Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[Der Alte]

You have to understand how to read the Talmud. It contains MANY contradictory assertions, often in the form of debates. The winning views are passed on orally. Thus Talmud cannot be studied alone, but only with those who already understand it. Akiva's view is the view which won, thus, no Jew will challenge his statement. It is why Jews everywhere pray Kaddish for the dead for only eleven months.

Well I certainly appreciate this unsupported opinion but I think it is largely irrelevant. Akiba was born 50 AD he would not have been a Rabbi until about 80 AD. therefore the beliefs in "hell" which I have quoted predated Akiba's influence. And they were significant enough they were discussed at length in the Talmud and reported in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

ETA: You are correct the Talmud contains contradictory assertions. For example in my previous post I quoted from the school of Hillel in the Talmud, in the same article are the writings of the school of Shammai which differ from Hillel. Even in the NT we see differing views, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection but he Sadduccees did not. Just as with the belief in hell, both views coexisted.

 

[Imagican]

They were too busy wandering to set up camp and write things down. Just saying.

Funny, but in their wanderings they had time to write down the first five books of the Bible.

Just saying.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Actually the Talmud says nothing at all about Jesus. Yeshua was an extraordinarily common name and there are a great many Yeshuas mentioned in the Talmud, but you will notice that none of them meet the description of Jesus. I know it may seem strange to Christians that Jesus doesn't get mentioned in the Talmud, but the hard cold fact is that Jews don't find Jesus to be relevant.

Hmmm...............Having READ what the Talmud offers concerning Jesus, it is quite CLEAR, regardless of THEIR attempts, (and yours), to try and deny it, that the Jesus spoken of is in FACT Jesus Christ. For in TRUTH, there would be NO OTHER reason to even MENTION the Jesus in reference EXCEPT to discredit the man. So the idea that they just erroneously mentioned a DIFFERENT Jesus would make absolutely NO SENSE.

In other words, what would be the purpose to pick a man of no accord and discredit him in such a manner? And his mothers name being Mary?

Then take into consideration that the Talmud gives Jews PERMISSION to lie to infidels. So their attempts to alter the TRUTH are obviously subject to UNTRUTHS that they have been given permission to utter to Gentiles.

But reading what is offered, it is pretty clear WHO is being referenced. Only those that have a REASON to deny it do so.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

More than half the council were Arians. Constantine did not know what the outcome of the Council would be. He actually hoped the Arians would win the day.

Oh my. What is YOUR source of information????????? Constantine was the ultimate decision maker. If what you say were true, then the Arian view WOULD have been the order of the day.

I have NEVER read a single account of the Bishops going AGAINST Constantine. You do remember, Constantine was the EMPEROR. The representative of God Himself.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[GDunn]

Funny, but in their wanderings they had time to write down the first five books of the Bible.

Just saying.

Blessings,

MEC

How do you know they wrote the Torah at that time and not later?

 

[Der Alte]

Oh my. What is YOUR source of information????????? Constantine was the ultimate decision maker. If what you say were true, then the Arian view WOULD have been the order of the day.

I have NEVER read a single account of the Bishops going AGAINST Constantine. You do remember, Constantine was the EMPEROR. The representative of God Himself.
Blessings,
MEC

A few problems with this discourse. You mentioned bishops not going against Constantine, have you read any actual history of the council at Nicaea? Constantine was an Arian. His biographer Eusebius was excommunicated 12 years before Nicaea, for heresy because he was an Arian, Constantine had him reinstated just before Nicaea. Arius the founder of the sect which bears his name was excommunicated at Nicaea. A few years later Constantine had him reinstated. When Constantine decided to get baptized he was baptized by an Arian. According to historians who actually observed Nicaea, Constantine did not decide anything. Except for the opening ceremony Constantine did not speak during the council. If Constantine was going to force anything on the church it would have been Arianism.

