[Silver]

You may like eating meat but vegans don't. You may think astronomy is the way but numerologists don't.

Just noticed this...

Very apt comparison, by the way. You'd advocate teaching numerology in math class then, I'd assume? Just so the kids get both views on numbers?

 

[Heath Sherratt]

So because I don't walk around in a black suite praying three times a day I am not a "Jew", and because I do not belive that the torah is a leteral. Because I question god is no reason for me to not be a jew, even moses when reciving the 10 comandments not only questioned god but argued with him/her.

Hey Loren I don't know why I can't PM you so I'll call you later. 11/25 H

 

[TheMontashu]

I don't know why you can't PM me but feel free to hit up my cell

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Actually, I got back to the original reason I started this thread. To debate why one choice is left out of public schools.

No, you ran away, since I answered your original message and you ignored it.

But I pose this question to you, why should my child grow up knowing the Lord but have to go to private school to learn more about History just because you don't like his views?

Because my child should not be indoctrinated with YOUR personal religious views. You never did answer why YOUR personal religious views are better than anyone else's and why they deserve to be taught in schools.

You may like eating meat but vegans don't. You may think astronomy is the way but numerologists don't. There are many choices and things like Christopher Colubumbus discovered America have been taught for years.

Non sequitor. But, let me ask you this: Many people deny the holocaust happened. Should we teach that view in schools? Also, many people think the lunar landing was a hoax. Should we teach that view?

...to me evolution is a crock and in my studies I have found it to be worthless and a waste of time and tax payers money...

Oh, you are an evolutionary biologist? No? So, what studies? Just because you don't understand the topic that you are debating doesn't mean that "it is a crock." I suggest you check out talk.origins.

...but we have taxation with representation for a reason. It's one of the reasons we started this country. Now I feel like I have no representation in the public schools and have to enroll my kid in private school for him to get the education I want him to have. That gentlemen, is un-American.

We also have something called the First Amendment which calls for the separation of church and state. If you want your kid to have a certain RELIGIOUS education, fine. Teach it to him/her yourself. Don't try to force that on all the students, because what you want to teach your kids is not what I want to teach my kids, or what the Hindi guy down the street wants to teach his kids. See, it's un-American to force YOUR religious views on everyone.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The fact is, there are two opinions on the matter-evolution,creation.

That is completely incorrect and once again you have appealed to a logical fallacy. You have created a false dichotomy, which is easily defeated simply by pointing out that there are Christians that accept evolution. Also, there are many opinions about creation, so to boil down creation to one side vs. evolution is wholly disingenuous.

I have realized that no argument on this forum can do anyone any good because we don't really know each other.

Then why are you here debating?

If you knew me and had earned a place to speak into my life then I would be able to trust your views and truly understand where you are coming from and your intentions and likewise for me. But the fact is we don't know each other and our words have very little meaning to each other so the conversations and debates become null and void. No relationships to work from. I don't see it as doing anyone any good on this thread.

Don't trust my words. Look up the truth yourself. You will find that we have over 4000 transitional fossils of the hominid family (not to mention all the other fossils from all the other lineages), which runs counter to your claim (and whoever you got it from) that the fossil record does not back up evolution.

Now, when you make arguments with logical fallacies and they are pointed out to you, it's not a matter of believing my claims or not. Your errors have been pointed out. If you simply ignore them because you've never met me in person, then you are simply deluding yourself.

My life has been transformed by this "non existant God" you all deny. I have seen Him and I have a great relationship with him.

Good for you. The fact that you recognize that others do NOT have this relationship with your god should give you some starting point to realizing why you can not force your relationship with your god on others.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

This is the concept of original sin, in which humans right out of the womb are sinners, that essentially they have no choice. The problem with this concept is that it is foreign to 1st century Judaism – and if we are to assume that Jesus was a Torah observant Jew we can safely say He did not attest to this concept either.



While this is true, it doesn’t erase the bits of “goodness” that are hardwired into every human. By seeing people love each other unconditionally (regardless of if they are a Christian), or give sacrificially we get small glimpses of what God is like.

I’m not saying everyone (or anyone for that matter) is “off the hook” as far as sin goes, I believe that sin entered the world with Adam, and that this world, and all of creation is fractured and splintered because of it.

To say that all are indicted at birth is contrary to the Jewish understanding of sin and it’s origins and their understanding of man’s ability to choose.



Yes, this is the 613 commands from God in the first 5 books of the Bible.



The Jewish understanding of observing Torah is doing good deeds………there’s no separation, to observe Torah is to do good deeds.



Referring to Torah as “the Law” is a very Hellenistic/Lutheranistic (if that’s a word) understanding of Torah. Torah was thought of as the way, the truth and the life………sound familiar? The most commonly used reference to Torah by a Jew in Jesus day would have been to refer to it as “the way”. They refer to Exodus 19 & 20 as “God the Lover” that the Creator of the Universe loves humans so much He gave them the best way to live.



I would say you’re interpreting that passage in the “traditional” Western/Hellenistic understanding of Torah and Paul instead of the Hebraic/Eastern point of view……….remember Paul is a Jewish rabbi, even years after his conversion in the book of Acts he still refers to himself as “a Pharisee” (not I once was a Pharisee)………..to align oneself with the Pharisee sect implies observance of Torah.

I interpret the New Testament in it’s historical and cultural context which means I frame everything in the Jewish mindset and way of thinking. The New Testament is commentary on the Old Testament, Jesus Himself says very little “new” stuff, but does teach a lot on the Torah and what it means to live it out everyday as part of the Kingdom of God. So this could be one way in which we are arriving at different conclusions………..

I disagree with you. How do we resolve this? And, this goes to the heart of the matter at hand, which is why I wondered aloud whether Mr. Sherratt could help us out.

