168 replies to this topic

[WoIverine]

This again, really? You do realize that none of this detracts from His message, so what really is the point?

[Ben Masada]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 14 January 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

First of all, Christianity spawned from Judaism. Therefore it's Abrahamic.

Second, It claims in Acts that Antioch was the place where they were first called 'Christians' where as before they were known as 'Disciples of Christ.' He in no way started Christianity, since it should be obvious it was started by Jesus Christ himself. However there are a lot of things that should be obvious in this world, now shouldn't there?...

Aquila, sorry but you are not thinking straight here. You say that it was in Antioch the place where Christians were first called Christians. It means that they were called "Disciples of Christ" before. Read the text again. After Paul spent a whole year there, they started being called Christians. So, Paul was the one who started Christianity. The disciples of Jesus were called Nazarenes after his being from Nazareth. Thank you for condirming my views.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Hasina, on 14 January 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

That's why I've become agnostic, nothing can be proven so who cares? Just enjoy life.

It's good to be an agnostic. Agnostics are open minded people. You are right indeed: Nothing can be proved.

[Hasina]

Ben Masada, on 14 January 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

It's good to be an agnostic. Agnostics are open minded people. You are right indeed: Nothing can be proved.

Do you consider yourself close minded then? This is just a curious question, when I identified as an atheist, I didn't feel close minded even though I held a firm stance on the 'no God, yes God' issue (that description makes it sound dirty), because even as an atheist I could still think 'well, if it worked that way'.

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 14 January 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

What is your understanding of Jesus "fulfilling" the Law, what does it mean for him to fulfil it?

I ask because it seems you have a grave misconception about it.

~ Regards, PA

No PA, it is not in the sense of Replacement Theology. That's what all Christians have in mind. That if Jesus came to fulfill and now it has been abolished according to Paul in Ephesus 2:15. It is in the sense of confirming the whole Law. BTW, if you read the next two verses 18 and 19 of Mat. 5:17, you will have the answer you need.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

WoIverine, on 14 January 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

This again, really? You do realize that none of this detracts from His message, so what really is the point?

The point is to present the truth of who Jesus really was: A Jew whose Faith was Judaism. That's all.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Hasina, on 14 January 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

Do you consider yourself close minded then? This is just a curious question, when I identified as an atheist, I didn't feel close minded even though I held a firm stance on the 'no God, yes God' issue (that description makes it sound dirty), because even as an atheist I could still think 'well, if it worked that way'.

No, I am an open minded person. I am a theist but open to the probabilities of options that can make more sense. Atheists are close minded people to the probability that God could exist. Theists who believe by faith are close minded to the probability of any other
option.

Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 14 January 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

No PA, it is not in the sense of Replacement Theology. That's what all Christians have in mind. That if Jesus came to fulfill and now it has been abolished according to Paul in Ephesus 2:15. It is in the sense of confirming the whole Law. BTW, if you read the next two verses 18 and 19 of Mat. 5:17, you will have the answer you need.

Ben

I asked you what you thought it meant. I didn't ask you for what you thought Christians thought it meant. I don't think Jesus came to abolish the Law, so since you brought that up as what we believe I can only assume your knowledge of Christianity is limited. I don't think it's simply "confirming" the Law such as you believe. So while I agree that verses 18-19 are important to understand what Jesus meant here it is far more relevant to d the answer in verses 21-48. Good luck  

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android, 15 January 2013 - 02:36 AM.

[notoverrated]

Jesus was a playa!

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 15 January 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

I asked you what you thought it meant. I didn't ask you for what you thought Christians thought it meant. I don't think Jesus came to abolish the Law, so since you brought that up as what we believe I can only assume your knowledge of Christianity is limited. I don't think it's simply "confirming" the Law such as you believe. So while I agree that verses 18-19 are important to understand what Jesus meant here it is far more relevant to d the answer in verses 21-48. Good luck  

~ Regards,

Thank you PA for having confirmed my point. What Jesus meant to convey in verses 21-48 of Matthew 5, I understand as what we call
"Fences around the Torah." Recourses to inhance the validity of a law. For example a farmer has an apple tree at the margin of the road. He knows there is no sin in the action of passers-by to reach for an apple and eat it. But if the owner builds a fence around that tree, it becomes robbery to ultrapass that fence to reach for the tree. To feed the mind with the thought about someone else's wife becomes tantamount to the crime of adultery. Or to hate someone becomes almost equivalent to murder. The point is that he did not really mean to make of those, as we say in Hebrew, "hukim" apparent laws, of the same weight of the Decalogue but to make the commandments harder to be transgressed. So, instead of abolishing the Law, Jesus rather confirmed further with "Fences around the Torah."

