Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Vesayen]

So there is authority beyond the Torah. Thank you. That is the point that I was getting at. You trust sources beyond the Torah, and I am going to ask you now which sources are these and why are these inspired works meriting our trust?

Do you want a list of all the legitimate sources in Judaism, as well as a list of which of those sources I think is questionable? A long list. I think what your getting at is that sources besides the Torah can give details about the Meshiach and be correct. I would not necessarily disagree. However many of the sources written in later times are questionable while most of the Torah, is not.

It is something which is hard to pin down, but I am in agreement there.

And how would one obtain reliable information about this person of Christ? That is my challenge to you. You say there cannot be an authority on God outside the Torah, and yet you admit other later books provide insights.

Why exclude the New Testament, as an authoritative source on the life and death of Christ?

We are really getting to the important stuff now heh .

On a case by case basis, compare each work for its merit and its relation to the Torah, which is the ultimate source. Anything which disagrees with the Torah is flat out, out of there. Anything which does not disagree with the Torah may be divinely inspired, but not necessarily. Disproving legitimacy is far easier then proving legitimacy.

The NT is an authoritative source for Christians because you believe that later texts do not need to report ultimate accountability to the Torah. We do.

My point was really irrelevant as to where one submits the case. Is temptation the same as coercion?

This is not temptation or even coercion, from G-D’s(or any sufficiently omniscient observer’s) perspective it is the same as being forced.

If you are going to charge anyone with a crime that assumes they are in fact responsible for their actions and that free will exists. I agree this is a difficult question, but it is impossible for free will to exist from our perspective only, either it does or it doesn't.

I would say that free will is an illusion and only an illusion which we can perceive. If you have to make it an absolute? Free will does not exist. This raises questions though about the meaning of free will(a worthy thread on its own-one I am always up for heh).

I did not say that. Where does Christ teach that murder and theft are ok? Christians have always acted contrary to the teachings of Christ, and this did not begin in 500 nor has it ended in 1800.

However, if we are to hold Christians personally responsible for their actions, then it makes little sense to blame their religion for their actions as you have done so here. Yes it is a poor reflection on Christ, but it does not change the fact that Christ teaches us to love our enemies, to give to the one who needs, and first and foremost, to love our neighbour as we would love ourselves.

So where do we separate what Jesus said, from what his disciples and later followers said and did?

To Jews, faith if stupid. Faith is stupid because faith is a “mystical feeling” and to a Jew, you could just as easily have a “mystical feeling” aka faith about a carved piece of wood if you were taught to. Faith is not only stupid to Jews but a danger because since you can have faith in anything, faith might lead you astray from G-D.

I say you should open your eyes some. There are Jews who take the opposite position to you on this issue.

The overwhelming majority, do not and for precisely the same reason as I stated. Faith can lead you away from G-D. I am confident the overwhelming majority of Jews will agree.

This is another *FUNDAMENTAL* difference between Jews and Christians. Our religions are not similar. We may share enough in common to live peacefully as neighbors and our religions are different, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but we are very different.

You seem rather devoted to restating that case over and over.

Yet you have studiously avoided the Ten Commandments.

To Jews you do not observe the prohibitions on worshiping other gods. Did you know the early Catholic church omitted the commandment about graven images, for fear of confusing their followers about the many depictions of Jesus?

Civilization is a hell of a lot older then Greece, even older then the “first” Sumerian city states.

True, but we are talking about WESTERN civilisation here.

It is unclear precisely where Abraham comes from. Is he western, or eastern? Zoroastranism is a Persian faith, which is also one of the other earliest monothesistic religions.

Heard of hamurabi’s code? Prohibitions on theft, on murder? Civilization was old before Jews were on the scene and prohibitions on murder and theft of equals, just as old. If you look to Judaism and Christianity as a common cause for our moral prohibitions, you’d have to look further back to where they got theirs from.

So you deny that Moses received the Law from God, and that the Israelites simply made up their own moral code as an updating on what people around them had already taught?

From a historical standpoint, the existence of G-D is questionable. What you just said, yes, is possible. Prohibitions on murder and theft from equals, certainly predates Judaism and were pervasive through most of the world, Jews simply expanded the concept of “equals” but other cultures did the same independently of Jews. There are historical reasons which explain our similar values which predate Jews and Judaism.

“Christians” did not ban slavery, economic pressures, banned slavery in the most of the world. Slavery was always justified with religion. Its banning was justified with the fact it was no longer profitable.

I suggest you go read William Wilberforce. The economic interests were AGAINST him and in favour of the use of slave labour, always have and always will be.

His argument is that they are persons no different from you or I, and that it is wrong and an affront to God to treat them as slaves.

Where do we distinguish an entirely Christian society from the actions of Christians within it, and the actions of that society itself? A difficult question.

So am I. I am speaking of slavery banned throughout the British Empire. And yes it was Christians practicing Christians who pushed through the ban.

Read up on Wilberforce if you don't believe me.

When I have time, I really will.

Horse hockey. Christians say that Easter is about the death and resurrection of christ.

Shouldn't they get to decide what their own celebration is about? Look, I could call Pesach a pagan spring festival but I did not and I will not. I expect the same respect from you regarding Christian traditions as I have accorded to Jewish Traditions.

I am not accusing Christianity of being “untrue” any more then I accuse Judaism of being untrue, so I am being even handed here but….

Many of the practices associated with Christianity are demonstratably inherited from Pagan holidays, even the date was. The name “Easter” is the name of a Pagan holiday(I don’t have the history available, the name is a bit modified-I’m sure someone can look it up… I bet wikipedia has it).

Pesach really is *NOT* a Pagan festival heh. It has not inherited any practices from any pagan festivals, nor does it even share the same date as any.

This is not meant to be a case of slandering Christians(and I’ve slandered Judaism as being untrue plenty in this thread) but of historical analysis. Easter is a pagan holiday the early church morphed into a Christian one to win converts. Christianity is filled with similar such things…. Christsmas, Halloween?

Who says it is a usurped pagan festival? Just because it takes place in the spring?

Again, the same sword cuts through Pesach, if the date is the only thing.

Typing as fast as I can I have to head out the door soon… tonight or tomorrow I’ll get some neutral sources on the subject, k?

Christ submitted himself to the authorities, the Romans who crucified him and the Jews who turned him to the Romans so that he might be crucified.

Yet you say what Christ did was taboo?

Any person especially a Jew who would sacrifice themselves to G-D is committing a sin. Jesus or not. Sacrifice as in the manner of a Temple offering, which is the same as Jesus being the “Pascal lamb”

Note I took you to task for insulting Christians by saying that Christ teaches that murder and theft is good.

I did not say that heh, I just said that Christians have done bad stuff, the same as everyone else, and that we do not share the same moral structures as a result of religion.

So it's ok to rob infidels because they are less then you. And you condemn Christians for slavery? Interesting perspective Ves.

I am describing the belief of most societies in the past and in the present. Harming of equals is forbidden. Judaism has expanded equals to include the entire human race. Christianity has debatably done the same thing…… I wish I had more time to explain this and other things, but I REALLY have to go.

I’ll get the sources as I promised and see if I can stop off at the library on my way home to pick up anything by Wilberforce.

Shalom!

