Is "salvation" possible under the Law?

[Tarheeler]

That's what makes the world great, your opinion is irrelevant to his faith and can't judge it in any relevant way.

I'm not judging his faith; he's free to believe whatever he wants.

But when he attempts to pass it off as another religion, in the debate forum, I do get to call him on it.

 

[SethZaddik]

As you stated in your first sentence, you're the one making the claim.
And as I've already pointed out, being written by Jews doesn't make it a "Jewish" book, and containing things based on the Tanakh doesn't make it part of the Jewish cannon.

I really don't care what you claim to be. In a previous post, you stated that anyone who "trusted" Jesus was a Christian, regardless of whether they started out as a Jew or a Gentile. And I agree with you. Based on your posts, that makes you a Christian.

The Christian Bible diverges greatly in several areas from what Judaism teaches, which is to be expected; Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism. No matter how hard to want to it be, they are not the same.

None of the New Testament was written in or even quoted from the Tanakh, or Hebrew or Aramaic in origin. Every quote is from the Greek as Matthew, not actually Matthew the disciple but anonymous and pseudepigraphal, thinks Isaiah prophecied a virgin birth in a book that is not about Jesus PBUH at all and doesn't say virgin. It's Messiah is Cyrus and Servant is Israel.

So, no, Jews didn't write the New Testament with the exception of possibly the general Epistles and Revelation. Luke was Syrian, but the Gospels anonymous and the only Hebrew language Gospel lost forever.

A quote survived where the Holy Spirit is called his "Mother" by Jesus PBUH himself and another in Clement of Alexandria that corresponds with the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[SethZaddik]

I'm not judging his faith; he's free to believe whatever he wants.

But when he attempts to pass it off as another religion, in the debate forum, I do get to call him on it.

Oh, you just come across as judgemental, I understand, but assuming that his beliefs are inferior is not ACTUALLY judgement, is that what you are saying?

I would have to disagree. You obviously don't know as much as you think or claim as you just judged a non existent first century mention as "correct" yet it...doesn't exist.

 

[Tarheeler]

Oh, you just come across as judgemental, I understand, but assuming that his beliefs are inferior is not ACTUALLY judgement, is that what you are saying?

I would have to disagree. You obviously don't know as much as you think or claim as you just judged a non existent first century mention as "correct" yet it...doesn't exist.

I don't think his beliefs are inferior. I said his claim that the Christian Bible is part of the Jewish Bible is incorrect, and I object to his attempt to try to pass off Christianity as Judaism.

 

[SethZaddik]

I don't think his beliefs are inferior. I said his claim that the Christian Bible is part of the Jewish Bible is incorrect, and I object to his attempt to try to pass off Christianity as Judaism.

A fair objection, all things considered.

Jewish Bible is even a misnomer though without the NT. Tanakh or Law, Prophets and writings is, I believe, the correct way to describe the Jewish... Tanakh.

 

[SethZaddik]

I don't think his beliefs are inferior. I said his claim that the Christian Bible is part of the Jewish Bible is incorrect, and I object to his attempt to try to pass off Christianity as Judaism.

Although I have heard a few Jews say it was not Jesus PBUH but Paul who invented Christianity. Which is born out in the NT itself and a fair observation that I fully agree with.

They'll say he was a Rabbi but no more.

Obviously I disagree with that, but respect it.

 

[Tarheeler]

A fair objection, all things considered.

Jewish Bible is even a misnomer though without the NT. Tanakh or Law, Prophets and writings is, I believe, the correct way to describe the Jewish... Tanakh.

Yes, we refer to the whole canon as the Tanakh, which is an acronym for the three parts that make it up- Torah, Neviim (the Prophets), Ketuvim (the Writtings).

I often use Jewish Bible on forums because many outside of Judaism don't know what the Tanakh is.

 

[SethZaddik]

Yes, we refer to the whole canon as the Tanakh, which is an acronym for the three parts that make it up- Torah, Neviim (the Prophets), Ketuvim (the Writtings).

I often use Jewish Bible on forums because many outside of Judaism don't know what the Tanakh is.

I enjoy the Sefer ha-Zohar myself, more so than the Tanakh. I have 15 vols with the Hasulam commentary and the Tishby edition, 3 Enoch, Sefer Raziel. I love that stuff.

