Is Jesus same MashiH?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #61

Post by micatala »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
israelite12 wrote: a jew.. or do you mean convert.. the real jews are the so called "black american")
Ludicrous.
:warning: Moderator Warning


This is an uncivil one-line response and contributes nothing to the debate. I note you have been cited for similar posts in the past. Please refrain from this behavior.




Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: You are the Father

Post #62

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

Very well: the statement
  • israelite12 wrote: a jew.. or do you mean convert.. the real jews are the so called "black american".
is willfully and irresponsibly ignorant and maliciously bigoted. It's patent absurdity is readily apparent here and here.

At the same time, the racist distiction between "real jews" and "converts" demonstrates a pathetic disrespect for Jewish history and halacha. As Rabbi Michael Knopf writes ...
  • When a convert becomes Jewish, it is irrevocable. The Talmud, Maimonides, Jacob ben Asher, and Joseph Caro (to name but a few) all agree that conversion means a complete shedding of non-Jew status; a Jew by Choice is as fully Jewish as any Jew by Birth.

    In fact, the Torah obligates the Jewish people not to oppress those who bind themselves to them. Using the same Hebrew word, "ger", that is traditionally used to refer to Jews by Choice, Exodus instructs, “You shall not wrong a 'ger' or oppress him.� And again in Leviticus we read, “When a 'ger' resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The 'ger' who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself.�

    The medieval French commentator Rashi teaches that these verses forbid the Jewish people from questioning the validity of Jews by Choice, for this hurts them, and a God of love and justice demands they be afforded the dignity we would expect for ourselves.

    One who questions the integrity of a Jew by Choice, no matter what they may claim, is not speaking in the name of the Jewish tradition, and is certainly not speaking in the name of God. As the Midrash teaches, “When a person wants to become part of the Jewish people, we must receive him or her with open hands so as to bring that person under the wings of the Divine Presence� (Leviticus Rabbah 2:9). [source]
The term 'ludicrous' is, indeed, far too kind a designation for this drivel.

User avatar
Jester
Prodigy
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Post #63

Post by Jester »

:warning: Moderator Final Warning
Jayhawker Soule wrote:...willfully and irresponsibly ignorant and maliciously bigoted. It's patent absurdity is readily apparent
Jayhawker Soule wrote:The term 'ludicrous' is, indeed, far too kind a designation for this drivel.
You are free to any opinion you wish. You are not free to express it uncivilly or to publicly flaunt a moderator warning.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Re: You are the Father

Post #64

Post by Shermana »

israelite12 wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
israelite12 wrote:No one in this forum has given any evidence that the Messiah and Ahayah are the same people:

If you deny the son you are the anti-Christ WINK WINK

John 17:1
These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER, the hour is come; glorify thy SON, that THY SON also may glorify thee


Romans 1;7
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was MADE of the SEED of David ACCORDING to the FLESH;


its that simple.. BUT none of you can do it.. because you don't read and expect your pastor or parents to spoon feed you.

Ephesians 3
Whereby, when ye READ, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

READING IT FUNDAMENTAL .. LETS TRY IT FOR A CHANGE
It's been observed before, but is apparently worth repeating; quoting the New Testament to a Jew is like quoting the Bhagavad-Gita to a Muslim. It's not our book, and we don't CARE what's in it. Capisce?


a jew.. or do you mean convert.. the real jews are the so called "black american"

Deutoronomy 28:15 (Old Testement)

Plus he who denies the son denies the father..

Jews of today are Khazar converts.. The twelve tribes of israel are lost sheep until the messiah returns. What other people do you know that are lost?