[Robert]

Vessayen, if you wonder why I don't really much respond do you anymore, that's because you don't even know your own faith. The "Daniel" thing (in which you didn't even know that it was holy to your faith) didn't make you really look like someone who knows what he's talking about.

I give you credits for admitting that you were wrong (which is a honorable thing) but it's not so honorable that you were that wrong but continue with so much arrogance. Even about stuff that's not even your own believe (as John Miller stated)

You're humble with your words alone, not with your actions. You stated several times that you don't know as much about the new testament as theologists or practicing christians but you continue to voice arrogant remarks against Ben Kenobi, Jon Miller and me and keep explaining us what we believe. Jon, Ben and me do clearly know what we are talking about, we may still be wrong, but we've not been that wrong as in "Matthew is not a part of the New Testament, oh wait, it is" (Daniel stuff)

I don't tell you to stop debating, debating is good, and no one can know everything. I only ask you to be a little bit more humble. To understand that sometimes your position is a valid position but others may have another interpertation of the same texts. At least show the will to debate, to read what we say and to concider it. If a part in a debate won't even concider what the others are saying, then it's a wasteless debate.

Remember when one of the atheists was in debate with me. We ended up with him saying "You have a valid argumentation, but I just don't believe it." that was a fair debate. We still disagreed in the end but we both did understand that we had reasons for our opinion. We didn't agree with each others opinions, but respected each other. That's something I miss at your side.

Let me give an example,
Isaiah 53, the well known chapter.
Christian explanation: it's about Jesus who's suffering for the faults of mankind
Jewish explanation: it's about the Jews in babylon who are suffering for the faults of their (grand) parents.

I think both views are valid at first sight. I may even go that far to say that your view is right and so is mine becuase I believe that much prophecies have a double fullfillment. I won't ask you to see my opinion on this as a true opinion, but can you see that I have that opinion? Do you understand my reasons? Do you see that it's not an opinion out of the blue? Only if both parties can respect and understand each other's opinion, then we can have a debate.

I have multiple professors who are secular, non-christian / non-jewish but agnost. They have much more knowlegde on theology then we both have (though I hope to be one of them one day )
Even they with all their knowledge on hebrew, greek, 0AD times / culture, still admit that every opinion the christians have (eventhough they do not believe it) has a basis. While I disagree with them, I do highly respect them. They have much knowledge and are able to see things from an objective point of view. It's not for nothing that 2 billion people believe it! That doesn't make it true, but it shows that it's not nonsense either. It has a reason. And we're debating that reason, right?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Vessayen, if you wonder why I don't really much respond do you anymore, that's because you don't even know your own faith. The "Daniel" thing (in which you didn't even know that it was holy to your faith) didn't make you really look like someone who knows what he's talking about.

The book of Daniel is not central to living a Jewish life, or central to most knowledge related to Judaism. You can not be familliar with the status of the book and still know enough about Judaism to speak confidentaly about most of the topics in this thread.

You're humble with your words alone, not with your actions. You stated several times that you don't know as much about the new testament as theologists or practicing christians but you continue to voice arrogant remarks against Ben Kenobi, Jon Miller and me and keep explaining us what we believe. Jon, Ben and me do clearly know what we are talking about, we may still be wrong, but we've not been that wrong as in "Matthew is not a part of the New Testament, oh wait, it is" (Daniel stuff)

Could you give me a few examples of these arrogant remarks? I am discounting ones against Jon because any of those are in response to his attacks.

I only ask you to be a little bit more humble. To understand that sometimes your position is a valid position but others may have another interpertation of the same texts. At least show the will to debate, to read what we say and to concider it. If a part in a debate won't even concider what the others are saying, then it's a wasteless debate.

I honestly do NOT want to be right now, I would rather be right tommorow. If someone else can provide strong evidence, I would be thrilled. I am taking what you say and especially what Ben say with serious consideration.

Remember when one of the atheists was in debate with me. We ended up with him saying "You have a valid argumentation, but I just don't believe it." that was a fair debate. We still disagreed in the end but we both did understand that we had reasons for our opinion. We didn't agree with each others opinions, but respected each other. That's something I miss at your side.

Because most of this is not a matter of faith, but a matter of textual analysis, what interpretations are legitimate and what justifications there are for thos interpretations. Faith really is not a factor here.




I am doing my best to show and do in fact respect other peoples opinions in this thread, if that was somehow unclear. I think I might come off like a jackass because the last short exchange between myself and John Miller was not pleasent. If you read the longer posts where I am actually discussing the facts, I am sticking VERY much to the point and taking what the other person says into consideration, even going so far as to quote back multiple times to make it clear I am referring to their argument as a whole and not dismissing them because of one idea or word out of place.

[Arrian]

For fun, the latest "Blogging the Bible" entry:

Leviticus

Some skeptical readers doubted that my Bible reading would last past Exodus. Oh, it's all thrills and laughs when you're dealing with the Ten Plagues and the Tower of Babel—but wait till you get to Leviticus! They mentioned "Leviticus" in the same hushed, terrified way that mariners say "Bermuda Triangle," or Hollywood executives whisper "Ishtar." Leviticus, I was warned, makes even learned rabbis weep with boredom, turns promising young Talmudic scholars into babbling US Weekly subscribers. What would it do to an amateur like me?

So, it was with trepidation and a large cup of coffee that I cracked open Leviticus last week (while on vacation, no less! How's that for commitment?) I'm happy to report that it's not quite as awful as advertised.

Chapter 1 to Chapter 7

In his History of the Decline and Fall of Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon wrote—with anti-Semitism, but a respectful kind of anti-Semitism—that Judaism was defined by its "peculiar distinction of days, of meat, and a variety of trivial though burdensome observances." Trivia and burden—that's Leviticus! Leviticus is a confusing swirl of baffling practices, peculiar laws, and ornate rituals.

The first seven chapters, for example, are a Complete Guide to Animal Sacrifice. This is utterly useless for modern Christians and Jews, since Jews stopped sacrificing animals nearly 2,000 years ago when the Temple was destroyed, and Christians (I believe) never sacrificed them. But we're stuck with chapter after chapter about it, so let's make the best of it.

If, by some Connecticut Yankee-type time-travel miracle, you ever find yourself in the Sinai desert, standing outside the Tent of Meeting, here are some tips on sacrifice etiquette: First, offer an animal that's without blemish. Don't be alarmed when the priests fling the animal's blood all over the altar. If it's a bird (ideally a turtledove), the priest will "pinch off its head" and tear it open by the wings. If you're bringing a grain offering, expect the priests to eat most of it themselves. That's their "most holy portion."

When should you sacrifice an animal? Well, just about anytime is fine. When: a priest does something wrong; the whole community does wrong; a chieftain does wrong; or an individual does wrong—usually a sin of omission or accident. (The Torah mentions a few, including touching an impure animal or object, or withholding evidence of someone else's wrongdoing.)

Leviticus is admirably conscious of inequality: Each time it describes a sacrifice, it specifies what a rich man must do (kill a sheep, let's say) but then offers alternatives for poorer men: "If his means do not suffice for a sheep, he shall bring to the Lord, as his penalty … two turtledoves or two pigeons." If he can't afford birds, he can bring grain. The alternative offerings are a reminder of how practical Leviticus must have been for the Israelites. It wasn't merely a holy book and a law book, it was a manual.

