Enjoyed the truths and structure, i only hope that the "rabbi" is interested in seeking the harmony of the scriptures in truth rather than only wanting to be heard (debate/prosthelytizing) for at least three of the verses u used to document devine judgement the term shama is used! Keep praising Hashem in spirit and truth KabaneTheChristian.
No one is obligated to accept the writings of the Talmud as authoritative in the way implied by the beginning of this video. I do not accept your segue from discussing Jews who, as you explain it, are cut off from the covenant to Gentiles who become part of the covenant by accepting Jesus. Christians have no proof that faith in Jesus is necessary for anyone, Jew or Gentile, to be part of the covenant or that Jews, as a group, are cut off as a people which seems implied by your video.
3) You say that the "prophetic perfect" is very common, and depicts a prophecy intended for the future. I disagree on all levels. There is no evidence of a "prophetic perfect" used in this way anywhere in the Bible, although I appreciate that the rerm has been coined. All prophecies with a past tense can be understood to have been fulfilled.
I disagree based off of Isaiah 5:13, where Israel is described in exile in the past tense, even though this is specified as a prophecy in 5:9. I do want to thank you, though, for keeping the conversation calm and respectful.
"Therefore My people are gone into captivity, for want of knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude are parched with thirst" (Isaiah 5:13)
That's from the Jewish Publication Society translation.
@KabaneTheChristian, yes I've checked the Hebrew Bible in English, and they do put Isaiah 5:13 into the past tense ("are gone.."). My NIV puts it in the future tense. However, it makes no difference to me, since these events had happened at the time Isaiah was writing. After all, it's the theme of the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53.
Eh, I really don't like the NIV. They often paraphrase and interpret instead of translate. In Isaiah 5, it is certainly a prophecy. He isn't describing a past event, Israel and Judah are not yet exiled obviously, because in Isaiah 7 he prophesies to King Ahaz that Judah will be preserved. I think this establishes fairly definitively the existence of the prophetic perfect.
@KabaneTheChristian, Isaiah 5:13 does not necessarily exemplify the "prophetic perfect" tense. Assuming it is truly written in the past tense (to the shame of my NIV!), there is no sound reason to believe that it predates the events in chapter 7, i.e. that there is a chronological order there. Chapter 7 does not appear to be a continuation of events from the preceding chapters; it's very different in character. Chapter 5 may be a lament of past history by Isaiah.
@KabaneTheChristian, "a light to the nations" is entirely different from a covenant relationship! Isaiah emphasises that Jews will be a light to the Gentiles, for Gentiles will seize the hem of a Jew's cloak to learn of the ways of God. So the Gentiles do not appear to be assimilated. Since universal inclusion in a covenant with God is central to the New Testament (based on faith), its prophetic omission in the Old Testament, and particularly in Isaiah, is stark.
We're just hitting the wall here, honestly. I maintain that 49:6 identifies the means of lighting the nations as covenantal relationship. (I also think that Genesis 12:3 implies it.) You disagree. On this point we are basically at an impasse.
You know, you declaring something doesn't make it so. I really don't think I am obligated to have an extensive argument with you in text commentary, especially when you have just demonstrated your fondness for being dishonest with everything I say to you.
Furthermore, you KNOW that I was not using Zechariah 9 as an apologetic, but as an example of what prophecy is in contrast to typology. Even though you knew this, you chose to misrepresent me and present this as the "best prophecy I could give" to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. I am appalled at this low level of argumentation and I think it really demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.
You have just knowingly misrepresented everything I said to you. I said over and over again that typology is not the platform upon which somebody says that Jesus is the Messiah. Types are things you find when you have already accepted Jesus as the Messiah. How you can read my statements and conclude that I am saying that "typology is the entire platform for accepting Jesus as the Messiah" is beyond me. I said the exact opposite.
No, no, that's speaking in the second person. The speaker of Isaiah 61 says "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because He has anointed me..." like Isaiah 11, "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him", and then Isaiah 42 (of the same subject as Isaiah 53), "I will put my Spirit on Him."