Ben

[Ben Masada]

notoverrated, on 15 January 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

Jesus was a playa!

What do you mean, a "Casa Nova?" Well, I don't think so. He was a religious Orthodox Jew at the hands of Replacement Theology dudes.

Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 15 January 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Thank you PA for having confirmed my point.

Considering your complete misrepresenting of "all" Christianity as believing that the Law is abolished (yes you said "all") you've also confirmed my point.

Quote

What Jesus meant to convey in verses 21-48 of Matthew 5, I understand as what we call
"Fences around the Torah."

By that reasoning all Rabbi's who comment on the Bible are "fulfilling" the Law. I suppose all rabbi's in the 1st century AD and the centuries before whose words comprise the Mishnah declare that they also are fulfilling the Law. No? The comment was unique to Jesus!

I would suggest that what Jesus meant by "fulfilling" the Law was in the sense of giving the Law a deeper, spiritual meaning. Murder is now not a physical law only but a spiritual - anger at your brother is the same add murder in your heart. Adultery is not just physical, but now a matter of the heart. The healthy eating laws of Leviticus 11 are given spiritual meaning when Jesus states that it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him unclean, but what comes out of it - murder, slander, lies, etc. And dare I say the physical laws concerning animal sacrifice are fulfilled to spiritual meaning when Jesus sacrificed himself.

In this way, I may eat a ham sandwich, but still uphold the laws of Leviticus 11 by ensuring that what comes out of my mouth is not unclean, as per Jesus' teaching.

~ Regards,

[eight bits]

Quote

I think the problem with you is that you don't know what an Orthodox Jew was at that time and still is today. A woman who was not his wife could not even address him in the street; let alone anoint him from the head down to the feet and kiss his feet.

You think whatever you like about me, Ben.

On the topic, you haven't established what Jesus' position was within Second Temple Judaism, nor that his religious position was is in any way comparable with what is called today "Orthodox Judaism," which is a form of Judaism that didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime.

Quote

That hospital courtesy was not rendered by an outsider and not by a woman who was not his wife.

The obligations of hospitality towards guests fall on the host, not on the guests towards each other. One hospitable courtesy is not to call your guest's wife a prostitute, as Jesus' host insinuated the woman was who performed the hospitable gesture.

Quote

Myth or not, it is written. Now, we have to deal with contradictions in the NT.

No, Ben, it isn't "written." Gregory erred about Mary Magdalene. There is nothing in the Gospels that portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Speaking of the Bible, Genesis 1: 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, and it is addressed to the First Couple, not to Jesus. There is nothing in the verse for me to "reconcile."

Quote

Besides, Paul himself said that a Bishop or a teacher had to be married. (I Tim. 3:2)

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. There were no "bishops" in Jesus' lifeteime. Jesus didn't take orders from Paul, nor from whoever did write the Pastorals long after Paul was dead.

Other people have called me "rabbi." That's on them. I am not married, either.

The bridegroom is a different character in the story from Jesus. Jesus was invited to the wedding, just like the disciples... or are you saying that this was one of those "open marriages?"

Quote

To be a married man would rather add to his credibility.

I am sure that Jesus appreciates your advice about credibility, Ben.

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 15 January 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Quote

Considering your complete misrepresenting of "all" Christianity as believing that the Law is abolished (yes you said "all") you've also confirmed my point.

Yes PA, I said "all" indeed. Do you believe in the NT message? Yes you do. Therefore, you are among those who condone that the Law has been abolished. Hence, you do promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology; of course, no offense meant.  

Quote

By that reasoning all Rabbi's who comment on the Bible are "fulfilling" the Law. I suppose all rabbi's in the 1st century AD and the centuries before whose words comprise the Mishnah declare that they also are fulfilling the Law. No? The comment was unique to Jesus!

