Throwstones

I am former staff to work with Jews for Jesus for some years and am longtime friend with Jews for Jesus. We Jews for Jesus give people a choice to decide accept or reject the Messiah Y'shua. We believe that we never force them to believe this. This is a person's free will between a person and GOD.

Deprogramming is similiar as brainwashing to make you believing that Jesus is not Messiah and force you to deny Him.

Thatis not true.. I have researched this history in past and know it is against legal For example, a rapist want to do agaist your will since you would say No to rapist but rapist do force you for sex that means against your will. Same thing as deprogrammers are doing against your will that you do not want to deny the Messiah Jesus but they can give you real confusing in the bible which is mostly twisting story etc... They can make you denying the Messiah Jesus.

BUZZZ BUZZZZZ wrong... I have been knowledge about Jews for Judaism and know their ways to force them to deny Messiah Jesus.

Over IM, per conversation, you already told me that you work with the rabbi in your area since you attend the temple.

Let me tell you that 23 years ago the rabbi who works with the deaf jews did send letters to every deaf jews including me. I read his letter that he is certainly deprogrammer and wants to find any deaf messianic jews for doing a deprogramming on them. I have an evidence of his letter without doubting. He also told me over phone, he wanted me to deny the Messiah Jesus therefore I refused to deny Him as Messiah.

Throwstones

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Teresh

It's not a bad thing to acknowledge that one is educated. It does not grant credibility in and of itself but it does establish that the individual is reasonably learned on the various effects of life on our planet. The point was not to establish myself as superior or more knowledgable but rather to dismiss the notion that I am not knowledgable because I am younger.

I'm not a fool and I do, at times, know what I am talking about. The suggestion that I do not because I happen to be less advanced in my years is not a fair or proper way to talk with me or to discuss a subject with me. If anything, it shows that the person is not willing to consider my words because they would believe me to be naive.

The issue that is refuted in that statement is the suggestion that I am too young to be considered knowledgable on general issues when I am, in fact, reasonably well-educated.

Teresh

And yet Jews for Jesus employs a lot of deceptive tactics and preys upon essentially assimilated Jews in order to gain converts... You claim that it is a person's free will, but then you are very aggressive and deceptive to the audience--which is it?

It's not quite the same as the Jews in question already believed that Jesus was not the Messiah until your organisation interfered and brainwashed them.

Rape laws do not apply to religious conversions. They're two completely different things, though the psychological impact may be similar for some.

Well, you're also a Christian who believes in the existence of a massive Rabbinical conspiracy, so it's not surprising you'd think negatively of Jews for Judaism and its motives. You're an Anti-Jewish Jew, so your denial of the reality that Jews for Judaism does not have ill intent makes sense in the context of what you are.

Yes, I attend services when I am able to do so. Yes, I have met various rabbis in my life. Yes, I've found Jewish practice to be more spiritually and intellectually substantiative than I found Christianity in my many years of practicing that.

I'm sorry you had a negative experience, but the fact of the matter is that that negative experience is not at all a logical rationale for rejecting Judaism as a way of life or as a religion.

Throwstones

Your issue is out of order! PERIOD...

Throwstones

Momoftwo

hottiedeafboi

Thanks and you re welcome Reba, Cyberred, Scrulley, Momoftwo, Throwstones. Smile! Keep the faith stronger inspite of their anger, hatred, bitterness, excuses, twisting and etc. We know who the true Living Lord Jesus Christ actually prophysied fullfilled Messiah. May His Name be lifted up and give God the glory. Oh how we many thanks to our Father who has given us the Savior so we can be with Him forever and ever. HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LAMB!

hottiedeafboi

Oh that's goes for you too, ROSE. Sorry I left you out. Winks

Rose Immortal

Has Teresh ever stated anywhere on AD that this is the case, or is that just YOUR guess?

Rose Immortal

I saw one interesting theory on this I thought I would share. The Bible gives two genealogies for Jesus. One is the "legal" genealogy, which would be through the legal guardian, i.e. Joseph. The other one, in Luke, may well be a genealogy through Mary's side; in that case, Heli (the first name cited after Joseph) is Joseph's father-in-law. So that particular line is in fact a biological bloodline.

