likely nowadays to be found in the inner cities.) It was the area where the local pawnshop was located — an institution regarded as somewhat unsavory, but which was permitted by the authorities to exist, as it was seen to discourage worse situations from arising in its absence.
However, if the authorities could ever establish with verifiable certainty that the pawnbroker had knowingly taken into his shop just one time a single piece of property UNLAWFULLY, the police could close him down; put him out of business, and allow anybody who had property in the place to make a claim on their long abandoned item (if they so chose).
When the Adversary took into his domain the soul of J’shua haNitzri, he took unto himself the ONE soul to which he had no lawful right.
When the soul of the Nazarene returned from Sheol, he took with him the souls of those who had died trusting (since Adam’s day) in his promised coming. They returned to their graves when he returned to his body in the tomb — where the enormous quantities of released energy in each instance reorganized the molecules of a body to the original “blueprint” carried in the soul. . . .Those trusting, dead persons returned to life. Mt 27:52
You want more? — or have I given you enough to sneer, jeer & smear over for one day?
@ mrg3105:
My conscience. It is His “embassy,” as it were, in the foreign land that is this world.
Prove it to whom? — prove it to myself? Just told you.
Prove it to you? — cannot be done. You don’t have my conscience; you have yours.
@ yamit82:
EVIDENCE we are.
PROOF we are not.
You have yet to establish that a promise was made — let alone, that it was made by Him.
No, it appears that this is what you would dearly LOVE to believe about me, but I ‘reject’ nothing of the sort. It would make things SO easy for you, wouldn’t it, if you could make that stick. . . .
I’m no gentile.
And if you didn’t feel so threatened by me, you wouldn’t be trying to characterize me as one.
Didn’t say — nor suggest — that the goyim were the key to unlocking that vault.
What I refuse is to let you control the direction of this exchange.
Oh? — when did you start?
@ bernard ross:
Not Roman but a Greek — who regarded Jews as nothing more than escaped Egyptian slaves, who was not privy to any of the events, and who spun his tale from a rumor from somebody else who was no more a contemporary to any of the parties than he. This you find ‘reliable.’ It figures.
But Y’shua DID have an ‘apparent’ father. Of course, you haven’t read the narrative, so you’ve got nothing to go on, do you (only a big mouth, that gets off on dripping slime).
Correction: It sounds like that to YOU. Does not sound that way to simple folk.
Occam’s Razor works for calculating the odds attached to normal events. The nativity of JC was not a normal event. Occam would’ve been lost with this kind of matter.
Oh, yes there is.
Why? — John, or whoever wrote that gospel, will do just fine.
He didn’t ‘reside’ in any ‘book’ at the time he wrote that document and made his declaration as to the veracity of the statements therein. It was put into the book a couple hundred yrs later.
Really? — what is ‘apparent’ about your remark? Can you prove that those ‘characters’ are ‘fictional’? — or that the narrative is a ‘fairy tale’? Still waiting for you to provide that ‘proof.’
One wouldn’t expect them to preach it in synagogues; congregational leadership couldn’t handle it. But that’s not the same thing as saying they hadn’t mentioned their acceptance of the basic gospel narrative.
For years, I used to encounter, from time-to-time articles, tracts, even books — written by rabbis who had come to accept the gospel narrative. Not many, of course — one here, one there. I regarded them as something of a novelty, an aberration — and for the most part, I ignored them.
If you haven’t come across such things, I can’t say I’m surprised. I don’t think you’re very bright; certainly not especially aware or curious about your world. But if I begin seeing such statements online, I’ll draw them to your attention. (There may well be some already online for all I know; it’s nothing to me, one way or the other.)
@ bernard ross:
They do NOT meet with my ‘approval’ when you cut away their context to twist my meaning.
I do not speculate very often. When I do speculate, however, I say so. When you REMOVE that acknowledgment from a remark, in the name of ‘paraphrasing,’ you are disingenuous and you earn my contempt & distrust.
An imbecile like yourself needs my “usual embellishment.” (Look what you do WITHOUT it. . . .)
But you don’t render them to bare bones. You cut out the bones & replace them with your packed slime.
Still waiting for your proof that it’s a ‘fairy tale.’ You have a big mouth; not much to say, however — apart from smears, jeers, slime & grime.
Once again, you don’t know which end is up in this regard. Christianity as constituted does not relate to much of the imagery I use, and in the main (if at all) has not even heard of it. (But don’t bother yourself with minor details like that.)
You can’t understand that I would’ve at first given you the benefit of the doubt?
— Neither can I. You’re so obviously scummy. I should’ve known what a creep like you would mean by “union” — but I let it slip past me because there were other matters that seemed more pressing & immediate to that part of the exchange, and which I didn’t want to be skirted or subordinated.
It was only by your persistent usage of the term ‘union’ — even after I’d noted several times that this was not a carnal relationship — that it dawned on me that you were INDEED implying a sexual encounter when you used the word union.
There would be no need to twist my meaning if you were truly sincere about trying to find it out.
But you DO deliberately twist that meaning, because you are a lowlife with the intentions of twisting my meaning.
So that’s why you consistently try to pin to those “meaningless pictures” your OWN vile, despicable ones — even after being explicitly & repeatedly told and shown otherwise?
YOU ARE, QUITE DEMONSTRABLY, A SLEAZOID LIAR.
@ mrg3105:
In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
And the Earth was unformed and void; and Darkness was upon the face of the Deep; and the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the Waters.
And God said, “Let there be Light”; and there was Light.
And God saw that the Light was Good; and God separated between the Light and the Darkness.
And God called to the Light: “Day”; and to the Darkness He called: “Night”; and there was Evening, and there was Morning — One Day.
