Discovering God

[LoAmmi]

No, but I don't think the purpose of this thread was for arguing that one should deny the veracity of the New Testament off hand. It was about a good book she was recommending, actually. So if we can't trust anything that is of Christian origin, surely no one has the right to trust anything of Jewish origin. Every word must be backed by non-Jewish sources. Therefore, we're both smacked by your own logic.

Jews don't try to convince anybody of their beliefs. We discourage converts. We don't have a forum where a subsection of which is for the express purpose of Jews learning how to better mission to other religions.

If you want to make statements about me needing to believe Jesus, upon my eternal soul, you are going to need better than "Hey, Jesus' followers said so!". For me to have my believes, I simply need to believe.

 

[Enkil]

Jews don't try to convince anybody of their beliefs. We discourage converts. We don't have a forum where a subsection of which is for the express purpose of Jews learning how to better mission to other religions.

If you want to make statements about me needing to believe Jesus, upon my eternal soul, you are going to need better than "Hey, Jesus' followers said so!". For me to have my believes, I simply need to believe.

One does not need to have a missionary ethic to have a logically built belief system.

 

[LoAmmi]

One does not need to have a missionary ethic to have a logically built belief system.

I think you'll find that Judaism has a very logically built belief system. If you'd like to find fault with me because I'm willing to admit that there is no evidence for Abraham outside of the Torah, be my guest. You rest on very little logic there in your finding fault.

 

[Enkil]

If you'd like to find fault with me because I'm willing to admit that there is no evidence for Abraham outside of the Torah, be my guest.

That obviously wasn't the point. Obviously you believe the Torah and give to it weight and value in and of itself as a historical source.

 

[LoAmmi]

That obviously wasn't the point. Obviously you believe the Torah and give to it weight and value in and of itself as a historical source.

I have my doubts about everything written being an exact history. Plenty of them, in fact. What is history and what is allegory is a very interesting discussion, but not one for here.

However, if you believe something and share that, it is fine. I believe many things. If you would like to convince others, you need to have evidence. Pointing to your book is not evidence. You would have to prove that book to be reliable for it to be evidence.

 

[LoAmmi]

Furthermore, the Servant is even given traits that could not refer to Israel. Example: "...He had done no violence. Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." (Isa 53:9) Israel had inflicted God's wrath previously due to such sins.

I have always understood it as the faithful. The servant of HaShem are the faithful to HaShem, not those that have fallen away. The few that have never left the path. They are the ones discussed here.

Even taken collectively, you are saying that the suffering felt at the hands of the nations they have been scattered to was provoked by violence or lies?

Also notable is Isa. 53:8 - "...He was cut off our of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due." If "he" was to be in the plural in reference to all of Israel in this situation then the verse could be paraphrased as "(Israel) was cut off of (Israel) for the transgression of (Israel)." That simply doesn't make sense, especially if Israel was just described as having committed neither of those sins previously mentioned. How could Israel atone for Israel's own sins that Israel was said to never have committed?

I do not believe Israel is the voice speaking here. I believe it is the kings of the world. Enkil will disagree with me, and that's fine, but his arguments did not sway me one bit. In other chapters we see the gentiles seeing the error of their ways and coming to the Jews. They are shocked.
Zechariah 8: 23. So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."

How can that happen if Jews are so few and you are correct? Why would they be coming to us and asking for us to lead them? If it is you, you are not outnumbered 10 to 1 in the world. Zechariah's prophecy would be wrong.

So, if it is the kings of the world speaking, it makes perfect sense to me.

Also, in reference to the plural meaning of him argument, the Hebrew word is lamo which Benjamin Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon describes as being used to refer on occasion in both the singular and plural forms. It is used singularly when paired with singular nouns which happens many, many times in this chapter.

Either way, Hosea 11 clearly shows Israel being referred to as a singular "he". It is perfectly acceptable for Israel to be referred to as a collective entity.

I've heard these arguments before and am familiar with both. No one I've discussed this with has been able to solidly support either claim. If you can I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

I've heard the Christian arguments many times. The disagreement will never be settled. To be perfectly honest, I am probably one of the worst at explaining these kinds of things. As much as I enjoy debate and discussion, I'm far better at other things

 

[roseglass6370]

LoAmmi, my point is this:

The NT martyrs claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ's works. They lived, worked, and ate alongside Him. Therefore, they would know whether or not what He did really happened. Why would they put their lives on the line if they KNEW it was false? They would surely know if it were.

That's my point.

Also, can you explain again how the prophecy is Zechariah doesn't mesh with my beliefs again? I'm not sure I understand what you were saying. Thanks!

 

[LoAmmi]

LoAmmi, my point is this:

The NT martyrs claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ's works. They lived, worked, and ate alongside Him. Therefore, they would know whether or not what He did really happened. Why would they put their lives on the line if they KNEW it was false? They would surely know if it were.

That's my point.

Which martyrs? How did they die? Who killed them?

You need to provide details before I am going to agree.

People die for things all the time. People die in cults following their leader. Does that make the cult correct? I mean, they would be a direct witness. Would they be willing to die for something they know is false?

 

[roseglass6370]

Which martyrs? How did they die? Who killed them?

You need to provide details before I am going to agree.

People die for things all the time. People die in cults following their leader. Does that make the cult correct? I mean, they would be a direct witness. Would they be willing to die for something they know is false?

Yes, people do, but these people wrote the epistles and gospels. Why would they write something they knew was false and then risk their lives defending the false things they wrote?

Martyr examples:

James the Apostle was at the command of Herod with a sword. (Acts 12:2)

Stephen was stoned to death by a mob while evangelizing. (Ironically, the man leading the mob was Saul, who would become known as the Apostle Paul. He would eventually risk his own life for his faith in prison.)