Your interpretations vary from mine. How do we resolve the difference? The answer is that we can't. So, if Mr. Sherratt reads the Bible and sees a conflict with evolution, and others do not, then how do we reconcile that difference? How do we teach that "evolution is a crock" based on his interpretations of scripture without trampling the interpretations of everyone else who believes in the scripture, or everyone else who doesn't believe in the Bible?

See, Mr. Sherratt, in science we have a method for figuring these things out, called the scientific method. We could run more tests and take more data to figure out which model is more correct. In religion we have? If you still don't get why science and evolution are not simply two competing world views, then you need to strap yourself to the Earth, lest you fall off when gravity stops working.

 

[MudGrrl]

 

[Andyman_1970]

I disagree with you.

So then Jesus wasn't a Torah observant rabbi??? So all the authors of the New Testament were not Jewish??

How do we resolve this? And, this goes to the heart of the matter at hand, which is why I wondered aloud whether Mr. Sherratt could help us out.

Your interpretations vary from mine. How do we resolve the difference? The answer is that we can't. So, if Mr. Sherratt reads the Bible and sees a conflict with evolution, and others do not, then how do we reconcile that difference? How do we teach that "evolution is a crock" based on his interpretations of scripture without trampling the interpretations of everyone else who believes in the scripture, or everyone else who doesn't believe in the Bible?

See, Mr. Sherratt, in science we have a method for figuring these things out, called the scientific method. We could run more tests and take more data to figure out which model is more correct. In religion we have? If you still don't get why science and evolution are not simply two competing world views, then you need to strap yourself to the Earth, lest you fall off when gravity stops working.

You and I have not really touched on the creation vs. evolution topic, how it's "resolved" I could care less....................for me and living a life centered around living and teaching the way of Jesus doesn't "require" this issue to be resolved, few people if any are changed or shown the unconditional, no strings attached love of the Messiah by "winning" this debate.

Feel free to hammer out that with Mr. Sheratt.............

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So then Jesus wasn't a Torah observant rabbi??? So all the authors of the New Testament were not Jewish??

Um, are we even sure that Jesus existed? And no, I can't say with certainty that all the authors of the New Testament were Jewish. The New Testament books were written well after the events that they supposedly describe.

You and I have not really touched on the creation vs. evolution topic, how it's "resolved" I could care less....................for me and living a life centered around living and teaching the way of Jesus doesn't "require" this issue to be resolved, few people if any are changed or shown the unconditional, no strings attached love of the Messiah by "winning" this debate.

Feel free to hammer out that with Mr. Sheratt.............

Fair enough, but I was trying to stay on topic.
But, how we resolve our interpretational divide? Well, how do we resolve it? I think your interpretations are incorrect. You have nothing but your interpretations to draw on to try to prove me incorrect. So, how does one resolve that?

Also, you've mentioned how original sin "tainted" man. Well, which is it, are we inherently good or are we "tainted"? The Judeo-Christian religious thread is based on the inherent "taint" of man and using it and the concept of sin in order to control people. See, people are inherently bad, but if you do good deeds and follow the laws that we have set down for you, then perhaps god will see his way to forgiving you and giving you everlasting joy in heaven. I find this concept of the inherent "taint" of man to be abhorrent and hateful. Do not tell me that I am inherently bad. You can point to Romans all you want, but the contradictory passages in Romans makes it useless.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Um, are we even sure that Jesus existed? .

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish rabbi, has some good historical evidence – He is mentioned multiple times in the Mishnah.

And no, I can't say with certainty that all the authors of the New Testament were Jewish. The New Testament books were written well after the events that they supposedly describe.

The NT books were written anywhere from 30-50 years after the fact, when the majority of the early church was Jewish.

But, how we resolve our interpretational divide? Well, how do we resolve it? I think your interpretations are incorrect. You have nothing but your interpretations to draw on to try to prove me incorrect. So, how does one resolve that?

With regards to the topic of original sin I go by the Jewish understanding of how sin entered the world and their understanding of the whole “man vs. free will” thing. If you choose to interpret differently, then go for it – I choose to view the Scriptures from the point of view of those it is about and was written by, not by someone 1400 years after the fact.

Also, you've mentioned how original sin "tainted" man. Well, which is it, are we inherently good or are we "tainted"?

From the Jewish perspective one is “neutral”, all humans have the same capacity to do good and do evil

The Judeo-Christian religious thread is based on the inherent "taint" of man and using it and the concept of sin in order to control people.

I would respectfully suggest you study the Jewish understanding of this, the concept that humans are “tainted” right out of the womb has no precedence in Judaism, this is a purely Christian concept that was “born” about 1400 years after Jesus.

See, people are inherently bad, but if you do good deeds and follow the laws that we have set down for you, then perhaps god will see his way to forgiving you and giving you everlasting joy in heaven.

You’re understanding of “the Law” (which I assume is a reference to the Torah) is completely contrary to Judaism, and is a fabrication which had it birth about 1400 years after Jesus with Martin Luther. No where in the Torah does it say “do this an get to Heaven”, living the Torah out is a way of indicating one is part of God’s covenant people, not how one becomes part of God’s covenant people.

I find this concept of the inherent "taint" of man to be abhorrent and hateful. Do not tell me that I am inherently bad. You can point to Romans all you want, but the contradictory passages in Romans makes it useless.

In it’s proper historical and cultural context, I would suggest doing some research on that as well, the Romans passage flow quite well sans the perceived contradictions. Paul has two different audiences with his letter to the church in Rome – a large Jewish audience and a smaller Gentile audience – so it’s important to determine who he’s talking to, and to place what he’s saying in the context of a 1st Jewish rabbi as well, which Paul was.

Keep in mind, when read contextually, the New Testament speaks relatively little on the subject of salvation or the afterlife, many of the terms we use today as identifiers for the afterlife were not necessarily the same in Jesus’ and Paul’s day – we tend to read the Scriptures through year 2005 eyes with 2000 years of “assumptions” built in, instead of viewing from the Hebraic perspective of a 1st century rabbi.