We have a similar series of books about Islam called Ihya ulum al-din or Revival of the Religous Sciences. 40 books total, 3,000 pages at least. It is not exactly the same but has Mohammed PBUH in a similar role as bar Yochai and friends, quoting and explaining things, mystical content. I was looking for the Sufi equivalent and come to find out Sefer Yezira is based on a book we attribute to Balinus/Appollonius of Tyana.

You might know that Sufism and Kabbalah borrowed from each other at that long lost time when we lived in peace.

It is rather obvious, Kabba+Allah=Kabbalah.

That said, Zohar itself is wholly Jewish. It borrows concepts from neo Platonism and Zoroastrianism (less so than people imagine in the latter case) which in the case of the Greek philosophical texts were ressurected and translated by us after Europe rejected and ridiculed them we put them to good use, as did the Jews and eventually upon realization that Europe was a filthy cesspool of ignorance, Europeans too.

Most people don't realize without Islam there would have been no intellectual Renaissance in Europe. Science was hoodoo voodoo to them, what was just Chemistry to us became Alchemy and with the thought of turning lead to gold and immortality potions eventually the Al was dropped to distinguish it.

Algebra, cALculus, hospitAl, anytime a science has Al in it, probably we perfected it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are many more differences between the two than that. As someone who claims to understand both, you should know that.


And it ceased being one shortly thereafter and became a separate religion in it's own right.



I'm sorry, but you claimed that the Christian Bible was part of the Jewish cannon, something that isn't supported anywhere. You have no credibility when discussing what may or may not be Jewish.
And, since you seem in doubt, I am a Jew who practices Judaism.

As for what you see as my disdain, it isn't for your "opinion as a Jew". It is for your attempt to pass off Christianity as Judaism. And I show similar regard for anyone who does that, regardless of their ancestry or prior religion.

The points you cite above are correct, except for the "shortly thereafter". It was close on a century before there was a severe enough divergence for a total break. It would be disingenuous of me to say that Christianity was considered to be anything but a Jewish sect by Romans OR Jews for quite some time after the resurrection.

May I ask, are you an observant Jewish person? Are you an agnostic? An atheist?

I ask because I'm trying to understand your zeal. We both know that over 99% of Americans consider Christianity and Judaism separate faiths. But after reading the Tanakh as an adult along with the NT, I concluded much differently.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Unless you are of the few who regards Josephus mention of Christ as NOT an interpolation not a single first century historian even MENTIONS Christianity. The word doesn't show up until the second century in history.

Out on a limb may have been the right choice of words because if you understand Judaism that includes its history and the fact that Christianity is not mentioned in the first century, a Roman religion too, does nothing for your claim to understanding, how do you understand without all the facts?

You don't. I am not Jewish, I'm Muslim, but I would say that I at least have a better knowledge of first century Jewish history because I know that the second century is the first mention of Christianity or Paul in the historical records.

Iranaeus was first to mention Paul after they robbed Marcion of his creation and merged it with the religion of the real Apostles who actually knew Jesus PBUH.

Justin Martyr the first to mention Christianity as A religion, period, and it is based on Judaism but not Judaism at all.

Nazarenes were what Jewish disciples of Yesha were called and Ebionim/Ebionites, they were actually declared heretical even though it was Jesus PBUH religion.

Nazarenes aren't mentionied until Jerome and Epiphanius, 4th or 5th century, Ebionites in the second.

Apocrypha doesn't count, ie Ignatius or Polycarp, Clement of Rome or Barnabas as they can't be dated and were theological not historical. Both reasons are valid, Clement is anonymous and exists in a lone MS. in a fourth century Greek Bible with Barnabas and Hermas too.

Christianity is fully Greco-Roman, pagan, and at best pseudo-Judaic.

You are incorrect. Not to be rude, but 10 1st century nonChristian historians mention the resurrection, the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, etc.

Source: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh: 9781581345612: Amazon.com: Books

What actually happened is that nearly every verse of the NT is quoted in letters between church leaders before the close of the 2nd century, showing the scriptures were in use. And Irenaeus and Tertullian had a clear line of ascent to John.

 

[SethZaddik]

You are incorrect. Not to be rude, but 10 1st century nonChristian historians mention the resurrection, the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, etc.