 

[GDunn]

A few problems with this discourse. You mentioned bishops not going against Constantine, have you read any actual history of the council at Nicaea? Constantine was an Arian. His biographer Eusebius was excommunicated 12 years before Nicaea, for heresy because he was an Arian, Constantine had him reinstated just before Nicaea. Arius the founder of the sect which bears his name was excommunicated at Nicaea. A few years later Constantine had him reinstated. When Constantine decided to get baptized he was baptized by an Arian. According to historians who actually observed Nicaea, Constantine did not decide anything. Except for the opening ceremony Constantine did not speak during the council. If Constantine was going to force anything on the church it would have been Arianism.

I read three lines of your post and you could not be MORE wrong. On another forum I think it was YOU who made this opinion and I TOLD you to READ Constantines' Oration to the Saints at Nicaea. WITHIN this hours long speech he REVEALS his JisG bent and it was SPECIFICALLY said.

'Cmon now, let's get with the program. You don't want to be ignorant about this FOREVER, do you?

Another misconception is that ARIUS was not JisG. He WAS, except that he said "there was when he was not" according to you, heh. The last VESTIGE of subordinationism was what he clung to.

 

[Open Heart]

Having READ what the Talmud offers concerning Jesus

You read what the Talmud said regarding a Yeshua, I think one of the snippets had a Yeshua born of a Miriam, another extremely common name. Go down to Mexico and see how many Jesus' and Marias there are-- do you think there aren't any Jesus' born of Marias? So let me ask you: Was Mary's husband Stada? Did she have a lover named Pandera? No, of course not! So this passage of the Talmud does NOT refer to the same Yeshua and Miriam.

 

[Open Heart]

Oh my. What is YOUR source of information????????? Constantine was the ultimate decision maker. If what you say were true, then the Arian view WOULD have been the order of the day.

My source is a book, When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein. Constantine was the ultimate decision maker for the state but NOT FOR THE CHURCH. He had no authority in the church. He was only the emperor, NOT A BISHOP. His primary agenda for the council was simply that they find unity, whatever their decision be; so even though they did not reach his preferred position, he was still very happy.

 

[GDunn]

My source is a book, When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein. Constantine was the ultimate decision maker for the state but NOT FOR THE CHURCH. He had no authority in the church. He was only the emperor, NOT A BISHOP. His primary agenda for the council was simply that they find unity, whatever their decision be; so even though they did not reach his preferred position, he was still very happy.

What a naive consideration of the emperor. He had to have known the outcome beforehand, since life and death for HIM was to know all senate conclusions before they were concluded. He was not a Christian at all, evidenced by his speech at the Council. Referring to NUMEROLOGY, PAGAN oracle and POEM. He HAD to find harmony among Jews or his whole KINGDOM could fall. He MURDERED his son and wife after Nicaea. He was not BAPTIZED until he was about to croak. He had authority to say the MOST at Nicaea, evidenced by this speech which had to have taken hours to recite. HIS flunkies were the leaders and movers and shakers IN the Council. He did NOT have any kind of baptism of Spirit whether pentecostal or "born again."

Also he couldn't stand Jews in general. He gave NO creedence to either the Shema or the First Command of the Ten.

 

[Open Heart]

What a naive consideration of the emperor. He had to have known the outcome beforehand

No one knew the outcome beforehand. Not the bishops, and not Constantine. Again, because Constantine was not a Catholic bishop, he had no authority in the council. That he was allowed to speak at all was all the consideration given him as an emperor.

When Constantine was finally baptized, he chose to be baptized by Bishop Eusebius, an Arian.

The only "outcome" that Constantine cared about was AGREEMENT by the bishops. He knew that unity in the Christian church meant greater stability for the Roman Empire. In this respect, Constantine got what he came for.

 

[Der Alte]

I read three lines of your post and you could not be MORE wrong. On another forum I think it was YOU who made this opinion and I TOLD you to READ Constantines' Oration to the Saints at Nicaea. WITHIN this hours long speech he REVEALS his JisG bent and it was SPECIFICALLY said.

'Cmon now, let's get with the program. You don't want to be ignorant about this FOREVER, do you?

Another misconception is that ARIUS was not JisG. He WAS, except that he said "there was when he was not" according to you, heh. The last VESTIGE of subordinationism was what he clung to.

You did not say anything to me on another forum, that I can recall. You keep making assertions about Constantine and Arius but I still have not seen any evidence.