Lets be truthful to ourselves because thall shall not lie.
Please prove decisively with evidence and genetic proof that defies the current genetic studies that we Ashkenazim are of mostly Khazar descent, or retract your claim. Thank you. I agree that the Jews should accept that Yashua was Moshiach and have devised many fallacies and misinterpretations to avoid this, perhaps even changing the word "Virgin" to "Young Woman" in the Masoretic as an example of the extreme reactions against the Christian movement, but the claim that we are of Turkic Khazar lineage, feel free to demonstrate the truth of it in the face of the evidence against it which overwhelmingly links us with Sephardim and Mizrahim and that we carry similar gene markers, or retract.

Surely you must understand, that the idea that we are not "Israelites" and that some other people is taking this claim that we have held for millenia is an affront, so such claims demand validation. If you'd like a breakdown on what exactly what was going on in the Khazar kingdom, I'll be happy to link you to some info on the subject, barely any of the Khazars ever converted, only the Ruling Elite. It's a common myth, generally perpeutated by Anti-Zionists, that Jews are not Jews. SOME ethnicities of Jews may have interbred or are of mostly if not total convert, unrelated origins, such as perhaps with the Falashim of Ethiopia (as opposed to the Lemba of Africa who may in fact be related directly with Sephardim and Ashkenazis), but the scientific genetic results are squarely against the idea that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars and unrealted to Middle Eastern Jews.

With that said, what Cnorman says about the New Testament (at least the Gospels and Epistles of James and John) I disagree with. the comparison of the Bhagavad Gita to a Muslim is not an accurate one, it would be more like giving a Buddhist scripture to a Hindu, in which Buddhists originally came from Hinduism. Paul's epistles on the other hand...

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #65

Post by Shermana »

bluethread wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
bluethread wrote:

It is true that jews established the sect that would be called "christian".
This is true only if you equate the Jerusalem sect with the Pauline mission which, in my opinion, would be inordinately naive.
Well the leaders of the Jerusalem sect appear to have approved of the mission of Paul, if you accept the accounts of Luke and Peter.
Many scholars believe that Acts 15 has no historicity, may have been a later interpolation, and clashes directly with the account in Galatians 2. It also clashes with the account in Acts itself in Chapter 28 where Paul denies teaching against Mosaic Law. Ebionite tradition held that Paul pushed James down a flight of stairs. F.C. Baur and many others agree that "Simon Magus" in the so-called "Pseudo-Clementine literature" is a code word for Paul and matches his account very closely.

As for the "Accounts of Peter", virtually no one outside of Evangelicals believes that Peter wrote the Petrine epistles. Not even the earliest churches unanimously accepted them.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #66

Post by Shermana »

The Temple is still a concern for some Orthodox and otherwise old-school Jews, but most modern Jews have little interest in the building of a third Temple and the reintroduction of the Temple hereditary priesthood and of sacrifices. We have long since moved beyond the need for such things;
Man gets to define the "need" for such things? Does man also get to decide that the prophecies of Ezekiel and Zechariah that describe a clearly later time in the future where Sacrifices are offered as purely metaphorical?
the Torah is our "portable Temple,"
Was the Torah a "Portable Temple" at the time of the Temples? What does that even mean? The extremely complicated Temple structure and ritual methods are now reduced to reading the Law which they did back in the day of Temple as well?
and we are taught by learned laymen, or "rabbis," and not by hereditary priests. Judaism is today characterized by study and learning, and not by ritual;


Not by ritual? I'd say giving away my Chametz and not eating bread all last week was definitely part of a ritual. Not to mention fasting on Yom Kippur. Obeying Sabbath is a ritual. It seems if anything many modern "Rabbinicists" are very Cherry picky on which rituals they want to believe are everlasting and which ones can be adapted and reformed into something else, especially at the expense of what the prophets say.

indeed the "ritual" of today consists largely of reading from the Torah,


I don't see how reading the Law is in any way a Law-defined "ritual", and has no real application to the word "Ritual". If one regularly reads a Torah portion on a certain day, that may be their individual "ritual" but it is nowhere ordained for certain parts to be read on certain days.
and indeed reading aloud the passages about the actual rituals of the past.


