Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why not be happy they believe in God?
#11
(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: and Jesus tells his followers to kill those who would not accept him as their leader.

Eh, not true. You can't show one Apostle 1. Doing such a thing 2. Promoting such an act. In fact, Jesus healed the ear of a Roman soldier that was cut off by the sword of Apostle Peter.

(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: Since the NT seems to indicate Jesus was always at odds with Torah-true Judaism (the Pharisees), and keeping in mind the fourth gospel’s anti-Semitic rhetoric, Christianity’s and Islam’s main texts have something in common.

Not true.

(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: This could explain the Church’s (which I understand to include Catholics and all who espouse elements of their doctrines) early persecution of Jews, as many probably took John as implicit permission to massacre Jews and other “infidels” (like the Crusaders did).

No, it doesn't explain much of anything since everything up until now is your opinion. Not the New Testament.

(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: seeing as Muhammad’s attempts to convert Jews was about as successful as Matthew’s.

And you're the standard for measuring success? Because the minority go to Heaven, not the majority. Narrow is the way....and few there be that find it. That is what Christ said.
#12
(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: While G-D does say “let us make man,” does this prove a trinity? It seems even some Trinitarians think not, because the NIV Study Bible, commenting on this verse, says that “God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 322; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also I Ki 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).”

It proves plurality and not singularity. The NIV removes entire verses of the NT, they're not an authority, and as you can see they completely skirt around the word "us".

(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: Further, as I said, whenever G-D speaks or acts, the adjective is always in the singular, never in the plural. 1:26 begins "And G-D said" (וַיֹּאמֶר), and verse 27 says, “So G-D created (וַיִּבְרָא) man in His own image, in the image of G-D He created (בָּרָא) him; male and female He created (בָּרָא) them.”
All verbs are in the singular.

Yes, because that is God speaking. But it says " let us" in Genesis.

(05-24-2013, 01:16 PM)benyosef Wrote: Proverbs 8:23-36 does not indicate the subject is a plurality, for none of the plural verbs refer to the subject. Do I think this speaks of Wisdom? Why not? It says that Wisdom is the one speaking. Yet Christians—I assume you, too—would say this speaks of the Messiah. Verse 30 says that Wisdom “always rejoices before G-D,” and it uses the feminine form of the word “rejoices” (מְשַׂחֶקֶת). Unless the Messiah is supposed to be a woman, who is this speaking about?

Why not? Because wisdom is understanding and knowledge. It can't rejoice, like a person. You cannot sin against wisdom, wisdom cannot be described as "me" either.
#13
To those of you who believe in the Trinity,
Here's a question.

In (Numbers 15:32-36), we learn that a man is put to death, under God's orders, because he was breaking the Sabbath by gathering woods.

In (Luke 6:1-2), we learn that Jesus or his disciples were breaking the Sabbath as well.

Is God/Jesus a hypocrite? It's okay for him to have someone killed for breaking the Sabbath, but when he/his son does it, that's all right?

PS: I'm not even going to get into genealogy issues as well as the numerous other issues that prevent the trinity from even nearly being true.
#14
(05-30-2013, 11:44 AM)dantech Wrote: To those of you who believe in the Trinity,
Here's a question.

In (Numbers 15:32-36), we learn that a man is put to death, under God's orders, because he was breaking the Sabbath by gathering woods.

In (Luke 6:1-2), we learn that Jesus or his disciples were breaking the Sabbath as well.

Is God/Jesus a hypocrite? It's okay for him to have someone killed for breaking the Sabbath, but when he/his son does it, that's all right?

PS: I'm not even going to get into genealogy issues as well as the numerous other issues that prevent the trinity from even nearly being true.

Matthew 12:3-8.
#15
Tzuar1 Wrote:Eh, not true. You can't show one Apostle 1. Doing such a thing 2. Promoting such an act.

I don’t know if anyone listened, but he told his followers to do exactly that (Lk 19:27).

Which part is not true? The part about Jesus being at odds with the Pharisees (Mt ch. 12, 15, 16, 19, Mk 2)? Or maybe you object to my claim of NT being anti-Semitic? If that, then I would direct you to the places where Jesus warns of the Pharisees (Mt 16:6, 11-12, Mk 8:15), calls them “hypocrites” (about a half-dozen times in Mt 23:13-29), “vipers” (Mt 3:7), sons of the devil (Jn 8:44), and where Paul calls them “deceivers” (Ti 1:10-14). I’m not saying the NT and Quran are the same, but there are commonalities: both regard Jesus as a positive figure, both assume the laws of the Torah are no longer binding, both claim their adherents have inherited the promises made exclusively to the Jews, and both are against the Jews.

Tzuar1 Wrote:And you're the standard for measuring success?

Matthew didn’t have much success because he made the fatal mistake of misquoting verses when speaking to people who were familiar with the texts. Muhammad wasn’t successful either, which is why he turned violently anti-Semitic.