And God said, “Let there be a Firmament in the midst of the Waters, and let it separate between the Waters and the Waters.”
”
And God made the Firmament; and it separated between the Waters that were below the Firmament and the Waters that were above the Firmament; and it was so.
And God called to the Firmament: “Heavens”; and there was Evening, and there was Morning — a Second Day.
@ mrg3105:
No he wasn’t wrong….
The Jews are G-d’s Chosen People in their collective relationship with G-d. Accordingly, G-d has said of and to the Jewish people: “… So said HaShem: My first-born Son is Israel.” (Ex. 4:22); and: “… My Legions — My People — the Children of Israel …” (Ex. 7:4); and: “For you are a holy people to HaShem, your God; HaShem, your God, has chosen you to be for Him a treasured people above all peoples that are on the face of the Earth. Not because you are more numerous than all the peoples did HaShem desire you and choose you, for you are the fewest of all the peoples. Rather, because of HaShem’s love for you and because He observes the oath that He swore to your forefathers did He take you out with a strong hand and redeem you from the house of slavery — from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” (Deut. 7:6-8); and: “For you are a holy people to HaShem, your God, and HaShem has chosen you for Himself to be a treasured people from among all the peoples on the face of the Earth.” (Deut. 14:2); and: “And HaShem has distinguished you today to be for Him a treasured people, as He spoke to you, and to observe all His Commandments, and to make you supreme over all the nations that He made, for praise, for renown, and for splendor, and so that you will be a holy people to HaShem, your God, as He spoke.” (Deut. 26:18-19).
The status of being collectively Chosen means that G-d’s Plan for Humanity will be made manifest and will be implemented through the Jewish people — both the righteous ones and the evil ones.
Even youshka, the progenitor of christianity, agreed with the foregoing, as is demonstrated by the following exchange between him and a gentile follower:
However, the status of being collectively Chosen also means that, collectively, the gentile nations will eventually suffer God’s Wrath when they join together to oppress the Jewish nation (see Genesis 12:3; Numbers 24:8-9; Deuteronomy 32:43; Isaiah 59:17-19; Jeremiah 2:3; Ezekiel 38:3 – 39:6; Joel 4:1-2; and Zechariah 14:2-13).
I did post my reply on logic but can’t see it.
I refer to Aristotelian logic and its developments at least in the Ancient world.
As it says
Rebi Yehoshua ben Levi met Eliyahu (the prophet) standing at the entrance of a cave of Rebi Shimon bar Yochai and asked him … “When will Moshiach appear?”
He answered, “Go and ask Moshiach himself.”
“But where can he be found?”
“At the gate of Rome.”
“And by what sign [can I recognize him]?”
“He is among the poor people afflicted with wounds. All the afflicted poor open the bandages of all their wounds, fix them and dress them. He opens one bandage, fixes the wound, and dresses it, and then goes on to the next one, for the reason that when he might be called, there should be no delay [until all the wounds are dressed].”
I went to him, and said, “Peace be upon you, my master and teacher,” and he answered, “Peace be with you, Bar Levi.”
I asked him, “When will the master appear?”
He answered, “Today.”
I then went back to Eliyahu and asked regarding all the Moshiach said, and told him that he said, “Peace be with you, Bar Levi.”
Eliyahu then said, “I can assure you and your father of a share in the World-to-Come.”
“But he made a fool of me,” I told Eliyahu, “because he said that he would come today.”
Eliyahu answered and said, “The expression ‘today’ means the same as it does in this verse, ‘Today, if you will listen to His voice.’ (Tehillim 95:7) (Sanhedrin 98a)
🙂
but Pascal was wrong
there is empirical evidence in the Torah
Its just that Science has looked in the wrong place until 1962 🙂
It takes a while
@Yamit
The promise to give eretz C’naan to Am Yisrael can be read two ways. Xtians being Greek literalists read it as a name of a physical region.
However, C’naan means to be humble, so the promise is that Am Yisrael will inherit the land of the humble. C’naan is mentioned 36 times in TaNa’Kh.
Humility was one of the traits of Moshe rabbeinu, who was also called Eved HaShem.
You will note that the individual C’naan was cursed to be a slave to Yaphet and Shem, his uncles.
It is no accident that Yaakov is known to have learned with Shem and Ever, and the extreme humility he displayed in serving Lot, his uncle 🙂
Mitzrayim was a cousin to Amori, and therefore the original Pharoh was an ‘uncle’ (twice removed?!) to Terakh, Avraham’s father.
Mitzrayim for Am Yisrael was therefore a necessary humbling expereince magnified. Mitzrim were our ‘uncles’ in a sense.
Anything that doesn’t kill you, makes you better, though we came close to that during etziyat Mitzrayim
During the current galut Am Yisrael has served many other nations, including as slaves, and we have come out of this better for it also, though the ‘midbar’ expereince (think national post-traumatic event debrief) is still incomplete
But, just as in the original midbar, we are our own worst enemies…
dweller Said:
Louis the 14th asked pascal to prove the existence of G-d.
Pascal answered “The Jews sire The Jews”
We are the living proof of G-d’s existence and we are back on our homeland at least for now part of it. It appears G-d has kept his promises to the Jewish people and there are still millions of Jews loyal to his covenant.
I submit empirical evidence as proof. You try to do the same!!! 🙂
Appears you have learned nothing but nice to know you reject in total Jewish scripture and Jewish exegesis. Jews don’t know how to read and comprehend their own scripture and we should depend on you goyim to tell us what we don’t understand and comprehend.
Besides being silly and absurd you are really a stupid sicko.
So you refuse to answer my questions??/ Thought not!!!
I will continue dissecting you later. 😛