 

[DRB]

Y'all said taint.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish rabbi, has some good historical evidence – He is mentioned multiple times in the Mishnah.



The NT books were written anywhere from 30-50 years after the fact, when the majority of the early church was Jewish.

I'd suggest that you look here for a dissenting view...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

With regards to the topic of original sin I go by the Jewish understanding of how sin entered the world and their understanding of the whole “man vs. free will” thing. If you choose to interpret differently, then go for it – I choose to view the Scriptures from the point of view of those it is about and was written by, not by someone 1400 years after the fact.

Um, we are reading the same source material here. Also, if you truly have in depth knowledge of how people made interpretations over 2000 years ago and aren't relying on what some modern day scholar thinks, then you can level the charge at me of time span reinterpretation. I'm not going to buy it though unless you can convince me.

From the Jewish perspective one is “neutral”, all humans have the same capacity to do good and do evil

Once again, you are reading from the same source material.

I would respectfully suggest you study the Jewish understanding of this, the concept that humans are “tainted” right out of the womb has no precedence in Judaism, this is a purely Christian concept that was “born” about 1400 years after Jesus.

It's right in Genesis.

You’re understanding of “the Law” (which I assume is a reference to the Torah) is completely contrary to Judaism, and is a fabrication which had it birth about 1400 years after Jesus with Martin Luther. No where in the Torah does it say “do this an get to Heaven”, living the Torah out is a way of indicating one is part of God’s covenant people, not how one becomes part of God’s covenant people.

Actually, it says "Do this or get killed by your jealous and angry god."

In it’s proper historical and cultural context, I would suggest doing some research on that as well, the Romans passage flow quite well sans the perceived contradictions. Paul has two different audiences with his letter to the church in Rome – a large Jewish audience and a smaller Gentile audience – so it’s important to determine who he’s talking to, and to place what he’s saying in the context of a 1st Jewish rabbi as well, which Paul was.

Yes, it says, "Contradiction."

Keep in mind, when read contextually, the New Testament speaks relatively little on the subject of salvation or the afterlife, many of the terms we use today as identifiers for the afterlife were not necessarily the same in Jesus’ and Paul’s day – we tend to read the Scriptures through year 2005 eyes with 2000 years of “assumptions” built in, instead of viewing from the Hebraic perspective of a 1st century rabbi.

I'd like to know how YOU have the Hebraic perspective of a 1st century rabbi.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'd suggest that you look here for a dissenting view...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Yeah that’s an unbiased site……………..

Which glossed over the Talmud and Mishnah citations of Jesus of Nazareth – go ask any orthodox Jew what the 5 greatest rabbi’s in Jewish rabbinic history are and Jesus of Nazareth will be on that list. The Mishnah is rabbinic commentary on the Torah, Jesus of Nazareth (the rabbi) is mentioned about 5 or 6 times in that ancient text.

Also, if you truly have in depth knowledge of how people made interpretations over 2000 years ago and aren't relying on what some modern day scholar thinks, then you can level the charge at me of time span reinterpretation. I'm not going to buy it though unless you can convince me.

Because you keep hammering at the “original sin” idea, insisting that Romans indicates this idea without first researching the concept from it’s Hebraic perspective as I suggested. Your perspective of the book of Romans is classical a Lutheran approach to Paul, who had no grasp of 1st century Judaism whatsoever.

Really I don’t care if you “buy it” or not, that’s not my objective on here to try to “convert” people.

It's right in Genesis.

Have you studied how the rabbi’s interpret this passage (chapter and verse would be nice) in Genesis? If not then you’re coming at the Text from a year 2005 Hellenistic/Western/Lutheranistic perspective………..which is full of biases that don’t take into account the Hebraic/Eastern understanding of this Text.

Have you read the Torah?

Have you read the Talmud?

Have you read the Mishnah?

Actually, it says "Do this or get killed by your jealous and angry god."

Chapter and verse please? Does this say one goes to Hell?? You see you’ve already demonstrated you’re Greek thinking “assumption” that because there is a mention of “death” it automatically means one is destine for Hell. So unless one approached the passage from the perspective of those who wrote it (that would be the Jewish perspective) any other perspective is on shaky contextual ground from the start.

Yes, it says, "Contradiction."

Where in Paul’s letter to the church in Rome does it say “contradiction”……….chapter and verse please?

I would suggest you read “Paul the Palestinian Jew” by EP Sanders if you want a more holistic understanding of what he wrote.

I'd like to know how YOU have the Hebraic perspective of a 1st century rabbi.

It’s called throwing out all my Christian theology text books and spending years studying about Judaism and Hebrew with a rabbi and spending years studying the ancient Jewish texts. There are volumes of texts on 1st century rabbi’s and how they made interpretation of Torah, the Mishnah for instance is a huge volume on the subject that documents various rabbi’s halakah (interpretation in the Hebrew) of the Torah, documenting their methods of arriving at said interpretations.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Andyman_1970,
And those texts were written when? They rely on theological interpretations. Once again, how do we resolve theological interpretational divides? The usual way is either through schism or holy war. Let me ask you a question, how many times has a sect rejoined the community it broke off from?

Did Nazareth the place even exist? Was Jesus born there? Most likely not.

I didn't say that Romans talks about original sin. I said that you can't use it as evidence for your idea that man is inherently good according to this religious thread. Also, it doesn't literally say, "Contradiction" and if you think I actually was saying that, then I don't think you are in any position to tell me what ANY book means, let alone one as contradiction prone and convoluted as the Bible.

Once again, in Genesis, it is interpretational. There are multiple interpretations, and we still have no way to resolve the differences.

The laws are mostly punishable by death when broken. Does this mean the person goes to hell? I don't care. It's not germaine to the topic. Does it have a bearing on whether man is inherently good or evil, no, actually it doesn't. The fact that you would bring up passages that tell us to follow the law is really not germaine to the topic.