Others including Silas also risked their lives for their beliefs.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, people do, but these people wrote the epistles and gospels. Why would they write something they knew was false and then risk their lives defending the false things they wrote?

How do you know they wrote the Gospels? Why are those names attached to those documents? What proof do you have that the Gospels were not written far later by people who were never there?

Martyr examples:

James the Apostle was at the command of Herod with a sword. (Acts 12:2)

Stephen was stoned to death by a mob while evangelizing. (Ironically, the man leading the mob was Saul, who would become known as the Apostle Paul. He would eventually risk his own life for his faith in prison.)

Others including Silas also risked their lives for their beliefs.

Why should I believe these events occurred?

 

[roseglass6370]

How do you know they wrote the Gospels? Why are those names attached to those documents? What proof do you have that the Gospels were not written far later by people who were never there?


Why should I believe these events occurred?

Why do you believe the events mentioned in your religion occurred?

There is even extra-Biblical evidence of these events NT events occurring which doesn't exist in as large an amount for the OT stories you believe.

Also, for the "written far later" part...carbon dating/science/academic and scholarly review of the texts.

 

[LoAmmi]

Why do you believe the events mentioned in your religion occurred?

Irrelevant when we are discussing this. My belief or lack of believe in events of the Tanakh has nothing to do with my belief or not in events in the New Testament. I am not trying to prove events from the Tanakh, you are trying to prove events from the New Testament. The onus is on you.

There is even extra-Biblical evidence of these events NT events occurring which doesn't exist in as large an amount for the OT stories you believe.

Such as?

Also, for the "written far later" part...carbon dating/science/academic and scholarly review of the texts.

As best I've seen, around 70CE is when the Gospels get dated. Maybe a bit before, but certainly nowhere near 35-50. Acts around the same time. Paul's letters are the earliest parts and while it looks like he's having a rough go of it, he isn't talking about a lot of the events you are describing.

 

[smaneck]

Stephen was stoned to death by a mob while evangelizing.

I don't think Stephen ever met Christ in the flesh.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think Stephen ever met Christ in the flesh.

Not only that, but we only have the death of one Apostle in the text. Even taking the text at face value, there is no basis for saying that all of them died for their beliefs. Do we even have a clear record of what all of them ended up doing?

 

[Zoness]

I posted a link to this book on the other thread I started, but realized it might be good to share separately.

The book is called "Discovering God" by Dennis McCallum. (http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Go...8145031&sr=8-4) If you are seeking solid proof for Christianity, this book offers insight into Biblical claims and Old Testament prophecies with great support.

One example mentioned is in the Old Testament prophecies recorded in chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah. In this chapter, a highly detailed description is given of Christ that was recorded approximately 500 years before Jesus' birth. (Carbon dating of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been performed at least four times dating it alone as being from approximately 335-107 BC, although the original manuscript was, as mentioned, likely written much earlier based on textual descriptions of events.) This description of Christ describes many things that could not have been purposefully duplicated by any individual. Other old testament prophecies, including those in Daniel, even calculate the date of His birth, something definitely beyond any human's control.

Anyway, McCallum's book goes heavy into these prophecies and other common questions about Christianity in greater detail. It's only $3.99 new on Amazon and is a very short read. (The older edition I have is less than 200pgs.)

I'd suggest going into the reading with an open mind, however, which I think most of you must have to be on a Christian forum, engaged in *generally* civilized debate.

Thanks for your recommendation, but I am not seeking a proof for Christianity for I am currently not seeking a different religion.

Four dollars (plus shipping so like a million dollars ) is definitely better for some reading than people who post a poorly made hour long YouTube video, I may give it a read just for something to do.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not only that, but we only have the death of one Apostle in the text. Even taking the text at face value, there is no basis for saying that all of them died for their beliefs. Do we even have a clear record of what all of them ended up doing?

Just Tradition. Some are regarded more trustworthy than others, in some cases there are conflicting accounts of how the Apostles met their end. For example, it's generally well received that in the case of St. Peter that he met his end while in Rome, under the reign of Nero, himself being crucified upside-down. Knowing that the Romans enjoyed being creative with their crucifixion methods makes this not unlikely. On the other hand St. Simon the Zealot has exceedingly little written or said about him, and in fact almost nothing is known about him apart from his name. His death is said to have taken place sometime between 65 and 107 CE, and somewhere, vaguely, in the East (of who knows what).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

Could you point out to me where the Servant is mentioned as being Israel? I just reread all of chapter 53 and nowhere in there is Israel ever mentioned by name or by association. I've heard that argument before and every reference I've been given is outside the realm of the passage and could be clearly ascribed as not pertaining to the "him" described in the passage.

In the multiple typologies of Christ, Israel is the largest. This yields wonderful revelation on our Lord! Israel is "the suffering servant," although the Gospel of Mark focuses on this very aspect of G-d Himself, far more directly. Also consider the living creature with four faces, seen in Ezekiel 1. This too, speaks of Christ ...

 

[razeontherock]

Then the context is Deutero-Isaiah, not Isaiah.

Could you point out which parts you feel are written by someone other than Isaiah, and which parts are more authentic? Any ideas on when the more recent parts were written?

 

[razeontherock]

"All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Israel."

...So, that would mean... "...but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on...us?"

That doesn't make sense. The servant is described as being without sin and baring sin for Israel's sake. Israel sinned. Israel is therefore not sinless and cannot bare Israel's sin.

Jewish understanding can only bring one so far. W/o Christ, even their own Scriptures only help so much ...

 

[razeontherock]

Which ones do you know were killed for their beliefs? How many of those were direct eye witnesses?

Every one of the original 12, with the possible exception of John the Revelator / theologian / beloved. We have already established that this is unique among religions, and that you still manage to poo-poo it's significance - just because you do.