- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,19:42) “It can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. . . . The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22).”–Professor F. F. Bruce
David when were the canonical gospels written?Stuart
Quote I can see how Christians feel about their 'god the father' then if 'proskyneo' does not mean worship as you say it doesn't. I didn't say that TOWSHAB.
I said:
The word “proskyneo” DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN WORSHIP. In fact, “worship” is not it's primary meaning.
And here is all I said below. I don't see anywhere where I said that it doesn't EVER mean “worship”
Quote You have some research to do. The word “proskyneo” doesn't have to mean worship. In fact, “worship” is not it's primary meaning. They did go to give Jesus (as one born King of the Jews) honour. These chaldeans were astrologers who saw a great sign in the stars. They had to follow it. Hey, if a star starts moving, I might want to see where it goes too. How much more so these magoi, or star-gazers (astrologers). Quote Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. That word 'proskyneo' is used here. So I guess Jesus is saying that people will merely honor their 'god the father'.
Again, please read more closely. You are grossly misrepreseting what I said.
Quote This is funny. Since the record books do not mention Jesus why would they mention those who oppose him? So, what you're suggesting is that someone created a complete fantasy, and no one really questioned it until a hundred years ago, or so?
Quote Actually the words are not used thousands of time in any modern Jewish translation. You are referring to Christian translations. 'Jehovah' likewise is never a name Jews would use. You can call it superstition if you like. We call it respect.
aCTUALLY, towshab, you CALLED It “superstition.” You said It is “superstition in many ways.” Yes, I also will continue to call it that, for that is what it is.
If you respect your father, do you ignore his name and never speak it?
Is there anyone you respect whose name you never speak because of respect? If not, then what you are doing with God is not simply respect.We are COMMANDED to give praise to God's name. It is a lack of respect to do otherwise.
ANd YES, God's name is in the original Hebrew manuscripts some 7000 times.
I consider it utmost disrespect to remove the authors name from the authors book. If you wrote a book and I removed your name, would you consider that respect?david.
Quote not used thousands of time in any modern Jewish translation. But they are used in older Jewish translations, aren't they? I could provide a list if you like.
Why the change?
Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,18:29) Quote I can see how Christians feel about their 'god the father' then if 'proskyneo' does not mean worship as you say it doesn't. I didn't say that TOWSHAB.
I said:
The word “proskyneo” DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN WORSHIP. In fact, “worship” is not it's primary meaning.
And here is all I said below. I don't see anywhere where I said that it doesn't EVER mean “worship”
Quote You have some research to do. The word “proskyneo” doesn't have to mean worship. In fact, “worship” is not it's primary meaning. They did go to give Jesus (as one born King of the Jews) honour. These chaldeans were astrologers who saw a great sign in the stars. They had to follow it. Hey, if a star starts moving, I might want to see where it goes too. How much more so these magoi, or star-gazers (astrologers).
OK David, I think you've sufficiently proved my point. Which is that 90% or more of Christians would not know the difference and therefore offer the same worship to Jesus as they do his father. I was actually very aware of the subtle differences but I wanted you to see that most Christians will see 'worship' and that is all they will see.Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,18:31) Quote This is funny. Since the record books do not mention Jesus why would they mention those who oppose him? So, what you're suggesting is that someone created a complete fantasy, and no one really questioned it until a hundred years ago, or so?
No people have been questioning all along. With modern scholarship though it becomes a greater problem to validate what is in the Christian bible.Is it all a fantasy? Only G-d knows at this point. Perhaps there was a Jesus perhaps not. Again no historical record of a man who rose from the dead, fed thousands at a time with a few loaves and fish, healed many, turned the sky dark for 3 hours, caused the dead to raise and appear to many when he died, and then ascended into heaven. Surely someone else heard of all this?
Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,18:35) Quote Actually the words are not used thousands of time in any modern Jewish translation. You are referring to Christian translations. 'Jehovah' likewise is never a name Jews would use. You can call it superstition if you like. We call it respect.
aCTUALLY, towshab, you CALLED It “superstition.” You said It is “superstition in many ways.” Yes, I also will continue to call it that, for that is what it is.
Perhaps but I do it out of respect of the other people I communicate with. Why is this an issue?Quote If you respect your father, do you ignore his name and never speak it?
