Moses said, Unto him ye shall hearken

[YoursTrue]

Name one thing.

And I mean one thing you needn't be a Christian to see.

Not all calling themselves Christians see.

 

[Rival]

Not all calling themselves Christians see.

All you're telling me is that your messiah did nothing the Messiah is meant to do.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am only telling you so you don't think everyone is right. You are judging when you agree or don't agree.

I am not even considering the Church. I was asked a question about what historical issues I had with the book of Acts. I gave one and I haven't received an answer to the question.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

People say lots of things they don't believe in, especially when reading others out loud in a ceremony. I used the term OT because you said NT. I say it again, shalom

I know, so what is your point? I find it interesting that someone is willing to recite something they claim or hold didn't historically happen. As a Torath Mosheh Jew I would never recite, as a ceremony, anything that I know didn't actually happen or isn't real/true. Besides, there is no requirement for beleif in the Torah to begin with - there is a requirement for Jews to know.

OT is not a Jewish term NT is a Christian. That is the difference I am talking about. What you have read in an OT that you posses is not what I read in a Hebrew Tanakh. That is significant. Because you may say that a story in your OT is a fable and I may say that in the Hebrew Tanakh is clear about what are non-historical stories and what are not.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Not to belabor this thread. The OP presented a question: Deuteronomy 18:15-22 speaks of a coming Prophet. What do Jews believe?

I beleive that the question has been detailed and answered on what we Jews hold by. I also feel that I have answered the additional questions sufficiently, from a Jewish perspective. So, with that I can now exit this thread.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's just her personal opinion.
Mary's parents, however, were Joachime and Anne. Joachim - Wikipedia
And besides, female lines were irrelevant to Jesus' claim to be the Jewish king in a paternalistic society anyway.

Obviously the two genealogies are male lines, even though the line in Matt 1 was irrelevant to Jesus' claim to have an inherited right to be the Jewish king if Jacob's son was only Jesus' adoptive father.

The genealogy in Luke 3 is that of Jesus' supposed biological father who was coincidentally also named Joseph, and was presumably based on a relationship between Mary and Heli's son.
While maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is just a matter of opinion without reliable paternity tests. Therefore Jesus' biological father could have been a Roman centurion as some claim, or even the milkman. But either way, Jesus' claim was false and why the Romans mocked him as the false "King of the Jews" when they executed him for sedition and why Peter denied knowing Jesus to avoid being executed for sedition too.

You know it makes sense.

You've clearly not read the article very carefully. The legal and royal line is through the male line, the actual flesh line is through Mary.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, Joshua was not necessarily lesser. Remember that Moses never accomplished bringing the People into the promised land. Joshua did that. He spoke for God to the people. That makes him a prophet like unto Moses.

Moses delivered a covenant of law to Israel; whilst the Messiah, Jesus Christ, IS the new covenant. The only person who truly fits the bill, as the Prophet, was to be the Messiah. Jesus confirms this by speaking and doing the will of God in righteousness.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not to belabor this thread. The OP presented a question: Deuteronomy 18:15-22 speaks of a coming Prophet. What do Jews believe?

I beleive that the question has been detailed and answered on what we Jews hold by. I also feel that I have answered the additional questions sufficiently, from a Jewish perspective. So, with that I can now exit this thread.

Thanks for your input. I'll take a look at your video later!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Thanks for your input. I'll take a look at your video later!

Along with that video this one will also help with that topic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I thought your scripture says that the Romans killed him. ...

Do you even believe a trial happened before Pilate? ...

Three quick points:

1. I assume that many trials happened before Pilate.
2. I seriously doubt that any of them corresponded to your NT narrative.
3. Pilate was a Roman appointee and a Samnite (which was not one of our tribes).

 

[YoursTrue]

I know, so what is your point? I find it interesting that someone is willing to recite something they claim or hold didn't historically happen. As a Torath Mosheh Jew I would never recite, as a ceremony, anything that I know didn't actually happen or isn't real/true. Besides, there is no requirement for beleif in the Torah to begin with - there is a requirement for Jews to know.

OT is not a Jewish term NT is a Christian. That is the difference I am talking about. What you have read in an OT that you posses is not what I read in a Hebrew Tanakh. That is significant. Because you may say that a story in your OT is a fable and I may say that in the Hebrew Tanakh is clear about what are non-historical stories and what are not.

Actually, as I said, I only used OT because you used the term NT. So do not put me in the category you choose if it is not true. I do not consider it appropriate to say OT and NT. The books are one. I only said it for clarification to go along with your idea that there is a "New Testament." That is a misnomer.
I do not say the accounts are fables, others do that claim to adhere to whatever religion they associate with claiming to be Jewish or Christian. I put my faith in God and His word, the Bible. So let me ask you this question: I assume you are a male. Not sure, but maybe you are. Do you recite Maimonides' articles of faith every morning? If not, then I don't believe women recite in general those articles. But how about you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Three quick points:

1. I assume that many trials happened before Pilate.
2. I seriously doubt that any of them corresponded to your NT narrative.
3. Pilate was a Roman appointee and a Samnite (which was not one of our tribes).

At least you say you doubt the narrative, I do not. I see no real evidence to support doubt. Just as in many areas of life, we must make a decision if our faith rests on it. I see too many details that would prove to me it happened. Yes, Pilate was a Roman appointee, had privilege over the region he was appointed to administer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not consider it appropriate to say OT and NT. The books are one.

The Tanakh is Jewish scripture. The above is unadulterated arrogance.