Source: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh: 9781581345612: Amazon.com: Books

What actually happened is that nearly every verse of the NT is quoted in letters between church leaders before the close of the 2nd century, showing the scriptures were in use. And Irenaeus and Tertullian had a clear line of ascent to John.

You are not being rude, just incorrect and reliant upon faulty information or just mistaken regarding the difference between a historical writing and theological epistle.

Everything I previously said is entirely accurate and something I am not unlearned regarding.

Name the first century historian and the actual quote and I will be happy to explain, in each specific circumstance.

 

[SethZaddik]

You are not being rude, just incorrect and reliant upon faulty information or just mistaken regarding the difference between a historical writing and theological epistle.

Everything I previously said is entirely accurate and something I am not unlearned regarding.

Name the historian and quote and I will be glad to explain further.

 

[SethZaddik]

You are incorrect. Not to be rude, but 10 1st century nonChristian historians mention the resurrection, the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, etc.

Source: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh: 9781581345612: Amazon.com: Books

What actually happened is that nearly every verse of the NT is quoted in letters between church leaders before the close of the 2nd century, showing the scriptures were in use. And Irenaeus and Tertullian had a clear line of ascent to John.

Church leaders, as I have explained, are not historians or reliable sources of information period and can't be dated, I even mentioned this already, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc, are NOT historians.

The Nazarenes were not mentioned until the fifth century by a historian, as I said and remains true, as the Bible and its rejected Apocrypha are not historical, including the epistles mentionied.

I noticed you didn't mention a name, just assert that someone said that 10 historians of the first century mention Christianity. This is hardly true as not one did, in reality and I can only guess your author is being cute with facts to support preconceived notions of his, but he is wrong to claim that.

Chrestos was mentioned by, I believe Pliny, but that is disputed in academia as possibly interpolated and I don't think Pliny was first century but if I am mistaken it's irrelevant as he had no idea what a Christian was or who was Chrestos.

Philo of Alexandria, contemporary of Jesus PBUH from Egypt and a Jewish historian and philosopher also contemporary with Josephus never mentioned Christianity and he would have known as a nobleman in the Roman Empire and relative of the Biblical Berenice.

Josephus mentioned Philo, he was an Aristocrat of the Jewish Alexander family and his brother a Roman administrator of some sort, prefect I think.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are not being rude, just incorrect and reliant upon faulty information or just mistaken regarding the difference between a historical writing and theological epistle.

Everything I previously said is entirely accurate and something I am not unlearned regarding.

Name the first century historian and the actual quote and I will be happy to explain, in each specific circumstance.

I cited the source. I'm not going to type out several pages of a book for you.

Regardless, I know it's comforting to skeptics to trivialize away the powerful new religion that ended the gladitorial games and other abuses during the period, winning millions over in love.

 

[SethZaddik]

You are incorrect. Not to be rude, but 10 1st century nonChristian historians mention the resurrection, the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, etc.

Source: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh: 9781581345612: Amazon.com: Books

What actually happened is that nearly every verse of the NT is quoted in letters between church leaders before the close of the 2nd century, showing the scriptures were in use. And Irenaeus and Tertullian had a clear line of ascent to John.

"Clear line of ascent to John"?

"Nearly every verse"??

Those are some wild assertions!!!

Not to be rude but there is no line, clear or otherwise, that legitimately connects ANY Roman Christian with John, TertullIAN founded the Latin Church and Polycarp may be a figment of the imagination of a later author, John doesn't mention him or Ignatius or Clement of Rome and "his"anonymous Epistle.

And last, not nearly every verse was quoted by first century Church writers who may not have even existed anyway, let us consider the epistles attributed to the first century as genuine for a moment.

That statement remains as absurd as if we didn't, and just plain untrue. I happen to have read Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement and Barnabas and...not the case, RARELY do they quote the Gospels or NT period.

 

[SethZaddik]

I cited the source. I'm not going to type out several pages of a book for you.

Regardless, I know it's comforting to skeptics to trivialize away the powerful new religion that ended the gladitorial games and other abuses during the period, winning millions over in love.

You won't because you can't and know if you do I will correct you, prove myself to be right and you wrong.

Not because you just don't want to, how hard is it to name a historian and a quote if it exists?