Which is why what I'm about to say is so incredibly unfair—namely that the author of Leviticus is a dreadful writer. He can't possibly be the same person (people) who wrote the cracking good stories of Exodus or Genesis. Leviticus is agonizingly repetitive. For example, it describes how exactly you sacrifice an animal. Then, a chapter later, it repeats those instructions, word for word, for a slightly different ritual (a "reparation" offering as opposed to a "purification" offering). It's very tedious, but I suppose it's unfair to blame the author, since it is a manual. The user guide for my new digital camera isn't beach reading either.

Leviticus briefly addresses financial crimes, which it handles very leniently: If you defraud someone, you pay back what you owe plus 20 percent. And sacrifice a ram. Doesn't this seem a very mild punishment?

Chapter 8 to Chapter 10

Here's an episode they skipped at my Sunday school. God, who's been uncharacteristically quiet and gentle for the first chapters of Leviticus, returns with a vengeance. Moses ordains Aaron as priest—this includes the peculiar spectacle of dabbing blood on "the ridge of Aaron's right ear," on his right thumb, and on his right big toe. Soon afterward, Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu, who are also priests, take their "fire pans" and offer incense to the Lord. But rather than the prescribed incense, they give God "alien fire." So, BOOM! God incinerates them on the spot. Moses, more like a Mafia boss than a prophet, tells Aaron his sons got what they deserve, then orders some cousins to drag the corpses away and drop them outside of camp. All they did was bring the wrong incense! Is the Lord really that petty? I suppose there's a lesson here: Those ritual that seem so picayune and random—they really matter. A few verses later, God lectures Aaron: "You must distinguish between the sacred and the profane, between the impure and the pure; and you must teach the Israelites all the law which the Lord has imparted to them through Moses." This sounds like God's explanation: The deaths were not the merciless act of a vindictive deity—they were a caution to his followers to mind the details.

Chapter 11

Finished with sacrifices, Leviticus moves on to dietary laws—restrictions that observant Jews still follow today. Forbidden: animals that don't chew their cud or don't have true hooves, sea creatures without fins and scales, most insects, "great lizards of every variety," pelicans, owls, bats, etc. As a pork-loving Jew, two words leap out at me. God says that the swine, because it doesn't chew the cud, is "impure." Understood. But then the Lord describes lots and lots of other animals—including lobster, shrimp, ostrich, and most insects—as "abominations." "Abomination" is a much stronger word than "impure." Does that mean bacon, pork chops, pulled pork, and ham are less bad than lobster? Can it really be that pork is a minor dietary offense? The kashrut equivalent of a parking ticket? God, I hope so! Or am I reading too much into a minor semantic distinction?

One of the longest dietary passages concerns which insects we can eat. Which raises the obvious point: The ancient Israelites ate insects! (For the record, the Lord bans everything buggy except locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers.)

Does the Lord have a plan here? He's generally opposed to grossness and wriggliness: Everything that crawls or "has many legs" is an abomination. He opposes all animals with paws. He bans carnivores, only allowing us plant-eating animals (except for fish). But I don't see a grand scheme. Why are pigs bad but goats good, camels bad but cows good, herons bad but hens good? Am I missing something? Is there a logic to the kashrut laws? Or are the laws based on so many diverse sources (what animals were around, how the Israelites could distinguish themselves from neighboring tribes, etc.) that it's folly to look for a guiding philosophy?

Chapter 12

Leviticus is fixated with impurity. When you touch an impure object, you become impure. When you have a particular illness, you're impure. When you eat the wrong bug, you're impure. And according to this chapter, a woman is impure for a week after giving birth to a boy. If she gives birth to a girl, she's impure for … two weeks. (How does she get purified? Animal sacrifice, natch.)

Chapter 13

The lepers are coming! The lepers are coming! This is a mind-bendingly confusing chapter about how skin diseases make you impure. It's nearly impossible to get through. I did my best. You try a bit.

When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. The priest shall examine the affection on the skin of his body: if the hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him impure. But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days….

The chapter is obsessed with leprosy. Again and again, it describes a skin problem in pustular detail, then concludes solemnly: "It is leprosy." In one of those Biblical passages that sound more like Monty Python than God's holy word, Leviticus orders that a leper is be expelled from the camp, his clothes torn, and his head uncovered. "He shall cover over his upper lip, and he shall call out, 'Impure! Impure!' " This leprosy anxiety: Is it paranoid primitive ignorance? Or foresighted public-health precaution? (The priests are instructed to quarantine those with skin diseases. Perhaps this is the first recorded example of a public-health campaign.)

Best passage of the day: Leviticus interrupts these dire leprous warnings to reassure men that, yes, it's OK to be bald. "If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is pure." And it gets better! God also approves of male-pattern baldness. "If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is pure." So throw out that Rogaine! God loves a cue-ball, baby!

Thoughts on Blogging the Bible? Please e-mail David Plotz at plotzd@slate.com . E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

[beingofone]

Flip McWho:

Aye you can't assume that because a person records speechs and other specific details that they aren't made up for story embellishment, or to add credit to a particular version, or know anything specific about the authors.

How about dozens of authors telling the same story with literally thousands of people concuring?

Unfortunately (or fortunately) this ones been a heck of a lot more popular and successful than others like Mr Hubbard.

Probably got something to do with the superstitious, scientifically ignorant and the political conditions of the time.

It might have something to do with his life and teachings leading to enlightenment whatcha think?



molly bloom :

Oh, I'm sorry, aren't 'crusades' things you religionistas get up to ?

I don`t believe in the Easter Bunny, but I do not go around posting on websites;
"Hey everybody, I don`t believe in the Easter Bunny".

Do you where a badge that says you are an antieasterbunniest?

No, it seems to me that Christians who claim the evangelists were eyewitnesses to the events, and that there are no contradictions in the gospel accounts and that even if there are, these are of no real substance, are the ones who glibly make things up.

1 Corinthians 15:

4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

I know it would take humility - but you might try asking questions instead of gigantic assumptions.

Why, even the evangelists don't seem to think they were actually there witnessing private conversations between Roman governors and prisoners:

You used the word in the plural sense and yet you only have one example of a person who said outright he was not an eyewitness.

Now you want to accuse him of dishonesty by implying he is lying about the whole thing.

Which is it molly? Do you want eyewitnesses or not? If they say they were eyewitnesses you say they are lying, if they say they were not an eyewitness then their testimony is not credible.

I see - no amount of proof would do for you because you simply do not want the story of Jesus to be true isn`t that right?

Note- St Luke doesn't actually say he himself saw the Annunciation or all the other events and then hurriedly wrote down a verbatim account. He's supposedly relying on other (unnamed) people's memories and versions of events.

And yet; how uncanny it does jive with all the other accounts - what a mystery.

Let's begin with the beginning of the Jesus fable, shall we, as a for instance.

Why should we presume it is fable? Do you research everything that way? Do you always make assumptions and then set out to prove them?

I would say that is flawed logic.

Mark gets Jesus baptised but somehow overlooks the pretty Nativity story, with all those colourful rustics and wise men.

John doesn't seem to get in on the Nativity either- but does mention the Baptist.

Matthew has Jesus's birth taking place sometime in the later years of the reign of King Herod the Great and taking place in little ol' Bethlehem, which undoubtedly has been grateful for the tourist trade ever since.