Tzuar1 Wrote:It proves plurality and not singularity. The NIV removes entire verses of the NT, they're not an authority…

I do not put any stock in NIV commentary; I was simply showing that even among Trinitarians, Gen 1:26 does not conclusively point to a plurality.
G-D is using the royal “we.” Similarly in Isaiah 6, when G-D announces, “Who shall I send? Who shall go for us?” He means “who shall I send as an emissary of the Heavenly Court?” But when we see G-D speaking, it is always the singular form of the word (וַיֹּאמֶר ), never the plural (וַיֹּאמְרוּ). So, too, when G-D commands (צִוָּה), creates (בָּרָא), sees (וַיַּרְא), et al, it is always a singular verb, never a pluralized verb.

Tzuar1 Wrote:Why not? Because wisdom is understanding and knowledge. It can't rejoice, like a person. You cannot sin against wisdom, wisdom cannot be described as "me" either.

In a book named “Proverbs,” Wisdom can be said to cry (v. 1), stand (2), speak (4), instruct (10), dwell (12), love (17), and rejoice (30).
To reiterate, verse 30 says that Wisdom “rejoices before G-D,” and the form of “rejoices” used is the feminine (מְשַׂחֶקֶת), showing that the subject, Wisdom, is feminine. This makes sense because most nouns that end with the letter ה (such as wisdom - חָכְמָה) are feminine nouns. Who else could this be talking about if not Wisdom?
#16
(06-11-2013, 05:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: I don’t know if anyone listened, but he told his followers to do exactly that (Lk 19:27).

That is the most misconstrued quote used by Judaism to date! That is part of a parable that begins in Luke 19:11!! Killing enemies is not what Christ said should take place by his Apostle like they were some type of mercenary!

Christ gave this parable because they thought that the Kingdom of Elohim was going to be immediately revealed! Luke 19:11.

The whole reason Christ did not complete all of the Messianic prophecy is exactly because Israel at the time rejected and crucified Christ! This is exactly what takes place in Isaiah 50:6 and Isaiah 53!

(06-11-2013, 05:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: Which part is not true? The part about Jesus being at odds with the Pharisees (Mt ch. 12, 15, 16, 19, Mk 2)? Or maybe you object to my claim of NT being anti-Semitic? If that, then I would direct you to the places where Jesus warns of the Pharisees (Mt 16:6, 11-12, Mk 8:15), calls them “hypocrites” (about a half-dozen times in Mt 23:13-29), “vipers” (Mt 3:7), sons of the devil (Jn 8:44), and where Paul calls them “deceivers” (Ti 1:10-14).

Of course Christ is at odds with the Pharisees they were corrupt. It is the anti-Semitic claim. Anti-Semitic is racist hatred because you're of Shem irregardless of belief systems. This simply is not the case. You're trying to equivocate Semites with Pharisees. Problem, there are atheist Semites and hindu Semites etc. And every Israelite or individual in the area was not a Pharisee, and every Israelite nor individual was not a Sadducee. So being anti-Pharisee does not = anti-Semite. Christ and Apostle Paul said those were corrupt sects of religious Israel. We're not talking about atheist Israel. But out of those who believe in Elohim, they became corrupt.
#17
(06-11-2013, 05:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: Matthew didn’t have much success because he made the fatal mistake of misquoting verses when speaking to people who were familiar with the texts. Muhammad wasn’t successful either, which is why he turned violently anti-Semitic.

Well then you certainly are no standard for measuring success. Christ said straight is the path and narrow is the way and few there are that find it. Success is not in the majority. After all, Elohim saved Noah and his family only. To many, that is not success.

(06-11-2013, 05:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: I do not put any stock in NIV commentary; I was simply showing that even among Trinitarians, Gen 1:26 does not conclusively point to a plurality.

You put enough stock in the NIV to quote them. And "us" is plural irregardless of what people say. Us is never singular and doesn't mean "I" or "me" or "You". The NIV can't redefine a word through commentary.

(06-11-2013, 05:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: G-D is using the royal “we.” Similarly in Isaiah 6, when G-D announces, “Who shall I send? Who shall go for us?” He means “who shall I send as an emissary of the Heavenly Court?” But when we see G-D speaking, it is always the singular form of the word (וַיֹּאמֶר ), never the plural (וַיֹּאמְרוּ). So, too, when G-D commands (צִוָּה), creates (בָּרָא), sees (וַיַּרְא), et al, it is always a singular verb, never a pluralized verb.

You just typed a sentence that doesn't exist. Further, Christ could be apart of that royal court along with the Angels. Christ claimed to see Satan get cast down from Heaven.


(06-11-2013, 05:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: In a book named “Proverbs,” Wisdom can be said to cry (v. 1), stand (2), speak (4), instruct (10), dwell (12), love (17), and rejoice (30).
To reiterate, verse 30 says that Wisdom “rejoices before G-D,” and the form of “rejoices” used is the feminine (מְשַׂחֶקֶת), showing that the subject, Wisdom, is feminine. This makes sense because most nouns that end with the letter ה (such as wisdom - חָכְמָה) are feminine nouns. Who else could this be talking about if not Wisdom?