Actually I call my father 'dad'. But my 'dad' is not the creator of the universe so there's a huge difference.Quote Is there anyone you respect whose name you never speak because of respect? If not, then what you are doing with God is not simply respect.
That is your opinion and your are certainly entitled to it.Quote We are COMMANDED to give praise to God's name. It is a lack of respect to do otherwise.
Show me.Quote ANd YES, God's name is in the original Hebrew manuscripts some 7000 times.
I consider it utmost disrespect to remove the authors name from the authors book. If you wrote a book and I removed your name, would you consider that respect?david.
They don't 'remove' it, they just translate it it differently. Do you sincerely think Jehovah is His name?!? It is not so what you are doing is no different that Hashem or G-d now is it? You are barking up the wrong tree.Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,18:38) Quote not used thousands of time in any modern Jewish translation. But they are used in older Jewish translations, aren't they? I could provide a list if you like.
Why the change?
Sure but don't include the older JPS. It was just a redo of the KJV.Quote Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,01:54)
Quote
These wise men, or magis, where not Jewish but pagan. Why would pagan magicians want to WORSHIP a Jewish messiah? I'll tell you. Because he was a pagan messiah not a Jewish messiah.You have some research to do. The word “proskyneo” doesn't have to mean worship. In fact, “worship” is not it's primary meaning. They did go to give Jesus (as one born King of the Jews) honour. These chaldeans were astrologers who saw a great sign in the stars. They had to follow it. Hey, if a star starts moving, I might want to see where it goes too. How much more so these magoi, or star-gazers (astrologers).
I'm not focusing on the actual worship aspect. I am showing the first instance of pagans in the Christian bible seeking the pagan messiah.
–PAGE 8Quote I was actually very aware of the subtle differences [in meaning of the word proskyneo] but I wanted you to see that most Christians will see 'worship' and that is all they will see. –PAGE 9, Towshab
What you were in fact originally trying to do is show that Jesus isn't the Messiah and that the gospels contradict each other. In this instance, you were asking why the magoi (astrologers from the east) would come to “worship” (Gk. proskyneo) Jesus.
You believed this made no sense.
I showed that there are different meanigns.
Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 29 2007,07:23) Sir If Jesus was not resurrected then it had to have been His deciples or apostles who have had to removed His body. It sure wasn't the priest or the Romans! And if that were true then they were stoned, wiped and crucified for a lie that they started. Would you die for something you KNEW were false? Would you be able to watch your family being eaten by lions for something you knew was false?
How can you prove any of this actually took place outside of the Christian bible? You cannot therefore your scenario is unprovable. It is most likely that there was a Jew named Jesus and that he was a rebel. He was likely crucified as a rebel against Rome. History DOES show that many Jews were crucified for this very thing.
After his death the resurrection was likely a legend that Paul started or at least one that Paul picked up and ran with. Remember that Paul's writings came before any of the gospels. Paul didn't seem to know of a virgin birth or even that Jesus was supposedly the literal son of G-d by human birth. It appears that Paul felt he was called son of G-d for a different reason.
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead
I may be wrong but I could not find a single instance of Paul relating Jesus' sonship to his actual biological birth. This did not happen until the gospels and only in Matthew and Luke.
Quote If you believe that then you are beyond reason being blinded by the god of this world. Sure they are some mistakes in the wording by the HUMANS who wrote the Gospel but the message is the same in the Old testament as well as the New Testament Jesus fulfilled the sacrifical law OR why don't you offer animals? Because there is no temple. Plain as that. Sacrifices were still offered at the temple until its destruction in 70 AD. There is another problem with the idea that Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin and that is that when the third temple is built sacrifices again will be offered. Therefore Jesus cannot be the final sacrifice because this would invalidate G-d's promise of the third temple era.
Eze 43:18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.
Read Ezekiel 40-48 to get an idea of the third temple that will be built in the messianic age.
Quote You don't have the Holy Spirit to witness to your spirit that these things are true. Because of this you only have what men have written and your heart is cold and hard unable to harbor the truth fulfilling the last day scriptures. Is this the same holy spirit that filled the early church that killed and persecuted Jews? The same one that filled Luther and Calvin, two very outspoken anti-semites? If so I want no part of it.