@KabaneTheChristian, there's nothing in Isaiah that points to Jesus. Isaiah introduces CYRUS in chapter 41 ("Who has stirred up one from the east, calling him in righteousness.."). Cyrus then continues into chapter 42 (verse 1) as "my servant, whom I uphold". Note that Jesus never referred to himself as God's "servant".
In chapter 61, verse 1: "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is upon me..". Isaiah is referring to himself, as he preaches. Note that Isaiah 53 is written mainly in the past tense.
Yes...Isaiah 53 is written in the past tense. This is called prophetic perfect. The prophet writes something in the past tense because God has revealed it to Him. This is VERY common, and I'm surprised you even raised this objection. I recommend you read through all of Isaiah 61. It is a clear depiction of the Messianic Age, and is written in the first person because it has the Anointed One speaking.
As for Isaiah 42, it can't be Cyrus. In Isaiah 45 God says that Cyrus does not know the Lord, but in 42 the Servant is described as indwelt with God's own Spirit and as a giver of a covenant. Cyrus never made a divine covenant, but Messiah does.As for Jesus never being referred to as the servant, in Matthew 12, Isaiah 42 is quoted and applied to Jesus and in Acts 4 Jesus is called "[God's] holy servant."
@KabaneTheChristian, (1): Isaiah 42:1-4 CAN be about Cyrus, although admittedly it may just as easily refer to God's servant, Israel (NB. no reason to believe it refers to Jesus). 42:1 does not say that the Servant will be "indwelt" with God''s Spirit; rather, it says "I will put my Spirit on him" (presumably meaning to guide him).
42: 5-7 is about God's servant (Israel); note that the "he" in 1-4 now changes to "you", which may indicate a different person (i.e. a change from Cyrus to Israel).
(1) That's all I meant by indwelt. This is the same language used to describe faithfulness in Ezekiel 36, which wouldn't really make sense if Cyrus doesn't know the Lord, as Isaiah 45 indicates. I don't think 42:5-7 is about corporate Israel because it contrasts so starkly with the description of national Israel in 42:18-20.
@KabaneTheChristian, I think you do make a good point that Isaiah 42 is unlikely to describe Cyrus, because it really reflects someone without violence ("a bruised reed he will not break.."), so thanks for pointing that out. I tend to believe that it refers to the Servant, Israel.
I would disagree with that based on the contrast between 42:1-7 and 42:18-20, the latter of which clearly describes national Israel. 42:7 describes a servant who opens the eyes of the blind while 42:19 describes a servant who is blind! I believe that this contrast is made to show that the second servant's redemption will come through the first servant.
@KabaneTheChristian, there is a contrast in the Servant description seen in Isaiah 42:18-20, but so what?The servant is human (not God!) and subject to frailty, although he will see God's plan through. There is no evidence or sound indication that the "servant" here is different from elsewhere in Isaiah. Don't edit Isaiah!
In the N.T, the Gentiles are incorporated into the house of Israel, true. However, in Isaiah, Israel is held to be "a light" to the Gentiles, and no more.
The contrast is so stark, one is blind, the other opens the eyes of the blind, that I think a distinction between the servants needs to be made. The language in Isaiah 42 also compares with Isaiah 11, where the Spirit rests on the messianic Son of David. I simply don't see a reason to take 42:1-7 as a reference to national Israel. It fits much better with a messianic interpretation.
@KabaneTheChristian, Isaiah's depiction of salvation extending to the ends of the earth refers to all life, and all creatures. It refers to the time when the "wolf and lamb will feed together". Hence they also enter into the type of salvation that Isaiah has in mind. It does not carry the Christian sense of salvation from eternal damnation, nor is it based on any type of atoning sacrifice, which you really need to be able to bring to your argument to clinch your interpretation.
I don't think that's the meaning at all. It expressly connects the "light to the Gentiles" to "my salvation extending to the end of the Earth." Given this, I think your reading connecting it to 11:6 is a bit forced.
@KabaneTheChristian, God's "salvation" in Isaiah extends to the whole world - everything in it. I don't find this point I make forced or contrived at all. In the last days, Israel will be instrumental in ushering in salvation to the ends of the earth. This would include the animal kingdom, in Isaiah's meaning of "salvation". It doesn't have the Christian meaning.