So now you invented your own trinity. A female named wisdom with "God". See you're not so different then Christians after all.
#18
(06-15-2013, 08:59 PM)Tzuar1 Wrote: Well then you certainly are no standard for measuring success. Christ said straight is the path and narrow is the way and few there are that find it. Success is not in the majority. After all, Elohim saved Noah and his family only. To many, that is not success.
Actually, Yeshua said nothing new here. He was reiterating what is in the Tanakh, Isa 26:7, Prov 1:28.

(06-15-2013, 08:59 PM)Tzuar1 Wrote: You put enough stock in the NIV to quote them. And "us" is plural irregardless of what people say. Us is never singular and doesn't mean "I" or "me" or "You". The NIV can't redefine a word through commentary.
Which english version of the Christian bible would you prefer to be quoted? I could quote the Hebrew - would that help you? Gen 1:26 is clear that a singlar G-d speaks, then talks to others.

Through wisdom was everthing made, Prov 3:19. We also know that the angels are endowed with wisdom, 2 Sam 14:20. Also, we know that the creative forces act as Hashem's angels, Psalm 104:4.

So, when Hashem speaks, all His created laws of nature/angels act on His behalf. Isa 55:11 says when Hashem speaks everthing is accomplished according to His will.

Gen 1:27 clarifies all issues as a singular G-d again creates man and woman in His image. If you believe that G-d refers to a plurality, then you must accept that there is a feminine partner too since His image must represent male and female according to you thinking. Is this what you believe?

(06-15-2013, 08:59 PM)Tzuar1 Wrote: You just typed a sentence that doesn't exist. Further, Christ could be apart of that royal court along with the Angels. Christ claimed to see Satan get cast down from Heaven.
I think you just quoted a verse that doesn't exist either? Where does the Tanakh say messiah is part of the Heavenly Court?

(06-15-2013, 08:59 PM)Tzuar1 Wrote: So now you invented your own trinity. A female named wisdom with "God". See you're not so different then Christians after all.
Where did you get that wisdom is part of the trinity? I didn't see that at all in the prior explanation.
#19
(06-17-2013, 06:51 PM)Nachshon Wrote: I think you just quoted a verse that doesn't exist either? Where does the Tanakh say messiah is part of the Heavenly Court?

It doesn't, you don't understand what I was typing to Benyosef giving him the benefit of the doubt.

(06-15-2013, 08:59 PM)Tzuar1 Wrote: Where did you get that wisdom is part of the trinity? I didn't see that at all in the prior explanation.

I never said that, you don't understand what I'm saying to Benyosef.
#20
MessianicJew Wrote:That is the most misconstrued quote used by Judaism to date! That is part of a parable that begins in Luke 19:11…

Verse 26 shows J breaking from the parable to speak for himself again. I did not alter the context.
Indeed, J also thought the kingdom was at hand (Mt 16:28, Mk 9:1, Lk 9:27), but was proven wrong when that entire generation died without J’s second coming.
Speaking of taking verses from context: Isa 50:6 is Isaiah saying how G-D will help him despite opposition to his prophetic speeches, not a reference to the Messiah. Nowhere is there a clear mention of the Messiah being rejected, nor do the prophets ever warn against rejecting the Messiah when he arrives. I’d say the reason Jesus did not complete all Messianic prophecies is the same reason Shabbetai Tzvi, Krishna, Bar Kochba, and General Patton did not complete the prophecies: none of them are the Messiah the Jewish prophets promised.

MessianicJew Wrote:It is the anti-Semitic claim. Anti-Semitic is racist hatred because you're of Shem irregardless of belief systems…

Although the word “Semite” could technically refer to many races who have descended from Shem, the term “anti-Semitic” has come to mean exclusively anti-Jewish rhetoric (m-w.com). With this in mind, the gospels could be said to be anti-Semitic.

Tzuar1 Wrote:You just typed a sentence that doesn't exist. Further, Christ could be apart of that royal court along with the Angels.

Which sentence doesn’t exist?
If there actually is a plurality, then there is an inconsistency in verse terminology. Take Deut 4:10 for example:
“...the L-RD said unto me, Gather Me the people together, and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days...”
If there was a plurality, this should read “Gather for us the people together, and we will make them hear our words, that they may learn to fear us…”
Throughout Tanach G-D speaks, acts, and commands in the singular, and emphasizes that He is alone in His Oneness (Deut 4:35, Isa 44:24, Neh 9:6).
According to you, if you wish to say that “us” indicates plurality, and you wish to offer that J was among the heavenly host, then why does Christianity stop at three? Surely there are many hundreds of thousands up there; you guys should have as many gods as the pagans.

Tzuar1 Wrote:So now you invented your own trinity. A female named wisdom with "God". See you're not so different then Christians after all.

Jews do not think this Wisdom is a power unto herself or part of a pagan godhead. This is a chapter extolling the virtues of pursuing wisdom, not worshipping another god. Jews do understand this as a reference also to the Torah, which is full of wisdom, but that does not depart from the simple explanation of wisdom in general. Where do you see this as speaking about another god?


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)