Really, all you are doing is appealing to yourself as an authority. Since I have no clue who you are or what you have truly studied, it is an appeal to inappropriate authority.

 

[LordOpie]

Besides, everyone knows that Judas was the one that died on the cross and that Jesus was in hiding for a few days.

 

[vallEbikes]

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Which glossed over the Talmud and Mishnah citations of Jesus of Nazareth – go ask any orthodox Jew what the 5 greatest rabbi’s in Jewish rabbinic history are and Jesus of Nazareth will be on that list. The Mishnah is rabbinic commentary on the Torah, Jesus of Nazareth (the rabbi) is mentioned about 5 or 6 times in that ancient text.

Wait, would that be the Mishnah redacted around 200 C.E.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah

Yeah, that serves as a timely record of Jesus, doesn't it? Or hearsay, whatever.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman_1970,
And those texts were written when? They rely on theological interpretations.

The Mishah has writings in it that date to about 50 or so BC, the whole collection was put together about the late second century. Yes they do rely on theological interpretations, Jewish ones, not Christian, so they don’t have an “agenda” to prove (like with Josephus whose text was “altered” possibly in an effort to “prove” Jesus), which I why IMO they are especially useful in understanding about Jesus.

Once again, how do we resolve theological interpretational divides?

Do some research on hermenutics, that’s a good place for you to start if in fact you’re truly interested. For me, with respect to these “divides” I choose to place the Text in it’s historical, cultural and linguistic context – when one doesn’t a “gap” of understanding is created in which people can and do often insert their own understanding apart from that of the original author. This is why I appeal to the Hebraic 1st century understanding rather than the “classical” Christian understanding of some concepts.

The usual way is either through schism or holy war.

You’re like the king of generalizations………..LOL

Let me ask you a question, how many times has a sect rejoined the community it broke off from?

Did Nazareth the place even exist? Was Jesus born there? Most likely not.

The town of Nezeret (Nazareth in the English) did exist in the 1st century, several Jewish sources confirm that. This is not a “prove Jesus” thread, nor do I care to engage in such a debate as it tends to boil down to a intellectual pissing contest…………which IMO is fruitless ultimately.

I didn't say that Romans talks about original sin.

Correct, but you did indicate that Paul’s letter to the church in Rome says all humans are “bad” – which I responded, out of context it may appear so, but the concept that all humans are “bad” (read original sin) is a Christian invention from about the 15th century, not one Paul would have held as a Jewish 1st century rabbi, which believed that humans have just as much capacity to do good as to do evil. I also made the appeal that Paul is talking to two different audiences in his letter to Rome, and as such there is some background that needs to be understood to be able to accurately grasp the ideas he is putting fourth.

Also, it doesn't literally say, "Contradiction" and if you think I actually was saying that, then I don't think you are in any position to tell me what ANY book means, let alone one as contradiction prone and convoluted as the Bible.

Sarcasm isn’t real clear on a message board let alone from people that we have not discussed with much and really don’t have a feel for their style of posting.

Once again, in Genesis, it is interpretational. There are multiple interpretations, and we still have no way to resolve the differences.

Which is why I choose the interpretation I choose, it’s closest to the authors and the intended audience…………that would be the Jews.

The laws are mostly punishable by death when broken.

“Mostly” really……………seriously have you read the Torah?

Does this mean the person goes to hell? I don't care. It's not germaine to the topic. Does it have a bearing on whether man is inherently good or evil, no, actually it doesn't. The fact that you would bring up passages that tell us to follow the law is really not germaine to the topic.

You’re the one who brought up that breaking Torah results in death by an “angry God”, not me, I didn’t start that rabbit trail……….you however demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the subject being discussed with reference to the Torah.

Really, all you are doing is appealing to yourself as an authority. Since I have no clue who you are or what you have truly studied, it is an appeal to inappropriate authority.

I have also appealed that you study the same if in fact you want to be “convinced”……….oh and you're the one that asked "how do you know what a 1st century rabbi thinks......." so I answered it.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Wait, would that be the Mishnah redacted around 200 C.E.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah

Yeah, that serves as a timely record of Jesus, doesn't it? Or hearsay, whatever.

I would suggest you check some Jewish sites on the age of the oldest sections of the Mishah, large portions of it are pre common era writings.

Also, if you're looking for a debate on "proving Jesus" feel free to bark up someone else's tree..........maybe Heath might like to spar with you on that one.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The Mishah has writings in it that date to about 50 or so BC, the whole collection was put together about the late second century. Yes they do rely on theological interpretations, Jewish ones, not Christian, so they don’t have an “agenda” to prove (like with Josephus whose text was “altered” possibly in an effort to “prove” Jesus), which I why IMO they are especially useful in understanding about Jesus.

Says you. Back it up. Also, again they rely on theological interpretations. What makes their or your interpretations any better or more correct than anyone else's? That's the point that you seem to not be able to grasp.

Do some research on hermenutics, that’s a good place for you to start if in fact you’re truly interested. For me, with respect to these “divides” I choose to place the Text in it’s historical, cultural and linguistic context – when one doesn’t a “gap” of understanding is created in which people can and do often insert their own understanding apart from that of the original author. This is why I appeal to the Hebraic 1st century understanding rather than the “classical” Christian understanding of some concepts.

Fact is that you really don't know what the author was thinking when it was written.

Still waiting on an answer to this question:
Let me ask you a question, how many times has a sect rejoined the community it broke off from?

This is not a “prove Jesus” thread, nor do I care to engage in such a debate as it tends to boil down to a intellectual pissing contest…………which IMO is fruitless ultimately.

Fine by me.