I wasn't arguing for or against the Christian meaning here. I was just pointing out that in Isaiah 49, "salvation" means the same thing for Jew and Gentile. I disagree with your connection of it to Isaiah 11 because it isn't talking about the animal kingdom. It's talking about Gentiles, and doesn't mention anything else there.
@KabaneTheChristian, but why does Isaiah appear to make a clear distinction between the people of the covenant and a "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6. You don't seem to have the internal evidence you need to make your point. Isaiah doesn't say "a covenant for the people and the Gentiles", You are basing your case on too many subjective opinions.
"Salvation" in Isaiah (as a Hebrew word) does not necessarily have the same connotation as the Greek word used in the N.T,
One could actually read Isaiah 42:6 as alluding to the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of Israel. Thus, "a covenant for the people, a light for the Gentiles." I don't think the distinction is nearly as clear as you make it out to be.
I would agree in part. Salvation in the Hebrew Bible has a much wider range of meanings than it does in the Greek New Testament.
(2) Very important in Isaiah 42:6 is: "..I will keep you and make you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the Gentiles". This cannot really refer to Jesus, because Jesus would be a covenant for EVERYONE, but Isaiah stops shor of saying that the Servant will be a covenant to the Gentiles. "People" here reflects the Jews (not the Gentiles, as even my NIV study Bible says). "People" is used in the same context in 49:8, speaking of the return of the Jews to their homeland.
(2) In order to understand this, you have to understand that in New Testament understanding, the Gentiles are incorporated into the house of Israel through Messiah, so that Messiah's only covenant people is Israel, which includes both Jew and Gentile faithful to Messiah Jesus. Even under the Old Covenant Gentiles could be incorporated into the people of Israel by coming under the Law of Moses.
In addition, I would suggest that 49:6 implies the same type of salvation given to the Gentiles. "It is too little that you should...raise up the tribes of Jacob...I will make you a light to the nations, that my salvation might reach the ends of the Earth." So, in the same sense that the Servant saves the Jewish people, He extends His salvation to the ends of the Earth.
@KabaneTheChristian, yes, Isaiah 49:6 does speak of God's salvation extending to the world, but you are weaving a Christian notion of "salvation" into the text of Isaiah, which I think is gratuitous. Remember, God does not speak of embracing Gentiles in a covenant relationship with him, which I think is key. Individual Gentiles CAN be if they are physcially merged into the Jewish population (and are circumcised), in which case they become Jews.
Oh no, I only quoted that to show that in the same way that the Jews are saved by the Servant, so are the Gentiles. That is, the "light to the nations" is accomplished because the Gentiles cry out to the one true God and are incorporated into the people of Israel.
I really don't want to start a whole other line of argument on Isaiah 53, but in short I think it is messianic because of its parallels with Isaiah 11 and 61, because the tribes of Israel are regathered by the Servant in Isaiah 49, and because references to the Servant in the plural end in Isaiah 48.
The Jews rejected Matthew because they rejected Jesus. These criticisms of his typology were not made until very recently for a reason. Everybody understood what he was doing. And no...typology is a foreshadowing, prophecy is a prediction.
by the way...when an argument gets ridiculous enough I usually just end it by blocking the person making the arguments. I usually only do it to atheists. Keep this in mind, and don't continue to use arguments of the quality of the ones you just tried to put forward.
I'm not ignoring anything, you are just accepting any argument that you think refutes the New Testament no matter what the quality of the argument is, and it's really getting quite asinine. The reason that Hosea 11 typifies Messiah is because the Messiah is the perfect representative of His people. You need to actually study the Gospel of Matthew using actual scholarship and not these rabbinic polemics against it.
Dude....come on. Seriously, no Matthew scholar of any religious affiliation has suggested that Matthew is not using typology here. Fulfillment means "brought to completion." and is used of both types and prophecies in the New Testament. I'm sorry, these are really ridiculous arguments that you are using. How dumb do you think Matthew was? Oh, yeah, I'm writing to Jews, let me just hope that they forgot what Hosea actually says.
...why would that do anything to defeat my faith in Jesus? Even some pre-Christian Jewish writings describe the Messiah as a New Moses with a New Exodus and Messianic Passover. Seriously dude, your whole hatred of the concept of typology is weirding me out, because I know that you would never read a rabbinic writing and be like THIS IS RIDICULOUS just because a rabbi uses a passage typologically.