Quote As Judas you are doing what you are called to do. Judas was poessessed by Satan himself. You are not worthy of such a privilege by your master. Wive's tales. Demon possession is the talk of mythology. Boo!
How appropriate seeing that tomorrow is Halloween.
Quote Yes I suppose that MY Father is just a Name to you! May your G_D
have mercy on your soul. 
Why would G-d change from YHVH in the Jewish scriptures to some generic 'G-d the father' in the Christian bible. Why don't people hear from this 'G-d the father' in the Christian bible? Why is the Christian bible about a man while the Jewish bible is about G-d and His people? Why is the only good Jew in the Christian bible one who accepts Jesus while the rest are wicked children of satan? Think really hard on these things.Back to this great piece of fiction which is called the gospel of Matthew.
——————–
Mat 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
——————–
This references to Jeremiah 31:15 Here is the context
——————–
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Jer 31:16 Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
Jer 31:17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, [n]that thy children shall come again to their own border.[/b]
——————–What is Jer 31:16-17 telling us about Rachel’s weeping? It is about the children of Israel during their exile in Babylon and that Rachel need not weep (although Rachel is dead this is symbolic) because they will be brought back by G-d.
At this point I just don’t understand why Matthew is trying so hard and taking so much of the Jewish bible out of context.
Here’s one of my favorites
Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Where is this found spoken by any prophet? Not in the Jewish bible. I’ve seen some pretty wild apologetics concerning this verse and none of them convince. Maybe the prophets belonged to some other religion? That would make sense.
Just into the third chapter of Matthew and the author is already tossing out references to prophets. This guy tried very hard to prove his point didn’t he?
——————–
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
——————–
Well there is little doubt that Isaiah said something very similar to this in Is 40:3. Yet is Is 40 even messianic? Not likely. Look at the verse that precedes Is 40:3
——————–
Isa 40:2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
——————–
Did John the Baptist say anything of this nature? No. Again, what is Matthew thinking?Quote (david @ Oct. 30 2007,18:35) Quote Quote (david @ Oct. 29 2007,01:54)
Quote
These wise men, or magis, where not Jewish but pagan. Why would pagan magicians want to WORSHIP a Jewish messiah? I'll tell you. Because he was a pagan messiah not a Jewish messiah.You have some research to do. The word “proskyneo” doesn't have to mean worship. In fact, “worship” is not it's primary meaning. They did go to give Jesus (as one born King of the Jews) honour. These chaldeans were astrologers who saw a great sign in the stars. They had to follow it. Hey, if a star starts moving, I might want to see where it goes too. How much more so these magoi, or star-gazers (astrologers).
I'm not focusing on the actual worship aspect. I am showing the first instance of pagans in the Christian bible seeking the pagan messiah.
–PAGE 8Quote I was actually very aware of the subtle differences [in meaning of the word proskyneo] but I wanted you to see that most Christians will see 'worship' and that is all they will see. –PAGE 9, Towshab
What you were in fact originally trying to do is show that Jesus isn't the Messiah and that the gospels contradict each other. In this instance, you were asking why the magoi (astrologers from the east) would come to “worship” (Gk. proskyneo) Jesus.
You believed this made no sense.
I showed that there are different meanigns.
Yes but how many Christians will know there is a difference? That is why most Christians think mostly of Jesus and rarely of G-d. They worship Jesus just as they should G-d.Quote Yes but how many Christians will know there is a difference? That is why most Christians think mostly of Jesus and rarely of G-d. They worship Jesus just as they should G-d. “Most” Christians are not on this site. Most Christians here are slowly leaving the RCC and her teachings. Most here don't “worship Jesus” They honor Jesus and worship God.
If you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah then you should be sacrificing animals, otherwise your sins are not covered by animal blood.
Our sins are forgiven the Father gives our sin NO thought because we accept the lamb of GOD. We have a supreme High priest who sacrificed Himself once and for all. While you go through a man dressed in a robe who slaughters innocent animals.
Now this is what MOST Christians here do.
Phi 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which in the flesh. worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
You are of the flesh fleshly and NOT of the Spirit so you don't know the author of the book which you desire to understand.
Again how are your sins covered without animal sacrifice? I know they are not forgiven because you deny the only way to the Father by accepting HIS Sacrifice. So you live in your sins is this what your G_D
wants?Quote
“Most” Christians are not on this site. Most Christians here are slowly leaving the RCC and her teachings. Most here don't “worship Jesus” They honor Jesus and worship God.
