sculleywr said:
Name one that he didn't fulfill. Tell me how Jeremiah's New covenant was a prayer. Jeremiah's prayer is in Lamentations, which was written shortly before he was taken to Egypt.
I said many that you claim he fulfilled that he either:
A. Didn't. or B. Weren't prophecies.
You've selectively chosen to ignore that because it would require you to think and question yourself.
I said that the Psalms were prayers. Either you misread me or you're actively trying to distort what I said. Why don't you actually try READING my posts before you try to refute them?
sculleywr said:
No, but we are taught how to counter the arguments of other people's beliefs.
They apparently didn't teach you very well, then, as you're not holding your own in this discussion by propagating hatred, lies and misinformation and then not being able to defend them when I respond. (And then changing to another topic in order to divert attention from that.)
sculleywr said:
Our most famous argument is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Obviously they never believed the body was in the grave because they could have just pointed to the grave and said, there he is. They also knew the guards were there, because they never said they didn't exist. So how did a bunch of women defeat an attachment of Roman guards?
Huh? English, please? Your paragraph here doesn't make any logical sense because it uses too many pronouns without first defining who they refer to.
sculleywr said:
From the third century before Christ, is the oldest document we have:
It is the Greek translation made in Alexandria by a Group of 72 rabbis (6 from each one of the 12 Tribes of Israel), and hence the name of "Septuagint" given to the translation. It has 46 books, like the Catholic Bibles, and it was the common version of the Bible among the Jews well after Christ; the one used and quoted by the Evangelists and Apostles when they wrote the New Testament, and the one mostly quoted in the Talmud.
The information is wrong, then, as the Septuagint was not used by the majority of Jews at any time in history. The only Jews recorded to have ever used the Septuagint were the Alexandrian Jews in Egypt. Moreover, the legend holds that there were 70 sages, not 72. Moreover, the entirety of the translation did not all occur at once and the sages were only commissioned with translating the Torah.
sculleywr said:
According to this site, it wasn't until AFTER the 4th century AD that the Hebrew scriptures were translated. Since there is no one to one translation from Greek to Hebrew and then from Hebrew to English, The English version from the Hebrew scriptures could be of much debate. The more reliable one is the septuagint.
So an English translation of the Septuagint, a bad translation of the original Hebrew is more accurate than an English translation of the original Hebrew. Right. That makes sense.
sculleywr said:
By the time, there was a good sized group of Jews that were not in Israel and had never been to Israel.
Again, I said "the Jews in Eretz Yisrael'. Stop changing what I said, you're just digging your own hole deeper by distorting my words.
sculleywr said:
If they refused to speak the language, they would face persecution.
They were persecuted anyway, why do you think they revolted in the late 60s CE?
sculleywr said:
And being a non-Jew, as you claimed, makes YOU more knowledgeable. Sorry, that doesn't give you a leg to stand on.
I've actually given the subject a fair bit of thought and honest research. I'm willing to say that yes, I know more than you do about the subject. I don't have an axe to grind with the Jews like you do, thus allowing me the freedom to learn Jewish history and about the religion without the Christian bias that Jews are an evil and spiteful people or the false belief that Judaism is an incomplete Christianity.
sculleywr said:
Correction, they did, and I cite the quotes from the Talmud, mentioned in the above website, as proof. The oldest version of the Talmud includes the Greek language.
Both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud were written in Aramaic, not Greek. Additionally, the former was incomplete which is why it is largely not used today.
sculleywr said:
Well, they sure as heck managed to capture a good standing in the current Israeli government, making trips to the Temple mount, where the blueprints for the Temple are laid out.
The Temple Mount is a pilgrimage site both for all of the three major Abrahamic faiths, but especially Jews and Muslims. One needs to be no more than a respectful tourist to gain access to the site.
sculleywr said:
If I hated Jews, I wouldn't be trying to win them to the Lord, now would I?
No, it is precisely the fact that you do hate Jews that is the reason you want to convert them out of their faith. You believe their faith is wrong--A typical Christian vantage point, one held for all other religions as well but one that does not make any logical sense in the real world.
sculleywr said:
It isn't a very hateful act to inform them of eternal death.
No, it's a hateful act to misquote and misinterpret scripture in order to brainwash a person into rejecting their faith and their heritage because you want to control the way they think and feel. It's a hateful act to prey upon someone who does not share your faith by using a wicked and sinister approach to force them to convert.
sculleywr said:
The Sanhedrin had the power to blackmail the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.
