Happy Yom Kippur to our Jewish friends

[Picaro]

There are a lot of Baptists running around with names like Jeremiah and Abraham; Ezekiel is a popular one, too. Know a lot of Johns, Mathews, and Lukes out there as well.

Luke ain't jewish----he was a greek with a greek name

He became Jewish when he converted to a Jewish sect. But, re the name you may be right. but isn't there a pastry with a name similar to that, ,lochs, or loks, or something?

I did not know that Luke converted to Judaism. ------I do believe (???) he was alive during the time of the life of Jesus (??) maybe------but seems to have been
an early Christian. I believe he did all his writing in Greek

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

you "KNOW" ? Have you discussed this issue with a Chassidic scholar regarding his "annoyance" of the perspective that Christianity is a sect of
Judaism? Have you discussed the matter with Christian scholars? Do you
have a citation for the "conversion of Luke to Judaism" ?------for that matter---do
you have a citation regarding his "conversion" to Christianity?

Already been there, done that, and several Jewish posters here,including yourself, have jumped in to corroborate this.

You have any reason at all to claim Luke wasn't a convert??? That would be fun to see. lol

 

[irosie91]

Luke ain't jewish----he was a greek with a greek name

He became Jewish when he converted to a Jewish sect. But, re the name you may be right. but isn't there a pastry with a name similar to that, ,lochs, or loks, or something?

I did not know that Luke converted to Judaism. ------I do believe (???) he was alive during the time of the life of Jesus (??) maybe------but seems to have been
an early Christian. I believe he did all his writing in Greek

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

you "KNOW" ? Have you discussed this issue with a Chassidic scholar regarding his "annoyance" of the perspective that Christianity is a sect of
Judaism? Have you discussed the matter with Christian scholars? Do you
have a citation for the "conversion of Luke to Judaism" ?------for that matter---do
you have a citation regarding his "conversion" to Christianity?

Already been there, done that, and several Jewish posters here,including yourself, have jumped in to corroborate this.

You have any reason at all to claim Luke wasn't a convert??? That would be fun to see. lol

I have nothing to suggest he was other than that he wrote----it seems---exclusively in greek. He did not acquire a "jewish name". He never mentioned his circumcision-------poor guy

 

[ESay]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

 

[Picaro]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

 

[ESay]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

Jewish prophets talked about the Messiah who would be a descendant of David. It was nothing said about God becoming a flesh. Right?

What do you think about Sabellianism?

 

[irosie91]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="

sunday school stupidity from Pic>>>>
Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars,

----he made it up from his own racist, hate filled "brain" and the shit poured into his
head at sunday school. Since orthodox rabbis are PROLIFIC writers----pic will
have no trouble citing the "Oneness doctrine" used by rabbis to extract jews from
"sects" like Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, Greek culture and ----??ETC??
the ONENESS RED HERRING

 

[ding]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No.

The Trinity is not a mystery to be solved but a relationship to be entered into.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It is a day of atonement. Not something you celebrate.

 

[Picaro]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

Jewish prophets talked about the Messiah who would be a descendant of David. It was nothing said about God becoming a flesh. Right?

What do you think about Sabellianism?

According to both Mathew and Luke, Jesus was descended from David. Not sure about your second point, 'becoming flesh', since I don't have much interest in analyzing and doing extremely detailed exegeses on every single rhetorical and literary reference in the entire book, but when I get some time in the next few weeks I will see if that is indeed the case. As for 'Messiahs', they came in several forms; some considered Cyrus to be a 'Messiah', so the term isn't as exclusive as some might think. We also know prophesies didn't necessarily all come true, for an assortment of reasons.

Sabellianism doesn't really fit the trinitarian doctrine; just speculative sophistry, but not meaning to be deceiving or fake, as as most Gnostic rubbish is. I leave it to the beleivers to sort out their own issues re that; I'm happy with the trinitarian explanations. Mathew 28:19 in the Textus Recepticus is more than good enough for me. I can see where there will be arguments over such stuff among some, but since I'm not a believer those types of unnecessary semantic arguments don't concern me. I'm more a fan of Christianity's much more dynamic and positive influences on western history its culture of progress, and it's suppression of mindless paganism.

 

[Picaro]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Roise is still mad at her ancestors for their failure, despite extreme long term and dedicated efforts over many hundreds of years, and even with the help of their Muslim allies, failed to murder all the Xians. Then they got mad that these annoyingly inferior goy dared to toss them out of Spain and on their asses along with their Muslim heroes without allowing them to take their hundreds of years of plunder with them when they left; for some reason they still feel entitled to all that stuff. Those uppity goy just don't know their place.