Luke gets the story rolling with an Annunciation, in the reign of King Herod, links the pretty Nativity story with Bethlehem and with a supposed specific event in the real as opposed to fictional world of the gospels.

Now I'm not sure why one would leave out a sugary story like the Nativity from the narrative. Did these 'eyewitnesses' supposedly not know about it ?

Oh I don`t know - maybe you could tell me the entire dialog between the Israeli and Palestinian authorities yesterday? Do you have transcripts?

Do you know where I was when Elvis died?

Have you considered this? Maybe they were not privy or were not positive to the events in question eh? You put the story in your own logical flaw.

If they do all tell the same exact story - its a pack of lies.
If they omit part of the story - its a pack of lies.

Which is it molly? Do you want them to tell the exact same details or do you want them to be honest and omit what they were not sure of?

What, that's your proof for eyewitness testimony ?
An invisible mountain that appears if I keep my 'mind' open ?

Oh - just hundreds of texts but nothing you would accept as you have already closed your mind to being objective.

If you want - check out the Nag Hammadi for starters.

There's a difference between mere credulity and being possessed of an open mind.

The irony is something to behold.

Luke thinks he was about thirty.

John imagines him to be 'not yet fifty years of age' .
Now between thirty and fifty it's still twenty, as I'm sure it was even then. Are we seriously supposed to believe that someone would describe a person meant to be about thirty years of age as 'not yet fifty' ?

No wrong again:

John 8: 57. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

It was not John saying his age, it was him quoting the Jews.

Are you ready to ask real questions yet and open your mind to let a little light in?

Well, his age doesn't really matter, does it ?

See - you are so sure the critics are correct you are demonstrating 'blind' faith just like a fundy. Hows that working for ya?

Who he was supposedly judged by or appeared to doesn't really matter does it?

Whatever are you talking about?

Roman governor, Jewish ruler, Jewish high priest- it all amounts to the same thing in the end doesn't it ?

Where is the contradiction that we covered all your so called "contradictions' in the above post? You still, regardless the facts, are clinging to your blind faith that there still is a misnomer when anyone using common sense, could see that it all coincides.

Reminds me of talking with a fundy - doesn`t matter the facts, all that is important is the belief system.

And who supposedly saw him at the cross,

Matthew:
"And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

Mark:
" There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
(Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem."

Luke:
"And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things."

John:
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."

You see - just more supposition.

I guess some people would rather appear quotable than learn and grow.

or when he was resurrected and who saw him,

Matthew:
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

Mark:
"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

Luke:
" It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles."

John:
"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

Wherever Mary Magdalene went a crowd of women went with her and that it does not need to be spelled out but again - no contradiction.

what day the Last Supper was supposedly on, they're all just mere details aren't they ?

Matthew:
"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?"

Mark:
" And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"

Luke:
" And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him."

John:
" Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."

The details are all correct if you would care to notice or will this go right by you again and you will keep on repeating the same mantra?

You really, really want it to have contradictions I guess you will just have to deal with the fact there are none.

Or maybe you could wait a couple of months when everyone here forgets and just recycle the same diatribe.

After all, it's not really a historical narrative, is it.... because if it were, we'd expect to treat it with the same stringency we treat other historical texts, like those of Jospehus.

Keep on going back to those no nothing websites that claim there are contradictions without ever bothering to check it out first.

That way you don`t have to actually check for yourself, you can just have blind faith with others who are antiJesus born out of emotionalism and void of logic and understanding.



Oerdin:

The old testiment god is an evil SOB of a god. The very fact that god can change so radically between the old and the new testiment show that either god is completely made up (and a fiction which can be changed when ever people feel like it) or that god is imperfect. Either way monotheistic dogma is violated.

Or you could try asking someone who has spent there entire life contemplating these questions and actually come to a cogent answer.

Just a suggestion.

[Vesayen]

Arrian... some of that was clever, some funny, alot of it untrue. The only point I feel I most strongly need to point out is the "impure" part. Impure does not mean you point a finger at someone and say "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" You could live your normal life and be "unclean".

It meant you could not make a sacrafice at the temple or participate in some of the ritual observances till you remedied it. There was no social stigma attached and in most cases, your neighbors proboably would not of known you were "impure".

Anyway that is not insensative at all, just a litte mistaken.

Could you link me to the site?

[Arrian]

Here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2145574/entry/0/

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

You will not murder” is only extended to equals. People who commit crimes against the rules of the society are not equals. People are excluded from the status of being an “equal” for lots of unjust reasons and Christians are as guilty of this through time as anyone else. People say that murder is not murder, since the other person is not “X”.

As people yes, but in the teachings of Christ, he teaches that everyone is equal, Jew or Greek, Slave or Free.

To deny that the other is a person just like you is to basically condone all forms of murder, which is why we have to say that everyone is equal.

Christians grossly overstate the importance(or basically COMPLETE lack of) in ancient Judae. He was some trouble maker. Not even hugely important. I doubt most Jews even had heard of him and this is collaborated by historical evidence. Where are authors and sources from the time of his life, writing on this individual if he was so important? From his life time. Most of the gospels came after. He was not anyone’s king. He had a small following which grew enormously after his death.

From the Gospels. Matthew and John were disciples, Luke and Mark were contemporaries of Christ. The Gospels did not come later, they were written by contemporaries around 20-25 years after his death. John was written later around 75-90 ad around 50-60 years after his death, but John was a disciple of Christ, and thus eyewitness to many of the events he writes about.

The Jews had heard about him. After all, Josephus writes about Christ. He was extremely well known in Jerusalem, how can you account for his reception at Palm Sunday? The Jews themselves heralded him as their King their promised Messiah as he fulfilled the prophecies in his entry into Jerusalem, only one week before his death.

No one knew who the hell he was. Jesus was a nobody during his life, they could hardly be happy to be rid of their “king”, if they had not even heard of him.

As Pilate said, what is this madness? The Jews had acknowledged Christ as their King and would later crucify him.

In any event, no. You don’t execute people on Yom Tov(the high holy days). Does not matter what they did, you do NOT do it. It is really, really bad.

The Jews didn't execute them, the Romans did, in a sense, their hands were washed of the affair.

Me: “I do not have enough evidence to believe you are a magical fairy, therefore I will not believe that you are a magical fairy.”

I'm not asking you to believe in a magical fairy. I am asking you to believe in the promises given to Israel, and that they were fulfilled by a carpenter in Judea.

Someone: “Well you can deny anything is true by asking for more evidence!”

The question becomes what will satisfy you? What evidence will be sufficient? Anyone can keep asking for more and more.

Fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity #4875….and a phenomenal example of an earlier point. Faith is bad for Jews because of something like this. Faith can just as easily be to a piece of carved wood as to G-D. Faith has the potentials to draw Jews away from G-D, so faith is bad. Circumcision is a fundamental part of the contract Jews made with G-D. This does not extend to you, we circumcise our kids and always will.

Faith simply means the heart must be where the acts are, in one sense that you circumcise because you know it is part of the convenant between God and Israel, not because you've always done so in your family. That is what is meant by faith.

Continuing with the earlier point….. No. The covenant can not continue through new offspring after the resurrection. Any Jew who upholds the covenant would be cast down into hell for spurning your god. This would end the covenant that G-D says will never end. Even more basic then that…. What about before the resurrection? There would be a moment with no Jews to uphold the covenant and no new offspring. An eternal covenant has no interruptions.