Now as to the reason why that genealogy goes back to Nathan rather than through Solomon's line, there's a reason that arises through a prophecy by Jeremiah. The Davidic line from Solomon continued from Solomon to a king named Jeconiah (or Coniah). Jeconiah was not a particularly faithful individual and had a large role in getting his country conquered, as I understand it. At that time, Jeremiah relayed the following prophecy pertaining to Jeconiah's line:

(Read the full chapter here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2;&version=31; )

However, you have earlier prophecies where the Davidic line was to rule "forever." This promise is reiterated in the New Testament in the angel's explanation to Mary, in the book of Matthew, but it does occur in the Old Testament. If anyone has a citation handy on that one, I'd appreciate it.

Under this theory I'm following, God did not say WHICH branch of the Davidic line that the Messiah had to be descended from. So rather than His being a blood-descendant of the cursed line (Jeconiah's), Jesus is a blood-descendant of David through Nathan's line. This would not be the first instance of God's elevating the younger sibling above the older; in fact, David himself is a perfect example--youngest sibling of his family.

One other interesting note. I mention that Jeconiah's line, through which Joseph eventually originated, was cursed. It's quite interesting that Joseph came out of what seems to be blue-collar circumstances, not all that well-off. We see evidence of this in a few different ways: the sacrifice offered at the Temple in honor of Jesus' birth is that of doves, which is the sacrifice of the less affluent. Furthermore, there's even a recorded statement in the Gospels where someone says, "Could anything good come out of Nazareth?" (Paraphrased) Basically, Nazareth was a little hole in the wall. So you could imagine that guy's next statement being, "What a miserable little hick-town!"

Anyway, quite a ramble and I'm NOT an expert, but I thought some of you might be interested in that.

Rose Immortal

Don't worry about it.

Throwstones

Rose Immortal

My answer to you is very truly which Teresh did IM me on AIM few weeks ago. It is NOT guess! Both of me and Teresh did conversate on AIM as she did mention me.

Throwstones

Rose Immortal

I'm afraid I can't accept that as evidence, as it's your word against his and thus neither of you can prove which way it happened. Only a public statement counts.

Maria

HottieDeafBoi --

I believe that we all should never silent Jesus Christ. Let's make the name of Jesus Christ be heard. Jesus always win and will continue to do so.

One day, Satan will bow down and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord !

Throwstones

Do you trust in GOD? Therefore GOD is my witness and saw all of us talking. God know that I have evidences. Then why you doubt in me and GOD?

THROWSTONES

Teresh

The problem for that is that for purposes of Jewish law an adoptive father is not considered the same as the biological parent. If a Jewish family adopts a gentile child, even as an infant, that child will still need to be formally converted in order to be considered a Jew by Jewish law.

The status of one being a Jew is passed down matrilinearly according to Jewish law, but status of the Kings and the Priests (Melekhim, Kohanim and Levites) is passed down patrialinearly. This also applies to an adopted child--An adopted child, regardless of whether or not his adoptive father is a Kohen or a Levite, cannot gain the status of either. Moreover, if the child is a Kohen or a Levite, he does not forfeit this status simply by his adoptive father not being one.

Assuming we're willing to accept the virgin birth as true, then it's impossible for Jesus to have been the Messiah as he would need to be of the line of Kings and that would require a biological father. However, if we are willing to forgo that belief and rely on the more realistic idea that Jesus is actually the son of Joseph and Mary together, then it is much more plausible that he could have been the Messiah.

The issue here is that while it could have been Mary's genealogy, it says Joseph. More importantly, it also does not matter what Mary's genealogy was for the purpose of Jewish law--Mary could not pass down Jesus's status as a King because that is not something females of that line inherit.

The Jeconian line would be the main problem with the idea that Joseph was a King under Jewish law because of the curse. There is some midrash that says that the curse was lifted, but there is nothing in the Tanakh itself that explicitly supports this claim so it's hard to tell.