Correct, but you did indicate that Paul’s letter to the church in Rome says all humans are “bad” – which I responded, out of context it may appear so, but the concept that all humans are “bad” (read original sin) is a Christian invention from about the 15th century, not one Paul would have held as a Jewish 1st century rabbi, which believed that humans have just as much capacity to do good as to do evil. I also made the appeal that Paul is talking to two different audiences in his letter to Rome, and as such there is some background that needs to be understood to be able to accurately grasp the ideas he is putting fourth.

All humans are bad and original sin do not necessarily have to be the same concept. I'll bet some Christian priests adopted original sin to explain why all humans are inherently bad. Plus, let's say Paul is talking to 2 different audiences and contradicts himself because of it. What can we infer from that? First, we can infer that Paul is a liar, and as such we can't take his word for anything. Second, we can infer that Paul is telling each group what it wants to hear, so how can we tell which one is truth and which is the sales pitch? The army recruiter might tell you all kinds of things about the opportunities you'll have in the army, but when you get to Iraq and are running around like a grunt, you might find out his promises of being able to work on computers and high tech equipment was completely wrong and misleading.

Sarcasm isn’t real clear on a message board let alone from people that we have not discussed with much and really don’t have a feel for their style of posting.

Give me a break.

Which is why I choose the interpretation I choose, it’s closest to the authors and the intended audience…………that would be the Jews.

Bingo, it's an interpretation that you choose, but you don't know if it is more correct or not. I would venture that you choose that interpretation because it's what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but is that the best way to choose correctness?

“Mostly” really……………seriously have you read the Torah?

Yes. The god of the Hebrews is a jealous and vengeful god. Step out of line and the preferred method of punishment is death.
http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/11/20/god-is-a-dick-part-xxi-captial-punishment-in-the-torah/

You’re the one who brought up that breaking Torah results in death by an “angry God”, not me, I didn’t start that rabbit trail……….you however demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the subject being discussed with reference to the Torah.

Oh really? Once again, give me a break. A 1st century rabbi would recognize the Torah and the vengeful god that is described within it. Or, did you conveniently forget that god is vengeful and jealous in the Torah? Maybe that happened when you were making your warm and fuzzy interpretations?

I have also appealed that you study the same if in fact you want to be “convinced”……….oh and you're the one that asked "how do you know what a 1st century rabbi thinks......." so I answered it.

You've sent me to the same source material. I can read it just as you can, and my reading is much different from yours. You claim to have an in depth understanding of how a rabbi from the 1st century thinks, but you have not demonstrated it beyond saying so. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Which glossed over the Talmud and Mishnah citations of Jesus of Nazareth – go ask any orthodox Jew what the 5 greatest rabbi’s in Jewish rabbinic history are and Jesus of Nazareth will be on that list. The Mishnah is rabbinic commentary on the Torah, Jesus of Nazareth (the rabbi) is mentioned about 5 or 6 times in that ancient text.

For my own education (not to debate whether Jesus was real or not, since the Mishnah wasn't written until about 217 C.E. and was orally kept before that) where is Jesus mentioned in the Mishnah? I found only one reference to a heathen named Jesus (not Jesus of Nazareth) which would counter your claim that they regarded him as a great rabbi.

 

[Andyman_1970]

For my own education (not to debate whether Jesus was real or not, since the Mishnah wasn't written until about 217 C.E. and was orally kept before that) where is Jesus mentioned in the Mishnah? I found only one reference to a heathen named Jesus (not Jesus of Nazareth) which would counter your claim that they regarded him as a great rabbi.

There is a compilation of Jesus’ mention in rabbinic writings in a text called the Toledot Yeshu. Here are some of the references I have handy right now, they are a sampling of Jesus’ mention in rabbinic writing and are not exhaustive by any means.

Parents and birth of Jesus
*Jesus’ questionable circumstances surrounding His birth – a reference to harlots and carpenters
Sanhedrin 106a

*Jesus was near kingship – possible satire on Jesus’ claim to usher in the Kingdom of God or a reference to His linage
Sanhedrin 43a

*Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai claims to have found a scroll in Jerusalem of genealogical record which documents a “certain person” illegitimately born of a married woman – people of illegitimate birth were out casts in Jewish society so it’s interesting the genealogical record of this person was recorded. Most Jewish scholars believe that to be a reference to Jesus.
Yebam. 4:13, Yebam 49a

The ministry of Jesus
*a rabbi declaring that Jesus cast out demons with magic (parallels the Mark 3:22 passage)
Sanhedrin 107b, Sanhedrin 43a, Sabb. 11:15, Sabb. 104b, Sota. 47a

The teachings of Jesus
*Jesus teaching harlots
Abod. Zar. 16b-17a, Hul. 2:24

*a rabbi speaking about Jesus, that He was born to a woman (a way of saying His birth had questionable circumstances surrounding it) and that He thought of Himself as God
Yal. Shim on Numbers 23:7

The Crucifixion of Jesus
*Jesus being executed on the eve of Passover
Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 10:11, Sanhedrin 7:12, Tg. Ester 7:9

*Jesus being brought before the Sanhedrin and executed on the eve of Passover
Sanhedrin 67a, Sanhedrin 7:16

The resurrection of Jesus
*rabbinic explanation on Jesus’ resurrection, which they believe was done by magic.
Git. 57a, Sanhedrin 106a

Healing in Jesus Name
*a story of a rabbi’s sister who didn’t permit a dude named Peter to heal her in Jesus’ Name.
Hul. 2:22-23, Sabb. 14:4, Abod. Zar. 2:2, Abod Zar 27b, Qoh. Rab. 10:5

 

[N8 v2.0]

All that crap above makes me glad I believe we all evolved from the early Oozian slime...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Andyman,
Upon further reflection, I think we can reach at least part of a compromise.

A big sticking point is the issue of original sin. I contend that it is a hateful idea. You seem to be arguing that you don't believe in original sin. Can we agree then that it is a hateful idea?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Says you. Back it up. Also, again they rely on theological interpretations. What makes their or your interpretations any better or more correct than anyone else's? That's the point that you seem to not be able to grasp.