So again, why do we still perform certain scripturally-mandated rituals like Passover but not others?
We have had no need to go farther for two thousand years.
Please expound on this whole "need" thing, and who gets to define what the "need" was.
As my own rabbi once put it, "Who wants a holy slaughterhouse in the middle of downtown Jerusalem?"
Apparently G-d did for a thousand years or so. Why the destruction of the 2nd temple is any different than the destruction of the 1st is yet to be explained, especially in light of the passages that clearly define a later time where the Temple is standing again and Bulls are being offered and Egyptians are going up to Israel for Succoth.
Further, a much more practical problem involved in building a third Temple is the necessary and unavoidable demolition of two (2) Muslim sacred sites, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which now occupy the site of the ancient Temple
.

They have no problem obliterating and desecrating and taking over Jewish holy sites, apparently they get a free card to do so, for some reason.
Whatever ritual daydreams some Jews might have regarding a third Temple aren't worth fulfilling at the cost of precipitating worldwide outrage on the part of even moderate Muslims and the immense bloodshed of the no doubt catastrophic war which would ensue.
Was it worth fighting against the Selucid Greeks to get back the second one? Do you think worldwide outrage means anything to G-d?
Very many modern Jews regard the idea of a third Temple as more than a little silly;


I suppose they also think the passages that describe a Temple standing in the day that the Egyptians go to celebrate Succoth as silly too.
and the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is simply out of court,


As for being a Trinitarian Lawless Christian as most Christianity is represented by, I certainly agree. As for Yashua as the prophecied Moshiach in the original concept, not at all, it's completely in court and makes complete sense, despite what the Talmudists may have said. Apparently it's not out of court to be a Reform or Reconstructionist Jew and eat ham, that's no problem. You can eat all the bacon you want and not be "out of court", you can avoid the Holy Days, you can break virtually all the commandments, but if you believe Jesus was Moshiach, all hell breaks loose. Many of the Messianic interpretations are not very clear, they could be talking about a 2000 year process. The ingathering of the Jews has begun, as prophecied. Was Akiva, "Father of the Talmud", out of court for picking Bar Kokhba as the Moshiach?
for reasons which have been posted here many times.


I don't think there's been a good discussion of why Jesus was or wasn't fitting of the Moshiach requirements on this board for a long while.
We haven't thought that worth debating for a couple of millennia, either.
Probably due to the bad misrepresentations and misinterpretations on both sides of the argument and a lack of a solid means to debate the exacts in an honest setting over the years.

User avatar
Yusef
Banned
Banned
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:39 pm
Location: His Earth
Contact:

Post #67

Post by Yusef »

[Replying to post 3 by cnorman18]

:? I'm so amazed that this post as my first post was just hypocritical and as introducing myself with this forum, and during my foolishness period;
This post has had 7 pages replies!!
But my new posts that are within my fewer foolishness, and toward scientific! those don't have any answer!!!

Well,
First of all Excuse me Mr. cnorman18!! So much!! For my high level of foolishness that beyond searching topics, I created a repeat post

Second, I have a question in continue of this post;
Yes, the member cnorman18 mentioned that Prophet Jesus[pbuh] claimed is god and in Islam it's a blasphemy..
Well,
I ask you Who brought the trinity!?
And when/since trinity is created!?? :?
I assume your beliefs are the better! Well, be soldier of God and convert me. By your own reasonings also tell me my wrong beliefs and why..>> :study:

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 7547
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #68

Post by 1213 »

Yusef wrote: ...Yes, the member cnorman18 mentioned that Prophet Jesus[pbuh] claimed is god ...
It is interesting thing that we have the Bible and still people claim that Jesus is the God. Jesus himself says:


This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

John 17:3

..the Father is greater than I.

John 14:28

I understand that Jews and Muslims would reject what Jesus tells and could repeat all lies against Jesus, but why “Christians� do that and so alienate Jews from their King?

Post Reply