Yes, but that's through Mary by your intepretation, something that doesn't hold up given the above. Again, though, if we're willing to disregard the virgin birth idea, it's all the more plausible.

Rose Immortal

Throwstones: to put it bluntly, I trust God. I do not trust humanity.

BTW, Teresh--sorry about the gender-bending in my post above. I forgot and by the time I realized it, I'd lost the ability to edit that post!

Throwstones

Therefore you are doubtful what I share with you on AD. That is your problem! That is fine with me whatsoever you say so... Let u go!

Rose Immortal

I recall seeing this about one's status as a Jew; that explains Ruth.

Off-topic for a second: is "Kohen" synonymous to the term I see in my translation of the Bible, of "Kohathite"? They were the ark-bearers, if I remember properly...it's been several months since I read that book.

I hope you'll understand that I'm unwilling to forgo my belief in the virgin birth.

I can see where your reasoning is coming from, but it's still clear that that prophecy I mentioned below creates a BIG problem that has to be resolved, since God doesn't contradict Himself.

Also, something else...

That still doesn't keep Jesus from being genetically of David's bloodline.

In fact, your comment may actually shed some light on a few incidents in the New Testament: why would Jesus have to be baptized and named by God as His son and heir, in a couple of different incidents. I've heard Christians ask that question and this actually makes it fall into place: you basically have Jesus making an official conversion/profession of His choice to follow the God of Abraham.

I know you were trying to go the opposite direction there, but I couldn't help noticing and pointing it out!

If I am correct in assuming that the "midrash" is part of the Talmud or other writings outside the Tanakh, then it holds secondary status to the actual Scriptures; it's essentially a commentary. I hope you'll understand my strong reservations about giving that the same standing as the Bible.

Rose Immortal

No problem.

Teresh

The Kohanim are the higher of the two priest classes in Biblical Judaism, they are descended from Aaron. They are Levites as Aaron was a Levite, but they are considered higher than other Levites because of their being descended from Aaron. The word "Kohen" is the singular form of Kohanim. By the definition you're giving of Kohathite, yes, they would be the same.

The Kohenim still exist, as does the Tribe of Levi, but being a member of either has little value outside of Orthodox Judaism for the reasons stated above. Still, there are some things only a Kohen is allowed to do, such as perform the Pidyon HaBen (Redeeming of the Firstborn Son) ceremony for the if the firstborn of a woman is a son.

Oh, of course, I'm just expressing that from my vantage point it makes more sense without that idea.

The Ancient Jews didn't know anything about genetics... The reasons some of these laws developed were practicality and others because it was what everyone else is doing. Everyone else had Kings descending patrilinearly. The Jews emulated that. The reason they had the status of a Jew conveyed matrilinearly was because it could be hard to tell who the father of a child was, but it would always be easy to tell who was the mother.

I'm not sure about that. Where in Christian Scripture does that occur?

Baptism isn't a part of Jewish conversion... I'm not sure (and it may be that no one knows) what the conversion procedure was like when the Temple still stood, but baptism is a Christian idea. That said, modern conversion by the Talmud requires immersion in a mikvah, but the immersion itself doesn't make the person a Jew in any legal sense (that's conveyed by a beth din, a court of 3 learned Jews, usually rabbis), but rather in a spiritual sense.

I'll go whatever direction you want to go here. I enjoy the discussion for the sake of the discussion, I'm not trying to drive a point home or get you to agree with me so much as explore the different possibilities.

Midrash (plural: midrashim) is a commentary on the Torah, the rest of the Tanakh, the Talmud, on the Shulkhan Arukh, on the Mishneh Torah, or on other midrash. Many great rabbis throughout history have written midrash. Midrash are generally not to be taken literally, but they can help when interpreting the text of the book. For example, by the way the way the creation story with Adam and Eve is written, Rashi's commentary suggests that Cain and Abel both had twin sisters. It's not as if they're to be taken literally, indeed, in many cases midrash conflict with other midrash on the same point. Still, that's fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is worthwhile to learn the opinions of another person even if you don't agree with them.