My “interpretation” relies on a foundation of historical, cultural and linguistic context of what we know about the 1st century rather than someone 500-1400 years after the fact (who did not have access to the history and archeology we have today) reading something into the Text and using only the Text itself to explain the Text……….Sola Scriptura.

Fact is that you really don't know what the author was thinking when it was written.

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying I’m closer that most evangelical Christians.

Still waiting on an answer to this question:
Let me ask you a question, how many times has a sect rejoined the community it broke off from?

The Messianic community is on it’s second or third “rejoin” of the mainstream Christian community.

All humans are bad and original sin do not necessarily have to be the same concept.

A concept not supported by Judaism……….and yes the idea that humans are inheritly “bad” and original sin are intertwined.

I'll bet some Christian priests adopted original sin to explain why all humans are inherently bad. Plus, let's say Paul is talking to 2 different audiences and contradicts himself because of it. What can we infer from that?

Have you studied Romans from the Hebraic perspective, or are you just literally taking the words out of the book without research without context……….kind of like the crazy fundamentalist Christians that people

If you’re really interested in studying Romans from the Hebraic perceptive then I’d be glad to engage in a discussion with you. If you’re looking to disprove the New Testament or argue then feel free to bark up someone else’s tree.

Give me a break.

Dude, you’ve posted like 22 times on here……………give me a break.

Bingo, it's an interpretation that you choose, but you don't know if it is more correct or not. I would venture that you choose that interpretation because it's what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but is that the best way to choose correctness?

How do you know how I choose my interpretation? You don’t know me, so I would appreciate you not making assumptions on that matter. If you want to have a civil discussion on this matter that’s great, but if you want to berate or belittle me because you don’t agree then feel free to take that elsewhere.......................

Yes. The god of the Hebrews is a jealous and vengeful god. Step out of line and the preferred method of punishment is death.
http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/11/20/god-is-a-dick-part-xxi-captial-punishment-in-the-torah/

Do some research on the rabbinic interpretation of that, and how many times it was actually done then get back with me.

Oh really? Once again, give me a break. A 1st century rabbi would recognize the Torah and the vengeful god that is described within it. Or, did you conveniently forget that god is vengeful and jealous in the Torah? Maybe that happened when you were making your warm and fuzzy interpretations?

If God is so vengeful and angry why do the Jews refer to Exodus 19 & 20 as God the lover. Again you have a perspective that doesn’t take into account how a Jew understands Torah, they see it as a love letter from God.

Once again, have you read Torah, or are you just getting your info from all those atheist sites? Again, if you want to have a civil discussion on the matter that’s great, but if you’re just going to throw atheist propaganda around to try to needle me then we can cease this exchange.

You've sent me to the same source material. I can read it just as you can, and my reading is much different from yours. You claim to have an in depth understanding of how a rabbi from the 1st century thinks, but you have not demonstrated it beyond saying so. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

See my comments about the Jewish understanding of Torah for one which is contrary to the classical Christian understanding of it.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman,
Upon further reflection, I think we can reach at least part of a compromise.

A big sticking point is the issue of original sin. I contend that it is a hateful idea. You seem to be arguing that you don't believe in original sin. Can we agree then that it is a hateful idea?

Yes we can which is why I don't subscribe to it...............

 

[Old Man G Funk]

There is a compilation of Jesus’ mention in rabbinic writings in a text called the Toledot Yeshu.

Did you really mean to say the Toledot Yeshu? That's a medieval story written as a possible satire of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

 

[Andyman_1970]

I think the jury is out on whether or not it's satire..........it was compilated in the middle ages from passages in the Midrash and Mishnah on Jesus.

 

[fluff]

All that crap above makes me glad I believe we all evolved from the early Oozian slime...

I hadn't noticed that you'd evolved at all N8...

 

[Reactor]

It never says that got was is a man only that we are created in it's image, nor does it say god literaly created in 6 days. I am not going to tell you that jesus is not the mesiah I do not know for a fact, but I do not belive he his. He was the son of god but god did create man so therefor evory man on earth is gods son. One thing I do know is jesus was a jew, he was born, lived, and died a jew that is a fact. You are entitled to your belife in christianity and I respect how devoted you are to your faith, but I fermly belive that I am a part of gods chosen people and there is nothing you can do to cinvince me otherwise.

I've been too busy to think, much less post the last week or so, but here goes.

Heath,

Accepting the bible is the word of god, is predicated on belief in the book. There is considerably less "proof" of the bible being other than a work of fiction then there is of evolution. Yes, we have discovered places that existed in the bible. We also discovered Mars, but that doesn't make John Carter any more real.

Let's take another book that mentions biblical places and people. The Davinci code mentions all many places and people that existed, but that doesn't make it any more real. Accepting the bible is an act of faith, not fact. The fact that there are hundreds of different languages and versions attests the ability of people to translate and alter it, not it's veracity.

There are probably almost as many versions of the The Davinci code as the bible, that still doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean it's false. It also doesn't necessarily make Jesus (if he existed and if the book is true and survived 2,000 years of politics and human editing) the son of god, any more than we would all be children of god. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I went to a christian church, but wasn't the messiah supposed to bring about an era of peace? Isn't this the reasons Jews insist that Jesus wasn't the true messiah? It's been 2,000 years, seems like even if there was an era of peace you'd be hard pressed to attribute it to Jesus.

Science is built on taking observations of the physical world, and then trying to find theories to explain them. Creationism is based on taking your faith and trying to shade the facts to fit your beliefs. Any thing that can't be explained is the will of god. Intelligent design and creationism have been thoroughly debunked in the scientific community, they only exist in the religious community, and are not appropriate for inclusion in any science class. If you allow it, you would be duty bound to provide all versions of the truth. From the eastern native American creation belief of a giant space beaver creating the earth from a ball of mud, to the haluapi creation belief of being born of the blue waters flowing into the grand canyon. Then there are hundreds of other creation beliefs, Shikh and Hindu and Buddhist, and all the hundreds of "pagan" creation beliefs, heck you could even include satanists. Most of the creation beliefs are no less credible than yours. The one day creation topic would take the whole school year, but at least we'd hear all the different view points.

