Moving on the next point:
"Things have taken a very ugly turn here, and I'm not going to pursue that question any farther.
You asked it, and you can pursue it if you like." Proteus
"I completely agree with everything that Sophie said." Hebrew wander
Let's take a look at the next point:
"Why is it that when someone shows the actual vitriol and utter disgusting things that the Gospels relate as having been spewed from Jesus do some suddenly say that "things have taken an ugly turn here"?
The truth is that Jesus was NOT a prophet, had no authority to speak as one, and was far more disgusting in his tone, language and verbiage than even that used by LEGITIMATE and REAL prophets (included the greatest of all Prophets, Moses). To spew the kind of bile that Jesus allegedly did (or is attributed to him) is in direct violation of the Torah that xians love to blather that he came to "fulfill". And if he did actually exist, according to Jewish Law, his vile insults and accusations carry with them the death penalty; not because the Jewish leaders and/or nation is beyond reproach. It is rather because such unbridled slander and unmitigated and unsubstantiated lashon hara is akin to murder and murder was a crime punishable by death. " Arikm7.messiahtruth
Or maybe because claiming the New Testament is guilty of hateful vitriol is ludicrous when you read the New Testament in context. I fail to see any difference between what Jesus said and what Moses and the Prophets said. Just saying.
ProfBenTziyyon then said:
"It’s called Ostrichianism, Arik."
"Professor:
Apparently, so. And the sand of those holes must be very deep!
I also think it belies a certain intellectual dishonesty on their part. They not only just want us to just willingly and without any reservation, accept as fact the unsubstantiated and unproven assertion of Jesus' existence, but also (and far more fantastic) that he was on par with those holy personalties of the Hebrew Scriptures. If we protest, then we're the ones guilty of turning things "ugly".
I find it utterly hypocritical, deceptive and self-serving. I, for one, would be very interested in further comments from the moderators as to the injunctions of the Torah concerning this issue and concerning how utterly out of scope and out of line with Torah and G-d the entire NT truly is (as it would relate to polemics or personalities). In short, for every bombastically made claim as to Jesus being this or Jesus being that, there are at least four passages from the Torah alone which not only refutes the silly claim, but also reveals the persona of Jesus being in direct opposition to the self-same Torah."
Jesus' existence is testified not only in the New Testament as historical documents (Which is where most seek their information about Jesus).
Josephus is one example, Jesus is referenced briefly in one of Josephus' own letters, though some have dismissed his letter as a forgery. However, only part of Josephus' words regarding Jesus are not authentic, which is what people who try to deny Jesus is mentioned in Josephus fail to mention when they propound their belief.
If you take out the interpolations, you are left with the following:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Notice the reference to Jesus being the Christ or Messiah and also the reference to his resurrection are omitted, since they were a later addition to the words of Josephus, rather than his words. Even without the admissions, you still have an acknowledgement of his existence. Josephus, regardless of his reputation among Jews, good or bad, should not be dismissed as an invalid source of information.
Nakdimon has done an excellent series of videos responding to Gomerozdubar on what historical document aside from the New Testament mentions the crucifixion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uKFFI7Sctg&list=PLCE63E5B6421B2A6B
Finally:
"I have been participating here for ... since 2005.
In all that time, there is a particular tactic that I've called the sukah punch, that one and only one Moderator uses.
It consists of accusing the Christian of exactly that misconduct in which the accuser is about to engage.
In the present instance, this person accused me of deflection, which I had not done; and then deflected.
Do any of the prophets ever criticize a judge or leader? That was the question." Proteus.
"For J. to have condemned "all Jews," he would necessarily have to have condemned also himself and all his disciples; as during his life, he had no goyishe disciples." Proteus.
To which Sophiee1 said the following:
"The question is not whether any prophet criticized a fellow Jew -- that is not only deflection it is a typical missionary ploy of changing the topic and redirecting the conversation. I already addressed this red herring in my earlier post -- it is one thing to criticize a fellow Jew to bring them to observance (it is one of the 613 mitzvot -- Vayikra / Leviticus 19:17!) and quite another to condemn all Jews -- for all times -- for no reason and without hope of redemption other than worshiping the man who condemned them!
The original question had to do with CURSING a leader. My comments have already been made, along with biblical quotes and quotes from the Christian bible supporting my perspective. In return there has been bluster and protestations -- and that is all.
Was Jesus a Jew? Heck, we don't even know if Jesus existed! Whoever wrote the Christian bible and "put words in Jesus' mouth" and the mouths of his followers are rabidly anti-Jewish. Plenty of Jews have separated themselves from their fellow Jews and Judaism -- consider the golden calf incident or those Jews who worshiped Ba'al. Pablo Chrstiani who debated with the famous Ramban was a former Jew who converted to Christianity. . . so to use the excuse that Jesus was a Jew so could not be anti-Jewish fails at the start. One only need read the Christian bible to see that it reeks with anti-Jewish fervor."
It's absurd to claim we don't know Jesus existed, because when we take the New Testament as historical documents, it mentions Jesus himself and that is the source that most people use when they want to know who he is.
I have already pointed out in other papers that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were not anti-Jewish so I need not go over that again.
Where did Jesus condemn all Jews? The ones who submitted to him and repented to God. While Jesus pointed to himself, he ultimately point others back to God and to worship him.
A Jew who accepts Jesus doesn't cease being a Jew, especially when you consider Paul's words in Galatians 3:28:
"23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.".
When read in context, it is referring to our equal status before God. Not only are men and women equally sinners under God's wrath, they have equal standing in Christ when they are adopted into the family of God. Also to point of fact it is talking about there being one in Christ and there is no difference as to OUR SALVATION.
This also applies to Jews and Gentiles, both purified from paganism and wickedness and now are no longer separated, but are one new people in Christ.
I'd argue that reading the New Testament in context doesn't cause one to conclude it is anti-Jewish, nothing of the kind is found in the words of Jesus or the apostles as already addressed in the articles I wrote responding to Uri Yosef (and another article of his was posted by Sophiee which if the Lord Wills I'll respond to that one too.)
Now one final comment for this article and for the next one, I'll look at Arikm7.messiahtruth's comment another time.
"Certainly they did, when the criticism was appropriate and deserved. That was a prophets’ function, but Yoshke’s criticisms were neither “appropriate” nor “deserved”. Moreover, Yoshke was not a prophet and there is no record of him ever presenting proof that he was (as happened in M'lachim Alĕf 13:3, for example). Anyone can claim “I am a prophet from God”, which is why every genuine prophet has to prove that he is what he claims (this is implied by D'varim18:21-22)."
Jesus proved his claims and one simple event aside from the miracles he did in God's name backs his claims to the helm, namely the resurrection. Why? Because if Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has God's stamp of approval and thus must be accepted.
Before you cry foul and claim Deuteronomy 13 refutes my point, I have already written on the subject in previous papers:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html
See also an earlier paper on Anointed Ones and Strange Gods as well: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html
Jesus' criticisms thus by this criteria were perfectly appropriate and deserved, just not in the way they have been interpreted by the forum.
Answering Judaism.
More updates if the Lord Wills may be added.
No comments:
Post a Comment