God keeps his promises. Why is there a conflict between God and Israel? Between Christ and the Law? Again, I am not entirely certain that those who are Jews will not be saved, in fact we know of some who are already saved, the patriarchs of Israel, and did they not follow the Law and the prophets?

The Jews have a choice and that is to see that Christ is the fulfillment and not the cancellation of the law.

As for your second point, at no point does God extinguish the soul, even of those who suffer in Hell. I know this is a hard concept, but eternal torment means that God will not destroy the souls of even those who reject him.

Does not say judge, it says crush the skills. Kill. Prophecy does not fit.

Death is one form of judgement. I suspect they would relish death over eternal punishment.

Because much or potentially all of the text about the coming of the Meshiach is questionable and may be untrue, solely inspired by men who despaired and thought they heard G-D. This is not an act of malice, just a mistake.

Ok, then what is the point of this exercise if any text that says stuff about the coming Messiah is suspect? Essentially you would reject the Torah if I were to prove that the Torah does make messianic prophecies simply because you have stated here that all such prophecies are untrue!

I have little faith in Christianity. I think that Christian scholars wrote texts they knew were not the work of G-D and long after these individuals were dead, these texts made their way into canon.

When the old arguments between Jews as to the proper texts continues on in the Christian canon, then I have great confidence that the primary motivation of the Christians with respect to the old testament is to maintain the hebrew tradition as best as possible. Jerome made this argument saying everything in the OT must have a Hebrew original!

Daniel is an acid trip which made its way into the canon. I would also reject most of Genesis till Abraham comes on the scene-before him it is scientifically and historically improbable or flat out impossible.

So you reject the Torah when the Torah refuses to match your modern worldview. Why not throw the entire Torah out?

If the details of the prophecy do not fit the NT, then it must be false, because the NT is the ultimate source of truth, yes? Anything which conflicts with the NT is wrong, from a Christian view.

True, but you cannot issue this argument without the premise that the NT is reliable and that the NT can fulfill messianic prophecies.

Facts relevant: The NT written after the Torah.
Facts relevant: We have no proof that the NT is divine.
Facts relevant: There are arguable reasons to believe that the NT is in fact not divine, but entirely human.

Then why would the fact that the NT contradicts the messianic prophecies have any bearing on the prophecies themselves? Again, the NT only counts if you first say that the NT has this authority.

However its authority comes into question when taking NT evidence and using it as proof because them the proof only works if it has authority. The status of its authority is unknown and can not be known, so it can only be used as evidence if we already accept it as true…. In which case a prophecy is not going to convince anyone because the only ones who will believe it, already believe it.

And you bring up an inconsistancy which requires one to first believe that Christ is the Son of God. If Joseph is truly his adoptive father then God is the Father of Christ, and you are stuck.

To follow all the teaching of Jesus includes throwing out the old law to such a degree that only G-D himself could give such a command. The degree of obedience described is not high enough.

In the Sermon on the Mount Christ says, "and I say to you..." As if he is rewriting and adding onto the Mosaic Code. In essence Christ is presuming authority equivalent to God.

See earlier comments that the only similarities Christians and Jews have is that we both came after a pre-existing civilization.

Ten commandments came from God not from a pre-existing civlization. You can't really advance this argument while at the same time maintaining that the Jews have a special relationship with God in maintaining his law.

[Ben Kenobi]

The NT is an authoritative source for Christians because you believe that later texts do not need to report ultimate accountability to the Torah. We do.

Again, Christ teaches, not the least stroke of the pen will be removed from the Law. Christians have to account the Torah into their interpretation of the Sermon of the Mount because God cannot contradict himself.

I would say that free will is an illusion and only an illusion which we can perceive. If you have to make it an absolute? Free will does not exist. This raises questions though about the meaning of free will(a worthy thread on its own-one I am always up for heh).

Indeed, and I'll leave this argument to another thread.

So where do we separate what Jesus said, from what his disciples and later followers said and did?

You start with what Christ actually taught. The believers ought to match up with Christ, but we know that from human nature and sin that we will always fall short of the standard set by Christ.

The overwhelming majority, do not and for precisely the same reason as I stated. Faith can lead you away from G-D. I am confident the overwhelming majority of Jews will agree.

I'm not so confident of this assessment and I have known a few Jews.

To Jews you do not observe the prohibitions on worshiping other gods. Did you know the early Catholic church omitted the commandment about graven images, for fear of confusing their followers about the many depictions of Jesus?

Iconography has been a serious issue within Christianity. The essence of the argument is that pictures of God are fine so long as they are not worshiped. There's a whole Ecumenical council, the very last one, devoted to this issue.

It is unclear precisely where Abraham comes from. Is he western, or eastern? Zoroastranism is a Persian faith, which is also one of the other earliest monothesistic religions.

Regardless of his influence on the east, his influence on the west is undeniable.

From a historical standpoint, the existence of G-D is questionable. What you just said, yes, is possible. Prohibitions on murder and theft from equals, certainly predates Judaism and were pervasive through most of the world, Jews simply expanded the concept of “equals” but other cultures did the same independently of Jews. There are historical reasons which explain our similar values which predate Jews and Judaism.

Then the Jews have no special connection to God. You've just denied at least 2 of the covenants explicitly laid out in the torah, the one to Moses and Abraham.

Many of the practices associated with Christianity are demonstratably inherited from Pagan holidays, even the date was. The name “Easter” is the name of a Pagan holiday(I don’t have the history available, the name is a bit modified-I’m sure someone can look it up… I bet wikipedia has it).

What practices are pagan? Going to church and saying Christ is risen?

Holy Week? the Triduum?

This is not meant to be a case of slandering Christians(and I’ve slandered Judaism as being untrue plenty in this thread) but of historical analysis. Easter is a pagan holiday the early church morphed into a Christian one to win converts. Christianity is filled with similar such things…. Christsmas, Halloween?

Again, where is the evidence that Easter is any more pagan then the fact that it is celebrated in the Spring?

Any person especially a Jew who would sacrifice themselves to G-D is committing a sin. Jesus or not. Sacrifice as in the manner of a Temple offering, which is the same as Jesus being the “Pascal lamb”

I would disagree, the purpose of a temple offering is to be like the passover lamb.

I did not say that heh, I just said that Christians have done bad stuff, the same as everyone else, and that we do not share the same moral structures as a result of religion

There are some differences but most of the moral structures are identical.

[Flip McWho]

How about dozens of authors telling the same story with literally thousands of people concuring?

Because the story would not have started somewhere and spread out with the usual embellisments and what not that follows any sort of oral truth.
All the people who arranged the NT did was grab the ones that were the closest together in story and then work the message they wanted.

It might have something to do with his life and teachings leading to enlightenment whatcha think?

Which woulda been quite nice in the time they were living in.
Though Hubbard also has teachings that lead to enlightenment and a fancy story to boot too. Just a lot more fanciful though.

[Arrian]

The newest blogging the Bible entry:

Leviticus

Chapter 13 and Chapter 14

Leviticus wanders way off into Weirdistan. As in: What to do when you have an infection in your clothes. These clothing ailments, according to Leviticus, are exactly the same as the skin diseases earlier in Chapter 13. If your shirt suddenly develops "an eruptive affection," then the priest must be called to examine it, quarantine it, and diagnose it. Are your Levi's suffering from a "malignant eruption"? Has your favorite silk blouse ever been afflicted with the dread "streaky green or red" illness? I have no idea what this passage is talking about. Is there some deadly apparel plague that Burberry and the Gap have successfully hushed up?