There is a good reason teaching all the different versions of creationism would never work. First the same hypocritical parents that want their version of creationism included in school, would balk at having their children taught another religions creation beliefs. They want all children taught their version, but wouldn't allow a version they don't approve of.

Stick to science, after if the theory of evolution works, who is to say it isn't truth or gods will to have it exist.

 

[fluff]

Did you really mean to say the Toledot Yeshu? That's a medieval story written as a possible satire of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

It's fair to say that you've made some good points and that you carry a debate pretty well, but every time you use wikipedia as a reference point I cringe.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

My “interpretation” relies on a foundation of historical, cultural and linguistic context of what we know about the 1st century rather than someone 500-1400 years after the fact (who did not have access to the history and archeology we have today) reading something into the Text and using only the Text itself to explain the Text……….Sola Scriptura.

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying I’m closer that most evangelical Christians.

You may be, but you don't KNOW that for sure.

The Messianic community is on it’s second or third “rejoin” of the mainstream Christian community.

Say what? You're kidding right?

A concept not supported by Judaism……….and yes the idea that humans are inheritly “bad” and original sin are intertwined.

Again, not necessarily. I could say that all humans are bad independently of whether there is original sin or not.

Have you studied Romans from the Hebraic perspective, or are you just literally taking the words out of the book without research without context……….kind of like the crazy fundamentalist Christians that people

I've read it, if that's what you mean. Have I seen what other people think of it, yes. Seeing as how there is no real way of determining who is right or wrong in interpreting an oral account that was passed from generation to generation, I don't really see how you can take the track you are taking on this.

Dude, you’ve posted like 22 times on here……………give me a break.

That's a rather strange rejoinder (ad hominem). I wasn't aware that number of posts had anything to do with anything.

How do you know how I choose my interpretation? You don’t know me, so I would appreciate you not making assumptions on that matter. If you want to have a civil discussion on this matter that’s great, but if you want to berate or belittle me because you don’t agree then feel free to take that elsewhere.......................

Perhaps I misphrased that. I should have asked if that was the case. I'd be willing to bet that many people believe what they want to believe. They want to believe that god is all about love, so they do. Am I correct? I don't know, I'm conjecturing.

If God is so vengeful and angry why do the Jews refer to Exodus 19 & 20 as God the lover. Again you have a perspective that doesn’t take into account how a Jew understands Torah, they see it as a love letter from God.

If god isn't jealous and vengeful, why does it say that he is, pretty explicitly in the OT?

Once again, have you read Torah, or are you just getting your info from all those atheist sites? Again, if you want to have a civil discussion on the matter that’s great, but if you’re just going to throw atheist propaganda around to try to needle me then we can cease this exchange.

I don't get info from atheist sites. In fact, I don't even visit atheist sites all that often.

See my comments about the Jewish understanding of Torah for one which is contrary to the classical Christian understanding of it.

See your assertions you mean?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I think the jury is out on whether or not it's satire..........it was compilated in the middle ages from passages in the Midrash and Mishnah on Jesus.

Which is why I said it's a "possible" satire.

All the references I've seen have said that it was composed, not compiled in the middle ages.

It's not clear that Yeshu is Jesus for sure either.

Also, the Mishnah doesn't have passages on Jesus, or else you just won't present them to me, since I asked. I certainly didn't find any references to Jesus, unless he was a heretic instead of a rabbi, which you asserted.

You can't take the expert road and then display such glaring errors of fact that you shouldn't make.

It's fair to say that you've made some good points and that you carry a debate pretty well, but every time you use wikipedia as a reference point I cringe.

Thank you, and I agree that using wikipedia isn't always the best idea. I did it in this case for ease and also because it agreed with everything else I found.

 

[Andyman_1970]

You may be, but you don't KNOW that for sure.

You’re correct I don’t “know for sure” I do however know from the personal interactions I’ve had with my conservative Christian friends that my interpretations are much more historically “intact” compared to most conservative Christian dogma.

Say what? You're kidding right?

No, not really. Christianity was essentially totally Jewish until about Acts 10, then Gentiles got involved. Late in the 1st century the Jews got increasingly “squeezed” out of the church as it were. However recently in the last 20+ years or so there has been a resurgence in Messianic Jews, so you could say a sect “left” and is now “back”……….if in fact this is what you were referring to sect wise that is.

Again, not necessarily. I could say that all humans are bad independently of whether there is original sin or not.

Where does Judaism teach that humans are bad............

Did you check Wikpedia on the "original sin" - it gives a good overview of it and the differences between Judaism and Christanity.

I do however agree with you as it doesn't take much observation of people to see that we can and often do screw stuff up.

I've read it, if that's what you mean. Have I seen what other people think of it, yes. Seeing as how there is no real way of determining who is right or wrong in interpreting an oral account that was passed from generation to generation, I don't really see how you can take the track you are taking on this.

There are “agreed upon” methods of interpreting Scripture, it’s called hermeneutics. The problem as you’ve indicated is the differences in one’s hermeneutical method – some Christian groups use a “closed” hermeneutic which only uses Scripture to interpret Scripture and asserts that silence in Scripture indicate prohibition from God – which results in understandings that are contrary to the historical or cultural context (the book of Galatians is a wonderful example).

For me I find it very dangerous to divorce the Text from it’s context. When the Text are divorced of the historical, cultural and linguistic context in which they were written a dangerous hermeneutical space is created for people to remake Jesus into whatever they decide He should be.