What Jesus meant by "fulfilling the Law" was in the sense of observing the Law. And not only he but all Jews just like himself. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Quote

I would suggest that what Jesus meant by "fulfilling" the Law was in the sense of giving the Law a deeper, spiritual meaning. Murder is now not a physical law only but a spiritual - anger at your brother is the same add murder in your heart. Adultery is not just physical, but now a matter of the heart. The healthy eating laws of Leviticus 11 are given spiritual meaning when Jesus states that it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him unclean, but what comes out of it - murder, slander, lies, etc. And dare I say the physical laws concerning animal sacrifice are fulfilled to spiritual meaning when Jesus sacrificed himself.

I disagree with you if you don't mind. IMHO, there is no such a thing as a sin committed in the mind. IOW, it is not a sin to think. One must take his thought into action for the sin to be committed. It was not Jesus who made of such a concept a sin, but Paul and his disciples who needed to release their pent up anger of the Jews. Hence, Replacement Theology.

Quote

In this way, I may eat a ham sandwich, but still uphold the laws of Leviticus 11 by ensuring that what comes out of my mouth is not unclean, as per Jesus' teaching.

You may eat anything you want and the law of Kashrut won't be broken. It was not established for you but for the Jews only. And this that what makes one unclean is only what comes out of one's mouth and not what goes in, is mere verbal jugglin that explains nothing.
Jesus was not that stupid to have declared such a nonsense. It must have been some one with a grudge against the Jewish Covenant. And that someone is not too hard to figure if you read I Corinthians 10:25. The man was Paul who said that one should eat anything that's sold in the market without asking any question. Scorpions are solf in Chinese markets. If you are in China eat as the Chinese do. And if, as you say, Jesus rather spiritualized the Law, that's really a weird way to see it.

[Ben Masada]

eight bits, on 15 January 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Quote

You think whatever you like about me, Ben. On the topic, you haven't established what Jesus' position was within Second Temple Judaism, nor that his religious position was is in any way comparable with what is called today "Orthodox Judaism," which is a form of Judaism that didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime.

Jesus was born during the existence of the Second Temple. Therefore, Second Temple Judaism. The Sect of the Pharisees was a form of Orthodox Judaism and Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. The Sect of the Essenes was another form of Orthodox Judaism. And so were the Zealous although in a hostile vigilant way. A name change did not change the nature of the religion.

Quote

The obligations of hospitality towards guests fall on the host, not on the guests towards each other. One hospitable courtesy is not to call your guest's wife a prostitute, as Jesus' host insinuated the woman was who performed the hospitable gesture.

The feet of the guests at the tent of Abraham were washed by Abraham and not by Sarai. She didn't even come out of the tent to personally welcome them. Simon the Pharisee who invited Jesus for that dinner was enough acquainted with Mary Magdalene to imply that, "She was a woman known in the town to be a sinner." (Luke 7:37) This is in other words the same as that she was a protitute. Hence, Pope Gregory VII was on the right track to confirm that she was indeed a prostitute.

Quote

No, Ben, it isn't "written." Gregory erred about Mary Magdalene. There is nothing in the Gospels that portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Speaking of the Bible, Genesis 1: 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, and it is addressed to the First Couple, not to Jesus. There is nothing in the verse for me to "reconcile."

Luke 7:37 portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. There is no other mean for a "woman known in the town as a sinner." And with regards to Genesis 1:28, suppose a couple of religious Jews can grow and multiply without getting married? Please!

Quote

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. There were no "bishops" in Jesus' lifeteime. Jesus didn't take orders from Paul, nor from whoever did write the Pastorals long after Paul was dead.

There were teachers. And not only Jesus' disciples but respectable Jewish authorities would address Jesus as a teacher. If Jesus was indeed a Teacher, he had to be married. And according to the Catholic scholars who translated the NAB St. Joseph's edition, the two letters to Timothy and Titus were named pastoral epistles only in the 18th Century. Till then, their Pauline authorship had been unchallenged. So, since I see no reason to think otherwise when I read them, Paul wrote them. Pauline evidences abound.

Quote

The bridegroom is a different character in the story from Jesus. Jesus was invited to the wedding, just like the disciples... or are you saying that this was one of those "open marriages?"

No sir, Jesus "was called." This is a Jewish traditional term to let the groom know that the time had come to take the bride to the Chupah. Probably either the Church or the translator included Jesus within the same line of the disciples being invited with the intent to distract the minds of future readers from the obviousness that Jesus was the groom himself in that wedding. Besides, if Mary was just a guest, why would she invest herself with authority to order the servants of the house around? Why would she report to Jesus and not to the groom that they had run out of wine? Please, consider the evidences.