Hold on! Leviticus isn't done with bizarre epidemics. In the very next chapter, houses are getting sick. Now "greenish or reddish streaks" are infecting the walls of a house. (I caught the green streaks once—my upstairs neighbor's toilet had sprung a leak.) Again, the priest is called, the house is quarantined, and if the plague spreads to other walls, Amityville-style, the house is torn down.

While we're in the land of the baroque, Chapter 14 also prescribes the purification ritual for a healed leper, which requires that the ex-leper shave off all his body hair … twice. More proof that God loves the bald man.

Chapter 15

On to sex—what a relief! As with food and skin, purity and impurity are the chief Levitical concern. If a man ejaculates, he has to bathe and remains impure for the rest of the day. (Incidentally, this suggests that the Bible tolerates masturbation, since the ejaculation described is one that doesn't occur during intercourse. More evidence that we misread the Onan story.) If a man has sex with a woman, they both have to bathe and remain impure for the rest of the day. (A question for observant Jewish readers: I assume some version of these rules applies today—how do they work in practice? Is there a lot of bathing going on in Orthodox homes? How does that post-coital impurity affect everyday life?)

A menstruating woman? Impure, of course—for seven days. As with all the impure folks Leviticus discusses, it's not merely that she is impure: Anyone who even grazes her is contaminated, anything she sits on is impure, her bed sheets are impure, etc. If you merely touch the chair she sat on, you have to scrub your clothes and take a bath—and you still remain impure for the rest of the day. Judging by Leviticus, life was nothing but baths and laundry.

(How would these Levitical directives go over today? I'm looking forward to the book that Esquire writer A.J. Jacobs is working on: The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest To Obey the Bible as Literally as Possible. According to an acquaintance of mine who knows him, Jacobs is carrying a portable stool everywhere—so he never has to sit where a menstruating woman has been.)

Chapter 16

Biblical ignorance confession: I never knew the scapegoat was a real goat! (Did you?) It appears in an extremely odd, yet poignant, passage. After Aaron purges the tabernacle, he takes a goat, lays his hands upon its head, confesses all the Israelites' sins to it—thus "putting them on the head of the goat." Then he exiles the goat to the wilderness, ridding the Israelites of their iniquities. Poor goat. (I cheated and looked at some commentary on this: It turns out that "scapegoat"—a version of "escape goat"—appears in Tyndale's first English translation of the Bible in 1530.)

Chapter 17

In perhaps half-a-dozen Leviticus chapters, God warns of dreadful consequences for people who eat blood. In this chapter, God really brings the metal. God bans blood four separate times in Chapter 17. (For example, God admonishes: "I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin.") Yesterday I complained that God's dietary laws seem random, and that He doesn't explain them very well. The blood law is the exception. This chapter accounts for the ban vividly, emphatically, with this argument. You mustn't eat blood because "the life of all flesh is its blood." I know, I know, it doesn't make any difference to the animal that's being eaten—it's just as dead no matter how it's slaughtered. Even so, draining the blood is a powerful metaphor. When you bleed the animal, you are somehow allowing the animal's life force to escape, to free itself, before its flesh is consumed. (The chapter even specifies that you have to bury the blood in the earth.) Eating flesh and blood seems primal and cruel by comparison, because you are, in a sense, consuming the life of the animal—that's why they call it "lifeblood"! I'd never really thought about the kosher blood ban, and the passage made this blood-eater reconsider my sanguinary ways.

Chapter 18

Hey—all you folks who told me Leviticus was boring? You're nuts. It's fascinating!

For example, this chapter is crammed with important and incendiary laws–most of them sex rules. You must not "uncover the nakedness" of your female relatives, including mother (and father), sister, half-sister, granddaughter, aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law. Also forbidden, any mother-daughter combination, any menstruating woman, and thy neighbor's wife. I don't know what "uncover the nakedness" exactly means. I assume it means "have sex with," but it's curious that Leviticus would use a euphemism when it's so explicit everywhere else. (Incidentally, this chapter of the Torah imagines only male readers: These prohibitions are directed only at men. And there's no parallel passage forbidding women from uncovering the nakedness of their brother.)

All this uncovering nakedness is just a preview for the hottest law of all, the No. 1, all-time favorite, top-of-the-pops Bible verse for social conservatives: Leviticus 18:22.

"Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence."

A lot of ink, and probably some blood, has been spilled about the meaning of this verse. I can't count the number of times I've heard religious conservatives cite it in their condemnation of homosexuality. On the flip side, I once listened to my rabbi hold forth about the word "abhorrence" (sometimes translated as "abomination")—he argued that it actually had a much milder meaning than, well, "abhorrence." Despite his impassioned argument, I don't think gay-rights supporters are going to get very far in trying to minimize or deny the Bible's opposition to homosexuality. There is no Brokeback Mount Sinai. This verse, plus a similar verse in Chapter 20 mandating death for gay sex between men, plus the destruction of Sodom—the Bible is crystal clear about male homosexuality. (Lesbian sex isn't mentioned in the Torah.) So, how should Bible-loving gay-rights supporters rebut Leviticus 18:22? A stronger argument, perhaps, is to point out all the other things the Bible is equally clear about: The death penalty for gay sex, yes—but also the death penalty for cursing your parents, the death penalty for violating Sabbath, exile for sex with a menstruating woman, etc. … Turn the Bible-quoting back on the social conservatives: Why do they fixate on the abhorrent gay sex and not the abhorrent menstrual sex, or parent cursing, or Sabbath-violating?

Both Chapter 18 and Chapter 20 are devoted to sexual immorality and its punishments. At the end of Chapter 18, God explains why He's so worried about sexual misbehavior. But it's not at all the answer I expected. He says that the Israelites must follow these sexual laws to keep the land pure. The reason the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and others are getting expelled from their land is that they violated these moral laws, and the land punished them: "Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. … So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you." According to the Lord, the land is alive—the land itself can be purified or defiled, the land can rise against the people. A religious friend of mine often talks to me about his mystical connection with Israel, and I have always (inwardly) pooh-poohed it as mere romanticism. But I take back my pooh-poohing. Until this passage, I never fully understood that when God makes His covenant with Israel, He is actually making a three-legged deal: He makes a covenant with His people, for His land. Maybe that's why so much of Genesis is about real estate. Maybe that's why, for many faithful Jews, being Jewish in America or Canada or France is not being wholly Jewish at all, because they are cut off from the land that is our covenant with God. We're not His Chosen People anywhere. We're His Chosen People on His Holy Land. And that's why the land must be pure.

Chapter 19 and Chapter 20

Chapter 19 is glorious—a catalog of laws that's even more impressive, in their own way, than the Ten Commandments. No one can argue with Ten Commandments—who favors murder?—but they're pretty vague. The Chapter 19 laws are beautiful for their mix of pragmatism and justice. Let me quote the middle of the chapter at length, it's so good:

You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I the Lord am your God.

You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another. You shall not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord.

You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning.

You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God. I am the Lord.

You shall not render an unfair decision; do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich; judge your kinsman fairly. Do not deal basely with your countrymen. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow: I am the Lord.