This happened in the 20’s and 30’s in Germany, the theologians at the time were so “gun shy” of perusing the historical aspect of Jesus because of the likes of Albert Schweitzer and such that they totally denied the historical aspect of Jesus and the Bible instead depending on things like Bart’s church dogmatics and Rudolf Bultman’s existential theology.

This denial of the historical aspect of Jesus and the Bible created a hermeneutical space for the Nazi ideology to take hold in which they remade Jesus to fit their Arian mold – so much so that they declared Jesus was not particularly Jewish so much so they taught He was anti-Jewish – according to the German theologian Ernst Käsemann (in 1953). This is probably the strongest example of why I interpret the Scriptures as I do.

That's a rather strange rejoinder (ad hominem). I wasn't aware that number of posts had anything to do with anything.

That wasn’t an ad hominem by any means (my apologies if that was percieved as a pesonal attack), I was merely indicating that your interaction with us on here has been limited, it takes time to sort out peoples personalities and understand when they are being serious and when they are being sarcastic……..that was my point.

Perhaps I misphrased that. I should have asked if that was the case. I'd be willing to bet that many people believe what they want to believe. They want to believe that god is all about love, so they do. Am I correct? I don't know, I'm conjecturing.

Yeah if I didn’t believe my interpretation then I would have a different one wouldn’t I? Actually most conservative fundamentalist Christians (the ones I’m most familiar with) tend to focus on God’s anger and wrath rather than His unconditional love.

I don't get info from atheist sites. In fact, I don't even visit atheist sites all that often.

You’re last none wikpedia link was “evangelicalatheists”………..

See your assertions you mean?

Yes my assertions of the Jewish understanding, which I’ve gathered from Jews………..

 

[Andyman_1970]

Also, the Mishnah doesn't have passages on Jesus, or else you just won't present them to me, since I asked. I certainly didn't find any references to Jesus, unless he was a heretic instead of a rabbi, which you asserted.

The stuff I cited was from the Babylonian Talmud, of which the Mishnah is considered to be a part of. The Messianics and Jews I interact with use the terms Talmud and Mishnah interchangably........I apologize for the confusion on the matter.

 

[DRB]

My head hurts reading all of this.

This has stayed civil way too long, this is the PD forum, start calling each other names NOW.

 

[fluff]

My head hurts reading all of this.

This has stayed civil way too long, this is the PD forum, start calling each other names NOW.

You're reading this?!? I'm just, like browsing and marvelling at all the quotes and the civility. There's an almost ethereal quality to this argument. Well, until Heath or The Typo Kid stick their oars in anyway.

 

[LordOpie]

My head hurts reading all of this.

This has stayed civil way too long, this is the PD forum, start calling each other names NOW.

hey, I tried. I did the Barnarbas argument that jesus pulled the old switcher-roo, but no one bit, even if it is true. We jews have been passing it down orally ever since.

 

[fluff]

hey, I tried. I did the Barnarbas argument that jesus pulled the old switcher-roo, but no one bit, even if it is true. We jews have been passing it down orally ever since.

Yeah, and I called N8 a piece of green slime.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You’re correct I don’t “know for sure” I do however know from the personal interactions I’ve had with my conservative Christian friends that my interpretations are much more historically “intact” compared to most conservative Christian dogma.

No, you don't "know" that. See, that's one of the problems with interpretations. There's no way of discerning who is in fact correct. And, with the way that the scriptures were handed down, generation to generation, then redacted, copied over and over, written way after the fact, how can you know anything about the intent of the original authors?

No, not really. Christianity was essentially totally Jewish until about Acts 10, then Gentiles got involved. Late in the 1st century the Jews got increasingly “squeezed” out of the church as it were. However recently in the last 20+ years or so there has been a resurgence in Messianic Jews, so you could say a sect “left” and is now “back”……….if in fact this is what you were referring to sect wise that is.

Actually, no that's not what I'm referring to. When two groups divide over a theological question, have they ever resolved their differences and come back together?

Where does Judaism teach that humans are bad............

Did you check Wikpedia on the "original sin" - it gives a good overview of it and the differences between Judaism and Christanity.

I do however agree with you as it doesn't take much observation of people to see that we can and often do screw stuff up.

When man was cast from the garden of eden, man was condemned to work to attain grace. Grace would be a position of good. Therefore, man is in a state of less than good, meaning inherently flawed or evil in some way.

There are “agreed upon” methods of interpreting Scripture, it’s called hermeneutics. The problem as you’ve indicated is the differences in one’s hermeneutical method – some Christian groups use a “closed” hermeneutic which only uses Scripture to interpret Scripture and asserts that silence in Scripture indicate prohibition from God – which results in understandings that are contrary to the historical or cultural context (the book of Galatians is a wonderful example).

No offense here, but I honestly fail to see how your method is really any different. You are simply basing Scripture off of other people's reading of Scripture. Perhaps you don't take silence to mean a prohibition, but you ultimately must always return to the Scripture, because there is no empirical data to back anything up.

That wasn’t an ad hominem by any means (my apologies if that was percieved as a pesonal attack), I was merely indicating that your interaction with us on here has been limited, it takes time to sort out peoples personalities and understand when they are being serious and when they are being sarcastic……..that was my point.

Duly noted. No problem then, and I wasn't insulted or anything, I just thought it odd is all.

Yeah if I didn’t believe my interpretation then I would have a different one wouldn’t I?

I actually used that line this weekend.

Actually most conservative fundamentalist Christians (the ones I’m most familiar with) tend to focus on God’s anger and wrath rather than His unconditional love.

No arguments about that.

You’re last none wikpedia link was “evangelicalatheists”………..

Touche. Let me rephrase. I should have said that I don't often get my info from atheist sites. Now, that site on capital punishment in the Bible was actually nothing new for me. I put in on there because it was a good summation, but I already had the info from reading the source material.

Yes my assertions of the Jewish understanding, which I’ve gathered from Jews………..

As long as you agree that they are assertions.