They didn't blackmail Pilate. Pilate executed Jesus because Jesus was inciting revolution, not because the Sanhedrin organised a massive conspiracy to get one of their own executed. It's a common conspiracy theory that people like you hold, but since Pilate is known historically for oppressing his subjects (the Jews, in particular), the chances that he was willing to forgo that to do the leaders a favor lacks any logical backing.
Of course, that assumes the Sanhedrin actually had a reason to have Jesus killed, something it didn't.
sculleywr said:
There are a few instances where they have historically condemned people to death, including many Christians who were considered apostles. These would include Peter, James, and the twelve.
Considering the apostles were not killed by the Jews, that argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
sculleywr said:
Incorrect, no man could rise from the dead and stay alive.
If a man rose from the dead, he would be alive wouldn't he? Unless he's a zombie of course. That'd just be scary.
sculleywr said:
No prophet could remain sinless for his life.
There's nothing that indicates Jesus was sinless either.
sculleywr said:
Little secret for the Jews: Every prophet lied at some point in his life. Every patriarch committed some kind of sin.
The Jews are well aware of that fact. The Jewish idea on the subject is that humans are not perfect but they aren't inherently evil either. Following the commandments, versus not following them, creates a balancing act between good and evil for a person. If the person's net of the actions he takes is positive, he is good. If the net is negative, he is evil.
sculleywr said:
Jesus is God. God is a triune God. You have The Lord Himself, The Spirit of the Lord, and Jesus Christ Himself, who came and spoke to Abraham.
Sorry, but Judaism is a *monotheistic* faith. Judaism also doesn't believe God has multiple personality disorder.
sculleywr said:
Not according to the news. I have shown you the news articles. Of them, three call them the "newly elected." Last I checked, to be elected, you need a vote.
The only one of those articles on the Google News site that even contains the word "elected" is
The Sanhedrin Reestablished (Part II), which does not use the word in relation to the election of the Sanhedrin itself. It uses the word in relation to the group (the nascent Sanhedrin) electing a group of seven to be the leaders of the overall organisation.
Once again, you have made your case based on fabrications--Can you see websites that don't exist or are you just lying?
sculleywr said:
I did, that is why I am posting them. Last I checked, when you refer to someone as elected, someone had to vote him in. You being a non-Jew, don't have a leg to stand on without posting sources, and then giving a logical followup.
Again, read above. It's quite clear you don't read your own sources because there's not a single article there that says that the Jews, or even Israelis elected the nascent Sanhedrin.
I have more of a leg to stand on about Judaism as I'm not out to get them to accept brainwashing and reject their faith (as you are) and I'm actually involved in that community.
sculleywr said:
You see any of that in what Jesus said? I don't.
No, I just see it in what Christians say about Jesus.
sculleywr said:
Well, you sure haven't been acting it. Last I checked, the Torah said to love thy neighbor as thyself. Well, mocking people sure ain't doing you well for the "God-fearing man" that you claim to be.
You've treated me with disrespect, and so shall I return that unto you. I am not obligated to take your harrassment nor am I obligated to sit quitely while you lie about the Jews and propagate your lies and hatred.
Considering you can't even follow the tenet of loving one's neighbor as oneself in your own religion, why don't you examine your own actions first, then question mine?
I don't claim to be a "God-fearing man" because I do not fear God nor am I male.
sculleywr said:
However, a gentile had to jump through every religious hoop the rabbis put in.
The gentile, for salvation, has to observe the Noachide Laws. That's it. 7 basic rules that all reasonably decent people would be following anyway without even knowing it.
sculleywr said:
The tradition today is that Hebrew is the Jewish language, and thus must have been at all times. Problem is, current Hebrew isn't anything like the Hebrew that was used in Bible days.
There are several Jewish languages, Hebrew being one of them. Hebrew fell out of use after the Babylonian captivity in favor of Aramaic, which fell out of use after the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world in which Ladino emerged as the main language among Sephardim and Yiddish became the main language among Ashkenazim. It was not until about 100 years ago when Eliezer Ben-Yehuda modernised Hebrew that the language was restored to actual usage. Hebrew is the original Jewish language, but it's not the only one ever used and modern Hebrew does have its differences from Biblical Hebrew due to the latter being out of common colloquial use for about two millenia.
sculleywr said:
You might want to check back on that one, because the deflection, if any, is very small compared to the multi-page reports we have going here. We might just be able to write a book.
Depends. Would my words be censored as traditionally the words of Jews discussing theology with Christians have been?
sculleywr said:
When you use such lengthy answers, you can't ever expect me to read every line.
Why not? I read every single word of your responses.
sculleywr said:
If Jesus wasn't the Christ, the disciples wouldn't have enough motive to die for him.
That's circular logic. We would have to first accept that they did die for him.