Do you recite Maimonides' articles of faith every morning? If not, then I don't believe women recite in general those articles.

On what planet does that comment make sense?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At least you say you doubt the narrative, I do not. I see no real evidence to support doubt.

Have you looked? Are you qualified to judge the evidence presented? I suspect that we both know the answer to those questions. Meanwhile ...

The Gospels' portrayal of Pilate is "widely assumed" to diverge greatly from that found in Josephus and Philo,[83] as Pilate is portrayed as reluctant to execute Jesus and pressured to do so by the crowd and Jewish authorities. John P. Meier notes that in Josephus, by contrast, "Pilate alone [...] is said to condemn Jesus to the cross."[84] Some scholars believe that the Gospel accounts are completely untrustworthy: S. G. F. Brandon argued that in reality, rather than vacillating on condemning Jesus, Pilate unhesitatingly executed him as a rebel.[85] Paul Winter explained the discrepancy between Pilate in other sources and Pilate in the gospels by arguing that Christians became more and more eager to portray Pontius Pilate as a witness to Jesus' innocence, as persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities increased.[86] Bart Ehrman argues that the earliest Gospel, Mark, shows the Jews and Pilate to be in agreement about executing Jesus (Mark 15:15), while the later gospels progressively reduce Pilate's culpability, culminating in Pilate allowing the Jews to crucify Jesus in John (John 18:16). He connects this change to increased "anti-Judaism."[87] Others have tried to explain Pilate's behavior in the Gospels as motivated by a change of circumstances from that shown in Josephus and Philo, usually presupposing a connection between Pilate's caution and the death of Sejanus.[83] Yet other scholars, such as Brian McGing and Bond, have argued that there is no real discrepancy between Pilate's behavior in Josephus and Philo and that in the Gospels.[70][88] Warren Carter argues that Pilate is portrayed as skillful, competent, and manipulative of the crowd in Mark, Matthew, and John, only finding Jesus innocent and executing him under pressure in Luke.[89] [source]​

 

[YoursTrue]

All you're telling me is that your messiah did nothing the Messiah is meant to do.

We're living in what Jesus said would be the "last days." The understanding some have that he will return literally and be seen again by men is not true. He can be and will be 'seen' in a manner of speaking, by the fulfillment of the last days of this world as he comes in spirit with his holy angels to execute judgment. He is the son of God and as such has proved faithful and true. And now has great power, for which everyone loving God should be thankful.

 

[Rival]

We're living in what Jesus said would be the "last days." The understanding some have that he will return literally and be seen again by men is not true. He can be and will be 'seen' in a manner of speaking, by the fulfillment of the last days of this world as he comes in spirit with his holy angels to execute judgment. He is the son of God and as such has proved faithful and true. And now has great power, for which everyone loving God should be thankful.

Bro, it's been 2,000 years already.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Tanakh is Jewish scripture. The above is unadulterated arrogance.


On what planet does that comment make sense?

According to the Tanakh, the time left is reduced. (Have a nice day.) You believe what you believe, I might say it is arrogance but I won't because I used to be in your shoes. Consider that as you will. And..have a nice day. Yes, the holy scriptures are one, from Moses through Revelation. Have another nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Bro, it's been 2,000 years already.

Since Jesus first appearing in the flesh. He will never appear in the flesh again. Yes, it's about 2,000 years since God's son came to the earth. And the prophecies are being fulfilled.

 

[Rival]

Since Jesus first appearing in the flesh. He will never appear in the flesh again. Yes, it's about 2,000 years since God's son came to the earth. And the prophecies are being fulfilled.

People have been saying the prophecies have been fulfilled since the Mediaeval age and before. Many were certain the year 1,000 would be it. Others said the fall of Rome would bring it, even.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Actually, as I said, I only used OT because you used the term NT. So do not put me in the category you choose if it is not true. I do not consider it appropriate to say OT and NT. The books are one. I only said it for clarification to go along with your idea that there is a "New Testament." That is a misnomer.
I do not say the accounts are fables, others do that claim to adhere to whatever religion they associate with claiming to be Jewish or Christian. I put my faith in God and His word, the Bible.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, from your own posts:

1. I understand why you used the term OT and I am saying I have no such book nor do I validate any book that has that has its title written on it.
2. There is a book/text that has been referenced by several people in this list who indentify themselves as types of Christians or as a types of beleivers in Jesus as a "messiah" figure. The information you stated earlier sounds like information found in that book/text
   • I am speaking of a reference you made when you stated when you made the statement, "I say with respect that even Jesus argued with the religious 'leaders' regarding the scriptures. Anyway, they killed him." The book that you are refercing which includes this information is what I am addressing when I made said statements and used the term NT.
   • The only book I know of that makes anything close to such a statement is often called the NT or kainḕ diathḗke.
   • If you have a different name for the book/text, I am referecing the book/text that your statement references. It is that book that I am saying that is not considered valid information by Jews based on the rules in Torath Mosheh. It may be though valid for Christians based on the rules that Christians have set in place. It sounds like a book I once heard of that has been translated by most Christians from Greek into various modern langauges.
   • This text/book seems to be the a part of the book that you stated earlier is, "I do not consider it appropriate to say OT and NT. The books are one." Correct me if I am wrong does this book you were speaking of that is one for you contain stories about a person named Jesus, Yeshua, etc?

It is the above that I was talking about earlier. Especially when I asked what historical issues I have with the text called Acts. I describe a historical issue with this text and did not receive a valid answer.

If anything above is not correct please correct me and I will address you ONLY by what you clarify.