I know I didn't ask for a page, never mind pages, just a name and the quote. And I am not trivializing anything by being accurate. Truth is never trivial and Christianity did not do what you say it did, it was a violent persecutory religion that declared that even the Nazarenes were heretics for remaining loyal to Judaism and exterminated all "heresies" after Constantine.

Not hard at all. If it doesn't and you are relying upon faulty information it would be impossible to verify, the reason you can't quote or name one historian is because you don't know of one.

Because they don't exist. Your claims are outrageous.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Church leaders, as I have explained, are not historians or reliable sources of information period and can't be dated, I even mentioned this already, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc, are NOT historians.

The Nazarenes were not mentioned until the fifth century by a historian, as I said and remains true, as the Bible and its rejected Apocrypha are not historical, including the epistles mentionied.

I noticed you didn't mention a name, just assert that someone said that 10 historians of the first century mention Christianity. This is hardly true as not one did, in reality and I can only guess your author is being cute with facts to support preconceived notions of his, but he is wrong to claim that.

Chrestos was mentioned by, I believe Pliny, but that is disputed in academia as possibly interpolated and I don't think Pliny was first century but if I am mistaken it's irrelevant as he had no idea what a Christian was or who was Chrestos.

Philo of Alexandria, contemporary of Jesus PBUH from Egypt and a Jewish historian and philosopher also contemporary with Josephus never mentioned Christianity and he would have known as a nobleman in the Roman Empire and relative of the Biblical Berenice.

Josephus mentioned Philo, he was an Aristocrat of the Jewish Alexander family and his brother a Roman administrator of some sort, prefect I think.

I don't have the book to hand. There were one dozen 1st century church writers but ten NON-CHRISTIAN writers. Please read what I write with more care.

"This is hardly true as not one did, in reality and I can only guess your author is being cute with facts to support preconceived notions of his, but he is wrong to claim that."

Is this how you speak of the author, Dr. Geisler? Is that how you speak of all Ph.D academics? Please stop it.

I READ THE WHOLE BOOK. You've not read ONE SENTENCE of the book. " . . . He is wrong to claim that . . . " Give me a break.

 

[SethZaddik]

I cited the source. I'm not going to type out several pages of a book for you.

Regardless, I know it's comforting to skeptics to trivialize away the powerful new religion that ended the gladitorial games and other abuses during the period, winning millions over in love.

If you are going to make claims that rely upon others books you should be ready to substantiate the claims with gusto.

You simply heard that someone claimed something, took it as fact without researching if it actually was and are stuck with the false claims of a dishonest author because you didn't check.

Now you don't want to go any further because I will just expose the fallacies you are claiming are facts.

Understandable in a way but also avoidable by learning yourself the truth and not relying on dishonest authors with a religous bias(I imagine, why else write a book of lies?).

 

[SethZaddik]

I don't have the book to hand. There were one dozen 1st century church writers but ten NON-CHRISTIAN writers. Please read what I write with more care.

"This is hardly true as not one did, in reality and I can only guess your author is being cute with facts to support preconceived notions of his, but he is wrong to claim that."

Is this how you speak of the author, Dr. Geisler? Is that how you speak of all Ph.D academics? Please stop it.

I READ THE WHOLE BOOK. You've not read ONE SENTENCE of the book. " . . . He is wrong to claim that . . . " Give me a break.

I don't need to read that book to know independently of it what is fact and what is not.

I read what he read, you read him.

And if you read it, give me ONE NAME and ONE QUOTE.

If Geiser made such claims, yes, this is how I speak of Geiser. Doesn't make me anti academic in any way, just anti falsehoods.

Degrees don't guarantee honesty.

 

[SethZaddik]

It is one thing to say that first century historians mentionied Christianity, another to prove it. If you read the book you should be able to remember one historian and quote at least. You remember none?

The first Christian historian period is Justin Martyr, second century teacher of Tatian who wrote the Diatesseron, proving no Canon existed even then.This is from my memory of things I read including Justin Martyr who for what it's worth seems like he was a nice gentleman.

However he never mentioned an Apostle by name or used the word Gospel. He called his book "Memoirs of the Apostles" and while it shares quotes with the Gospels it doesn't quote them directly or by name. He knows of no Paul or any Epistles in his writings.

So how you could say even one "Christian historian of the first century" when one doesn't exist that is at least extant, is curious to say the least.

Non Christian historians of the first century are the only historians of the first century and none know of Christianity.