Heath

What about that tribe that recently came back to power after 2,000 years in Israel and this was foretold in the KJV Holy Bible. Was it the tribe of the Saucceduees ? that were welcomed into the Israeli Knesset which confirmed Biblical Prophecy

XBGMER

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NATURAL JEWS. Once Jesus born to jewish nation, He was jew, even he was christ! I acknowledged Moses, prophets and even Jesus were spoken to Jewish Nation. they never spoke to the world before jewish nation

GENTILES ARE NOT CHRISTIANS NOR JEWISHS..Therefore, you are not CHIRSTIAN because you are not jew. But you wanted to be part of christ.. yawn.. I dont know where you get an idea and preach it like BLAH BLAH BLAH ON AND ON.. I advice you dont preach about christ to me and to the world for rest of your life! You need to move on your things to do with life around me or other people also.. because you know nothing about jesus christ, even you dont know who he is what you speaking for jesus christ for whole rest..

THANK YOU!

__________________

Heath

To whom was this addressed to ?

Teresh

The Sadducees disappeared along with the Temple, or are you talking about something else?

Christianity doesn't require its followers to be Jews.

Heath

The disciples were naturally jewish themselves and in Romans 10:1 it says to witness to jews first then to the gentiles. God told Jesus Christ to tell the jews it is time that salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ be preached throughout the world unto the end.

Teresh

Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite.

Not all of the disciplies were Jews... But the Jews almost all said "no" to the Jesus philosophy because it advocated rejecting tradition, forgoing the Torah and their covenant with God and worshiping an idol. Moreover, Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, so he could not have fulfilled that role in Judaism either.

sculleywr

Sorry, but that is not according to the Old Testament:
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
We cannot work our way to heaven. Humans cannot clean themselves up. You try wiping a table down with a filthy rag and what happens? We are the only group that believes that our God loved us enough to come down from heaven itself and die for our sins.

As a child, he grew up in a Jewish home, and started his higher education as a rabbi to support his schooling in a Jewish school, learning how to refute Christianity. It wasn't until he was given a Bible by a Christian and actually read it all the way through that he recognized what the truth THAT is when he left his home and joined a Christian college to get his education. Secondly, if you read Case for Christ's chapter on the fingerprint evidence, you will see just how educated he is in the Jewish ways. He is considered by even secular sources to be among the most knowledgeable people of the Old Testament prophecies. Here is a quote from Probe Ministries:

So far in Strobel's interviews with scholars we have affirmed that Jesus did claim to be God, He wasn't insane or emotionally disturbed, and He did things that only God would do. Now we want to review Strobel's interview with Louis Lapides, a Jewish believer as to whether Jesus actually fit the Old Testament picture of what the Messiah would be like.

One of the important pieces of evidence that convinced Lapides that Jesus was the long-looked-for Messiah was the fulfillment of prophecy. There are over forty prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled every one. Some say this is just coincidence. But, the odds of just one person fulfilling even five of these prophesies is less than one chance in one hundred million billion--a number millions of times greater than the number of all people who have ever lived on earth.{5}
But maybe this isn't all it seems. Objections to the correlation of Jesus' life to the prophecies of the Messiah fall into four categories. The first is the coincidence argument, which we just dispelled. Perhaps the most frequently heard argument is that the gospel writers fabricated the details to make it appear that Jesus was the Messiah. But the gospels were written close enough in time to the actual events that, if false, critics could have exposed the details. Certainly this is true of those in the Jewish community who had every reason to squash this new religion before it got started.
Third, there is the suggestion that Jesus intentionally fulfilled these many prophecies so as to make Himself appear as the Messiah. That's conceivable for some of the prophecies, such as Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, but for others it's impossible. How could Jesus arrange for his ancestry, or place of birth, or the method of execution, or that soldiers would gamble for his clothing? The list goes on.
Fourth, perhaps Christians have just ripped these so-called prophecies out of context and have misinterpreted them. When asked, Lapides sighed and replied:
You know, I go through books that people write to try to tear down what we believe. That's not fun to do, but I spend the time to look at each objection individually and then to research the context and the wording in the original language. And every single time, the prophecies have stood up and shown themselves to be true.{6}
What I found most intriguing about the interviews was the combination of academic integrity on the part of these scholars alongside a very evident love for the One of whom they were speaking. For these scholars, finding the historical Jesus was not just an academic exercise, but also a life-changing personal encounter with Jesus. Perhaps it can be for you too.