 

[irosie91]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Roise is still mad at her ancestors for their failure, despite extreme long term and dedicated efforts over many hundreds of years, and even with the help of their Muslim allies, failed to murder all the Xians. Then they got mad that these annoyingly inferior goy dared to toss them out of Spain and on their asses along with their Muslim heroes without allowing them to take their hundreds of years of plunder with them when they left; for some reason they still feel entitled to all that stuff. Those uppity goy just don't know their place.

oh gee-----yet another sunday school slut fantasy. --------did the bitch tell you where the RECIPE for transforming base metals into gold lies in the Talmud?.
"plunder" -----of course-----the same filth over and over and over------your SAINT
ADOLF_----having been educated to the filth from infancy--------agrees with you.
In fact, the muslims actually adopted the filth of your whore

 

[ESay]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

Jewish prophets talked about the Messiah who would be a descendant of David. It was nothing said about God becoming a flesh. Right?

What do you think about Sabellianism?

According to both Mathew and Luke, Jesus was descended from David. Not sure about your second point, 'becoming flesh', since I don't have much interest in analyzing and doing extremely detailed exegeses on every single rhetorical and literary reference in the entire book, but when I get some time in the next few weeks I will see if that is indeed the case. As for 'Messiahs', they came in several forms; some considered Cyrus to be a 'Messiah', so the term isn't as exclusive as some might think. We also know prophesies didn't necessarily all come true, for an assortment of reasons.

Sabellianism doesn't really fit the trinitarian doctrine; just speculative sophistry, but not meaning to be deceiving or fake, as as most Gnostic rubbish is. I leave it to the beleivers to sort out their own issues re that; I'm happy with the trinitarian explanations. Mathew 28:19 in the Textus Recepticus is more than good enough for me. I can see where there will be arguments over such stuff among some, but since I'm not a believer those types of unnecessary semantic arguments don't concern me. I'm more a fan of Christianity's much more dynamic and positive influences on western history its culture of progress, and it's suppression of mindless paganism.

It is in John. Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.
I know that it is a frequently asked question, but how Jesus can be a descendant of David if he wasn't actually a son of Joseph? Assertions that Mary and Joseph are some kind of relatives, and so are both descendants of David, don't hold water.

So, what then is Trinitarian explanation? God is one. There are no three separate persons but only one Being who reveals itself in three ways. So called Son is just some form of revelation in particular time. Is this compatible with Trinitarian version?

 

[DOTR]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

If you find a reference to God as plural that would be heresy. The Trinitarian doctrine is that God is one and three persons.

 

[DOTR]

So, what then is Trinitarian explanation? God is one. There are no three separate persons but only one Being who reveals itself in three ways. So called Son is just some form of revelation in particular time. Is this compatible with Trinitarian version?

No that would be "Modalism". It was condemned as far back as the 1st century.

 

[DOTR]

I see Picaro already mentioned Sabellianism. My apologies.

 

[DOTR]

Even though I'm 0.5% Jewish according to my official DNA test, I will not be celebrating today myself.

How can this be? Ive been told Jewish is not a race but a religion.

 

[ESay]

So, what then is Trinitarian explanation? God is one. There are no three separate persons but only one Being who reveals itself in three ways. So called Son is just some form of revelation in particular time. Is this compatible with Trinitarian version?

No that would be "Modalism". It was condemned as far back as the 1st century.

So, there are three separate persons? Then how is this compatible with oneness?

 

[Picaro]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

If you find a reference to God as plural that would be heresy.

"Then God said, " Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ..." Genesis 1:26, NKJV , and pretty much the same in my NIV version. My version of the NKJV capitalizes "Our", other versions, actually most except the NASB don't; which ones are more accurate? I go with the capitalization, since I seriously doubt God was including the cattle and stuff from 1:24 -1:25; I prefer the NKJV over the rest personally. This type of language occurs because the Bible in many places uses several 'voices' to make points from different aspects.

What does Genesis 1:26 mean?

I don't think the 'angels' are the explanation, the other two explanations fit, and work with each other as well. Angels don't come along til later, and the term isn't capitalized, so they aren't part of the Trinity, they are clearly separate from it.

 

[Picaro]

It is in John. Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.
I know that it is a frequently asked question, but how Jesus can be a descendant of David if he wasn't actually a son of Joseph? Assertions that Mary and Joseph are some kind of relatives, and so are both descendants of David, don't hold water.

Both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David, plus Joseph would be the the 'father' under 'secular' Jewish laws, so that isn't an issue. What 'doesn't hold water'? We know they were related.

So, what then is Trinitarian explanation? God is one. There are no three separate persons but only one Being who reveals itself in three ways. So called Son is just some form of revelation in particular time. Is this compatible with Trinitarian version?

It would seem so. Is your arm a part of you, or is it a 'module'? Jesus is still around, according to the NT, and has always been around, not just from a particular time and place, same as your arms if they haven't been lost for some reason.