You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the Lord.

You shall observe My laws.

Wow! Top that, Congress! In just a few sentences, the Torah speaks up for justice, charity, workers, and the disabled; it condemns financial crimes, gossip, and war profiteering; and it offers perhaps the most concise directive on human behavior ("Love your fellow as yourself"—Ever wonder where Jesus got "Love thy neighbor"? Not anymore.)

I particularly love the percussive repetition of "I am the Lord" It's the key to the whole chapter, I think. Why? Start with the obvious point: These are not laws that people want to follow. The employer wants to hold the wage overnight. The farmer wants to pick up fallen fruit. The victim wants to take vengeance. So, why should they follow these laws? In a tribal society, a society without a constitution, without a Supreme Court, without a history of common law, how do you justify laws like these? Or enforce them? There's a lot of modern conservative legal scholarship about "natural law," which, as I crudely understand it, is that idea that there is a basic underlying legal code, largely derived from the Bible, that is independent of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence—laws just like these. But natural law is not natural at all. Law can exist only if there is power to enforce it (the police, the courts). "I am the Lord" is a statement of faith, but even more a statement of force. For the Israelites, what supported these laws? The knowledge that the Lord—the God of Sodom and Gomorrah, the God of Nadab and Abihu, the Really Supreme Smiting Court, is there to enforce them. "I am the Lord. You shall observe My laws."

Hmm, I just noticed a contradiction in this entry. How can I reconcile this praise of the Chapter 19 laws with what I wrote a few paragraphs ago about the Chapter 18 anti-gay laws? Last chapter I was bemoaning the Levitical laws and looking for ways gays could subvert them. Here I'm praising the laws to the sky. But Leviticus isn't consistent—why do I have to be? The laws in Leviticus are a mix of the sublime and the ridiculous—and the repellent. Just after the incredible legislative passage I quote above, for example, come odd laws against mixing fabrics, cross-breeding animals, and violating slaves. Those laws, in turn, are followed by wonderful laws about respecting the elderly, being kind to strangers, and doing business with honest weights and measures. And those laws, in turn, are followed by the draconian laws of Chapter 20, which impose death for idol-worship, adultery, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality.

Where do I get off deciding certain Levitical laws are glorious and universal, true 4,000 years ago and true today (You shall not render an unfair decision; do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich), while others are archaic and should be tossed away (Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.)? Fundamentalists solve this problem by accepting all the laws as true. But the rest of us—both those who believe the Bible was inspired by God and those who believe it's just a book—don't get off so easy. Unless you're willing to live in a Taliban-esque world of moral absolutism, in which adulterers and homosexuals are dragged from their beds and murdered, you have to pick and choose. We talk about the Bible, as if there is only one. But if there's anything I've learned from the e-mails you're sending me, it's that we all have our own Bible. We linger on the passages we love and blot out, or argue with, or skim the verses that repel us. My Bible, I suppose, has a very long Chapter 19, and a very short Chapter 18. What about yours?

Thoughts on Blogging the Bible? Please e-mail David Plotz at plotzd@slate.com . E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

[Vesayen]

From the Gospels. Matthew and John were disciples, Luke and Mark were contemporaries of Christ. The Gospels did not come later, they were written by contemporaries around 20-25 years after his death. John was written later around 75-90 ad around 50-60 years after his death, but John was a disciple of Christ, and thus eyewitness to many of the events he writes about.

I meant besides the gospels. Jesus is not written about by sources of the time. He was simply, not seen as important.

The Jews had heard about him. After all, Josephus writes about Christ. He was extremely well known in Jerusalem, how can you account for his reception at Palm Sunday? The Jews themselves heralded him as their King their promised Messiah as he fulfilled the prophecies in his entry into Jerusalem, only one week before his death.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Josephus was born 37 years after Jesus died. His accounts are suspect. It is also, one account. Where are other accounts from the era? The Jews did not herald him as the messiach. Perhaps a small group, which I am skeptical of. Israel was full of strange offshoots and people claiming to be the messiah at the time, a century before and a century after Jesus lived.

As Pilate said, what is this madness? The Jews had acknowledged Christ as their King and would later crucify him.

Heroditus gives us some useful historical information which is unique but half of what he says is well, historically inaccurate. He is also, one source. One source from the time is no more useful then the gospels.

The Jews didn't execute them, the Romans did, in a sense, their hands were washed of the affair.

Judae was a roman province. Jews would not have been happy to see him executed then. They would not care if their “hands were washed”, especially since most did not know of him. You do not execute people on Yom Tov. You do not worship idols or commit human sacrifice or murder your parents. You do not execute people on Yom Tov. It is a very bad thing.

The question becomes what will satisfy you? What evidence will be sufficient? Anyone can keep asking for more and more.

My point is you are setting the burden of proof far, far, far too low. I want multiple sources which are impartial. I want corroborating evidence. I want enough proof to bring it to the level of possibility.

Faith simply means the heart must be where the acts are, in one sense that you circumcise because you know it is part of the convenant between God and Israel, not because you've always done so in your family. That is what is meant by faith.

Faith, noun. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Christian faith means accepting the impossible and miraculous as fact. It is a mystical ideal.

Faith does not mean your heart is where your acts are and even if it was Jews would also reject that idea. You can hate G-D and the law, follow the commandments and still make him happy-in fact you’ll make him happier.

God keeps his promises. Why is there a conflict between God and Israel? Between Christ and the Law? Again, I am not entirely certain that those who are Jews will not be saved, in fact we know of some who are already saved, the patriarchs of Israel, and did they not follow the Law and the prophets?

Between your god and Israel? That your god wants Jews to be idolaters. Between Jesus and the law? Same problem-Jesus wants us to be idolaters.

The Jews have a choice and that is to see that Christ is the fulfillment and not the cancellation of the law.

This makes a snazzy catch phrase. It makes no logical sense. A continuation of law is not the complete destruction of the existing law, especially when the law warns about people who may try to do exactly that and says “Do not listen to them.”

As for your second point, at no point does God extinguish the soul, even of those who suffer in Hell. I know this is a hard concept, but eternal torment means that God will not destroy the souls of even those who reject him.

A soul without a body is not a human. That is an interruption of a covenant which is supposed to be unending. An unending covenant has no interruption but constant continuity.

Does not say judge, it says crush the skills. Kill. Prophecy does not fit.

Death is one form of judgement. I suspect they would relish death over eternal punishment.

It does NOT say judge. It says crush the skulls. It does not say judge in one form or another. It says crush the skulls. It goes on in other passages to discuss the destruction of the Moabites.

Because much or potentially all of the text about the coming of the Meshiach is questionable and may be untrue, solely inspired by men who despaired and thought they heard G-D. This is not an act of malice, just a mistake.

Ok, then what is the point of this exercise if any text that says stuff about the coming Messiah is suspect? Essentially you would reject the Torah if I were to prove that the Torah does make messianic prophecies simply because you have stated here that all such prophecies are untrue!

The Torah does not really discuss messianic prophecies, they came at another time. I am not rejecting the Torah at all. I am potentially rejecting other texts which may have been foolishly accepted as divine when they may not have been.

I have little faith in Christianity. I think that Christian scholars wrote texts they knew were not the work of G-D and long after these individuals were dead, these texts made their way into canon.