And 40 is just the number of prophecies in the Torah, he deals with those in the rest of the Old Testament as well.

No, but when the teachers filter what they are giving the students, they control the learning curve, and thus, they control what is taught. They will never tell their students that the current Hebrew copies of the Torah and Tanakh are based on the Greek Septaguint, because then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to say that the virgin in the prophecy was mistranslated, because the Greek word literally means virgin, while the current translation in Hebrew has the word betulah, which means young woman. The Old Testament was originazlly in two languages, then it was changed to the language of the day, which was Greek, and now the meaning is lost in translation for some of the prophecies. Thank God that the KJV Bible is based on the Septaguint and not the current Hebrew words.

held by historians, it is the general consensus. I showed you the websites. Here, I will quote each one to show you.

According to the Jewish sources, the people met on Market days to engage in their worship while in Babylonian captivity. There were Jews that wondered throughout the Roman empire, they all met together in synagogues except for passover, when they would all meet in the temple. How do you expect them to have met for daily worship with all the people who A.)didn't even return to Israel, and B.) lived outside of the Middle East?

They already have the blueprints drawn up, Fulfilling a prophecy in Revelations 11.

Building the Temple is still an order from the LORD, since "he shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel FOREVER." (Chron 22:9-10 )

According to the Torah, Israel and the Temple should stand forever. Therefore, Israel and the Temple should be rebuilt after each destruction.

This is a quote from one such site.

This is a news site:
The Israeli rabbinical council involved with re-establishing the Sanhedrin, is calling upon all groups involved in Temple Mount research to prepare detailed architectural plans for the reconstruction of the Jewish Holy Temple.

The move followed the election earlier this week of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz as temporary president of a group aspiring to become Judaism's highest-ranking legal-religious tribunal.

The Baltimore Sun posted this 8 hours ago:

Conversely, some Jewish groups in Jerusalem hope to clear the path for their own messiah by rebuilding a temple on a site now occupied by one of Islam's holiest shrines. Artisans have re-created priestly robes of white linen, gem-studded breastplates, silver trumpets and solid-gold menorahs to be used in the Holy Temple - along with two 6-ton marble cornerstones for its foundation.



AFTER SOLOMON'S TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED. The first use is recorded in the Torah. When they met on Market days to worship.

And it is what the current translations are based on. In fact, Greek Septaguints are the only ancient documents we have of the Old Testament.

And because the disciples drank the unfermented wine, does it mean they ate the blood? It is actually a symbol that Jesus was giving his own blood as the sacrificial Lamb for all mankind.

And if it is UN-kashrut, then it is UN-pure. Kashrut is the Hebrew word that we get Kosher from. Don't play word games with me. I ain't in the mood.

No they aren't. Pastors are simply leaders. We don't confess in front of them or ask them to pray for our sins. They are simply our version of the rabbi. Our High Priest is Jesus Christ Himself.

originally in English, but the online version, which is what I use, has a Hebrew-Greek-English lexicon that gives a full definition for the word.

Then why do you say that JFJ is an objective source.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. How do you expect our good acts to look better than our bad ones if that is true?

Teresh

Very strange. The Hebrew text is completely different. That said, Isaiah is, of all of the Tanakh, the worst translation of any book in the Septuagint. Blame Ptolemy II for hiring poorly educated men for that book, I suppose. (If you didn't know, the sages were only involved in translating the Torah.)

In Hebrew:

And English (JPS):
6 And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hid Thy face from us, and hast consumed us by means of our iniquities.

Source? His own congregation's website says that he did his undergrad work at Dallas Baptist University and his graduate work at Talbot Theological Seminary. It doesn't say anything about him attending any Jewish schools at all, let alone a yeshiva. Moreover, logic holds that if he actually did study at a yeshiva, it would be stated somewhere.