That is a step in the right direction. Now if you'll shed the belief in a another man being able to atone for your sins you make it even further.Quote If you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah then you should be sacrificing animals, otherwise your sins are not covered by animal blood.
Wrong on so many levels. Christians don't take the time to step outside of their 'new testament' long enough to realize that G-d has provided a way to atone for sins outside of animal sacrifice. And it ain't human sacrifice because that is an abomination to G-d.Read my response about forgiveness of sins according to the Jewish scriptures on the other thread. It can be found here
Quote Our sins are forgiven the Father gives our sin NO thought because we accept the lamb of GOD. We have a supreme High priest who sacrificed Himself once and for all. While you go through a man dressed in a robe who slaughters innocent animals.
Did you know that that 'man who slaughters innocent animals' will be restored during the third temple era? So much for Jesus ending sacrifices.Besides, blood only covers one type of sin: unintenional. What about your other sins?
Quote Now this is what MOST Christians here do. Phi 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which in the flesh. worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
You are of the flesh fleshly and NOT of the Spirit so you don't know the author of the book which you desire to understand.
What 'book'? The Jewish bible? It is quite obvious that you have little to no understanding of it or you would see that the Christian bible is like swiss cheese, 'full of holes'.Quote Again how are your sins covered without animal sacrifice? I know they are not forgiven because you deny the only way to the Father by accepting HIS Sacrifice. So you live in your sins is this what your G_D wants?
Like I said read my response. G-d provide a way and it ain't Jeezus. G-d does not condone human sacrifice. You must be thinking of some other god.Quote Posted: Oct. 31 2007,11:37 ——————————————————————————–
Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 29 2007,07:23)Sir If Jesus was not resurrected then it had to have been His deciples or apostles who have had to removed His body. It sure wasn't the priest or the Romans! And if that were true then they were stoned, wiped and crucified for a lie that they started. Would you die for something you KNEW were false? Would you be able to watch your family being eaten by lions for something you knew was false?
How can you prove any of this actually took place outside of the Christian bible? You cannot therefore your scenario is unprovable. It is most likely that there was a Jew named Jesus and that he was a rebel. He was likely crucified as a rebel against Rome. History DOES show that many Jews were crucified for this very thing.
How can you prove that the ark existed? OR that Moses crossed the red sea. Have they found the ark? Is there proof of God using Moses to part the red sea? Is their proof of Adam and Eve?
You believe that Paul started a rumour then died for it?!
See that's what I mean you are unreasonable. You are unable to think outside what you have read. BECAUSE you don't have the Spirit to guide you.
BTW What are the Jews waiting on in order to build their temple? And you say you have covering for your sins without animal sacrifice so why start sacrificing animals again?
Whatever
ISAIAH 11:1
“And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes′se; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful.”ISAIAH 53:2
“And he will come up like a twig before one, and like a root out of waterless land. No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; and when we shall see him, there is not the appearance so that we should desire him.”JEREMIAH 23:5
““Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will raise up to David a righteous sprout. And a king will certainly reign and act with discretion and execute justice and righteousness in the land.”ZECHARIAH 3:8
““‘Hear, please, O Joshua the high priest, you and your companions who are sitting before you, for they are men [serving] as portents; for here I am bringing in my servant Sprout!”Quote Here’s one of my favorites Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Where is this found spoken by any prophet? Not in the Jewish bible. I’ve seen some pretty wild apologetics concerning this verse and none of them convince. Maybe the prophets belonged to some other religion? That would make sense.
(Naz·a·rene′) [probably from Heb. ne′tser, “sprout”].
“There must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout [we·ne′tser] will be fruitful.”
Another Hebrew word, tse′mach, also means sprout and was used by other prophets when referring to the Messiah. Matthew used the plural, saying that “prophets” had mentioned this coming “Sprout.” For example, Jeremiah wrote about the “righteous sprout” as an offshoot of David. (Jer 23:5; 33:15) Zechariah describes a king-priest “whose name is Sprout,” a prophecy that could apply only to Jesus the Nazarene, the great spiritual Temple-builder.—Zec 3:8; 6:12, 13
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