When the old arguments between Jews as to the proper texts continues on in the Christian canon, then I have great confidence that the primary motivation of the Christians with respect to the old testament is to maintain the hebrew tradition as best as possible. Jerome made this argument saying everything in the OT must have a Hebrew original!

Not potentially malice, as much mistake as deception. Scholar Y writes a text(say the childhood gospel of bob… not bob but I forget the name. It is about Jesus’s childhood). If you read it, the idea of it being true is laughable when compared to the new testament. How many texts which were rejected for the new testament were popular at the time they were written and later, mistaken as fact when the author was long dead?

Daniel is an acid trip which made its way into the canon. I would also reject most of Genesis till Abraham comes on the scene-before him it is scientifically and historically improbable or flat out impossible.

So you reject the Torah when the Torah refuses to match your modern worldview. Why not throw the entire Torah out?

G-D gave us reason and minds able to think… the song of Solomon is a love song about G-D as the embodiment of wisdom. G-D gave us the temple for our benefit. Do you think G-D much delights in the smell of incense? The Jews and similar peoples at the time did such practices so G-D set it down as a ritual. Better that the Jews do it for G-D then wander and do it for some idol. It was for our benefit, not his.

So why not much of Genesis? How precisely can the all powerful creator of the universe explain complicated matters of science to a bunch of goat herders in ancient Israel?

It was for our benefit. We no longer need the crutch.

If the details of the prophecy do not fit the NT, then it must be false, because the NT is the ultimate source of truth, yes? Anything which conflicts with the NT is wrong, from a Christian view.

True, but you cannot issue this argument without the premise that the NT is reliable and that the NT can fulfill messianic prophecies.

Which is what I said roughly 2 lines down. You have to play devil’s advocate.

Facts relevant: The NT written after the Torah.
Facts relevant: We have no proof that the NT is divine.
Facts relevant: There are arguable reasons to believe that the NT is in fact not divine, but entirely human.

Then why would the fact that the NT contradicts the messianic prophecies have any bearing on the prophecies themselves? Again, the NT only counts if you first say that the NT has this authority.

Correct. Evidence from the NT to prove the prophecies only counts if you accept the NT as true.

However if we leave the status of the NT indeterminate… if we do not know if it is divine or human… it could still be by some bizarre fluke, the prophecies are still true.

However for that to happen, the NT has to be consistent with itself and match up properly. This means that evidence from the Torah about prophecies, can not contradict the NT, if the prophecies are true.

In the Sermon on the Mount Christ says, "and I say to you..." As if he is rewriting and adding onto the Mosaic Code. In essence Christ is presuming authority equivalent to God.

In the Sermon on the Mount Christ says, "and I say to you..." As if he is rewriting and adding onto the Mosaic Code. In essence Christ is presuming authority equivalent to God.

And in the Torah we are warned against sorcerers and miraculous signs by people who may try to change the law or lead us astray. To Jews, this fits Jesus pretty well(as well as a thousand other people throughout time).

The “prophecy” says “like me”. Jesus demands a degree of obedience which is identical to obedience to G-D. This contradicts the prophecy, for it says “like me” not “as me”. If you re-write that after the fact with Jesus, he is disproving his own prophecy.

Ten commandments came from God not from a pre-existing civlization. You can't really advance this argument while at the same time maintaining that the Jews have a special relationship with God in maintaining his law.

I am as historically skeptical of Judaism as any other. Every one of the ten commandments existed in the world in one form or another, though not always together.

The overwhelming majority, do not and for precisely the same reason as I stated. Faith can lead you away from G-D. I am confident the overwhelming majority of Jews will agree.

I'm not so confident of this assessment and I have known a few Jews.

Go ask any observant Jew. Obviously I can not account for the completely secular ones who do not know their own religion well. Ask them what faith is, then ask them what faith means to a Christian. Then ask them how they feel about faith. I am confident of the response.

Iconography has been a serious issue within Christianity. The essence of the argument is that pictures of God are fine so long as they are not worshiped. There's a whole Ecumenical council, the very last one, devoted to this issue.

Well for much of Christianity it was not 10 commandments, but 9. You said we share this “cornerstone” we do not. The 10 commandments are not necessarily even the most important ones in Judaism(many will argue either side on this), just the first given collectively to the nation of Israel.

Regardless of his influence on the east, his influence on the west is undeniable.

Every one of the ten commandments exists in societies long before Jews made the scene.

Then the Jews have no special connection to God. You've just denied at least 2 of the covenants explicitly laid out in the torah, the one to Moses and Abraham.

The Torah has to stand up to scrutiny. I think it does better then the texts of any other religion. It still has it’s issues. You can follow the Torah and be a good person, even if G-D is not real. I would not say something which may or may not be true, MUST be true, for the sake of being “special”.

What is true, is true, regardless of any other considerations except the facts.

Many of the practices associated with Christianity are demonstratably inherited from Pagan holidays, even the date was. The name “Easter” is the name of a Pagan holiday(I don’t have the history available, the name is a bit modified-I’m sure someone can look it up… I bet wikipedia has it).

What practices are pagan? Going to church and saying Christ is risen?

Holy Week? the Triduum?

Christians added their own contribution to these festivals.

Again, where is the evidence that Easter is any more pagan then the fact that it is celebrated in the Spring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Etymology_and_Pagan_origins_of_Easter_traditions

I would disagree, the purpose of a temple offering is to be like the passover lamb.

The purpose of the Temple was to feed into the ancient Jews inherited cultural practices and those of the rest of the world and channel them towards G-D instead of letting them wander to idolatry.

I did not say that heh, I just said that Christians have done bad stuff, the same as everyone else, and that we do not share the same moral structures as a result of religion

There are some differences but most of the moral structures are identical.

We have shared the same civilization(mostly) for 2,000 years. Of course our ideas become similar over time.

[Vesayen]

On to sex—what a relief! As with food and skin, purity and impurity are the chief Levitical concern. If a man ejaculates, he has to bathe and remains impure for the rest of the day. (Incidentally, this suggests that the Bible tolerates masturbation, since the ejaculation described is one that doesn't occur during intercourse. More evidence that we misread the Onan story.) If a man has sex with a woman, they both have to bathe and remain impure for the rest of the day. (A question for observant Jewish readers: I assume some version of these rules applies today—how do they work in practice? Is there a lot of bathing going on in Orthodox homes? How does that post-coital impurity affect everyday life?)

To answer his question? Not at all. It only excludes you from religious activities. Becoming purified for most things is a short, easy and inexpensive(or free) ordeal.

Arrian. I really like this guy. He makes a few mistakes but he writes very well.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Me: How about dozens of authors telling the same story with literally thousands of people concuring?

Flip: Because the story would not have started somewhere and spread out with the usual embellisments and what not that follows any sort of oral truth.

How strange that all those "usual embellisments" all concur. Your next premise "oral truth" is misfounded. It was eyewitness testimony. Quite a difference.

All the people who arranged the NT did was grab the ones that were the closest together in story and then work the message they wanted.

So you have made it a 'no win' scenario.
If they would not concur - it was embellished
If it all concurs - it was a conspiracy.

Which woulda been quite nice in the time they were living in.
Though Hubbard also has teachings that lead to enlightenment and a fancy story to boot too. Just a lot more fanciful though.

If I wanted to learn astrophysics, I would not go to an elementary teacher, would you?