Note: "Hebrew school" teaches one about as much about Judaism as "Sunday school" teaches one about Christianity. It'll impart the basics, but it's not a seminary by any means.

"Secular" sources? We're talking about *religion* here. There is no such thing as a "secular" source on religious issues, nor is there a such thing as a "secular" expert. Cite some Jewish sources.

List them. If he fulfilled "every one", it shouldn't be that hard to actually present that idea, no?

That number comes from where? It certainly seems as though they just pulled that number out of thin air in order to try to make a convincing argument.

Fortunately, Judaism doesn't do this, though since you don't understand Judaism, you obviously wouldn't know that. Ever read any of the Talmud?

If they told them that the Hebrew was based on the Septuagint, they would be lying.

So you accuse the Rabbis of mistranslating and then lying about it. Make your case here, as that's certainly not the most logical way of looking at it.

The original text was in Hebrew. The Septuagint was made because Ptolemy II wanted a copy of the Torah for the library in Alexandria. It also benefited the Alexandrian Jews, who did not know Hebrew. The Jews in Israel never adopted Greek as their language.

Weekly (let alone daily) worship was not something that was done at the time. The siddur is a Rabbinical invention. Biblical Judaism's method of atoning for sins was patriotism to one's nation and sacrifices to God in the Temple. The destruction of the Temple led to the creation of Jewish prayer as we know it today.

"They" being a group that has no respect or authority over anyone.

The rebuilding of the Temple is the task of the Messiah.

The Sanhedrin doesn't exist anymore. Anyone can claim to be the Sanhedrin, but if they don't have any legitimacy among the Jewish people, they're not, regardless of their claims.

Woo, look at me! I'm the Sanhedrin! LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!!

Oh, I can claim to be Jesus too! LISTEN TO MEE!!!!!!!

Just because some nutjob claims to be something they're not doesn't mean their claims are legitimate.

Aspiring, but not becoming. See Wikipedia:Sanhedrin

Fortunately, we still have the original text in Hebrew too.

I realise that, the point here is that you're trying to convince me and others that blood, literal blood, is kosher, something that is just not true.

Now, one could make the argument that the wine used for the Eucharist in Christianity is treifah because it is drank to an idol (Jesus), but that's not an argument I have the energy to make at the moment nor so I see the point in doing so.

No, Kashrut is Jewish dietary laws. it comes from the Hebrew root כ.ש.ר. It has the same root as the word "kasher", which has been anglised into the word "kosher", but they are not the same thing.

Kashrut is a noun, a set of laws governing what Jews may or may not eat. Kasher (in English, "kosher") is an adjective describing anything prepared in accordance with the laws of kashrut. That which is not kosher is called "treifah".

There are many things that Jews, as a matter of living, will come into contact with regularly that they may not eat, blood being among them. It's not as if a Jew won't bleed if he or she is cut by a knife. Additionally, while the dish soap in my kitchen is kosher, I would not even consider consuming it. The law does not say that contact with blood is inherently bad, just that it may not be consumed.

I'm not playing word games with you, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Fair enough.

I didn't. You just didn't read my post.

Too bad for you relying on a bad translation rather than the original text.

netrox

Teresh's postings carry so MUCH weight over looney Xian postings. Teresh makes more sense and clearly shows her knowledge of religions.

I am so disgusted with Xians on this forum so I decided, let them stay stupid if they won't change.

I will NEVER tolerate the spiritual threats - "You must believe in Jesus or you'll not be saved!" and that's why I reject the Bible.

hottiedeafboi

Sculley more sense into that, as one deaf who is very devout christian taught us passover and explained. And taught similar what sculley said. As I see, non christians saying christians scripture scriptues and cite cite cite as non christians does the same. All I see is falisyfiy and lying and excuses what christians does or says. That's all I see. And sculley makes it clear and make a lot sense which teresh has a good point but not see how God works and the purposes of it. And yes, even secular studying religions and missing tremendous point of it.