Yes, Hosea 11 is talking about Israel. What in the world? It's a type, not a prophecy. Types are common in rabbinic literature. As I said...these are not arguments. These are little things Christians find when we read the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the New Testament. I don't use them as apologetics against traditional Judaism, and never have. You are pretending that I do so that you can have an argument.
lol. I'm not using typology as an argument for Christianity, and you know that very well. If I was, that would be a weak argument. But I'm not. I'm explaining why the authors of the New Testament read certain passages as foreshadowings of the Messiah.
There are often prophecies that have multiple applications. I clearly stated that I am not using this as an argument for Christianity. This is something that you see in hindsight. Once you have a clear picture of who the Messiah is, then you look back through the Hebrew Bible and find foreshadowings and allusions to Him everywhere. But those aren't arguments for the faith. These are explanations about how the Apostle Matthew is not being deceptive.
I will say it again. Matthew was a Jew. Matthew was writing to Jews. Do you really think that he just crossed his fingers and hoped that nobody would figure out that he was screwing with them? Of course not. He was drawing on common typological and messianic interpretive methods found in the rabbinic writings of his day, and was often more sober in his use of these texts than the rabbis were. You can either declare him a dumb liar, or you can carefully examine...
Yeah, okay, I actually mentioned Isaiah 8 as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7. Asher doesn't even mention Isaiah 8 as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7, instead he goes to Isaiah 9. I never use Isaiah 7 as an apologetic for Christianity. It's not something that one can read and immediately apply to Messiah. It's something that you look back on and see a messianic application.
See, the funny thing is that I actually mentioned 8:3 as the immediate application of 7:14. Something tells me that you didn't watch my video in full.
Matthew scholars generally agree that Matthew is very sober in his use of texts from the Hebrew Bible and drew on well known Jewish interpretive methods. He was often more careful in his use of these texts than the ancient rabbis were. But what I've noticed is that my critics don't seem to be interested in the idea that the New Testament authors or modern Christians are being sincere and have been misunderstood. Nope, we're all just filthy liars preying on elderly Jews.
There's nothing vague about it. We both agree that God is one. The question is whether this oneness implies unipersonality. I addressed Isaiah 7 in this video and have addressed it in past videos as well. Seriously, do you just think Matthew expected his readers to be stupid and not check out the texts they knew very well? Perhaps you should consider that Matthew, as an ancient Jew, was familiar with Jewish methods of intepretation.
Well, that's the dispute. So let's not focus on Deut 13 or 18, but instead on the texts which describe the nature of God. Then based on those texts, we can decide who is the false prophet.
My case is based around the fact that in the Hebrew Bible God is one, yet the Word and Spirit of God are presented as distinct from God, yet still divine. Distinct in terms of personhood, one in terms of being.
The Word was made incarnate in the womb of a woman, yes, but His divine nature did not take its existence from her. And yes, if I was actually asserting that Deuteronomy 13 and 18 proved my position, I would have to first prove that they refer to a Trinity. But I'm not saying that. It is you that has assumed your position. Seriously dude, I know that you understand what I'm saying, don't play silly.
You said that Deut 13 and 18 says not to worship gods the Israelites had not known. This presumes that the Israelites did not know the preincarnate Jesus. This is the very point under dispute. Thus, to use the conclusion, "The Israelites did not know Jesus" as a premise in your argument is circular reasoning. That is the definition of circular reasoning. This isn't too hard.
Yes, it was an assumption. I said that to provide an example to you of what your argument looked like to somebody who doesn't already believe what you were saying. You said that since the Tanakh teaches to only worship God, and Jesus isn't God, the Tanakh says not to worship Jesus. Of course, that second premise is assumed (it's a begged question). This was my point.
Okay, but your argument was a begged question. That would be like me saying "The Hebrew Bible says to worship God, and since God is a Trinity, to be a traditional Jew is anti-biblical!"
That begs the question obviously. If Jesus is the Memra of the Lord mentioned in the Hebrew Bible then to worship Jesus is to worship the same God described in the Hebrew Scriptures.
No. God did not change. The attributes of deity remained exactly the same. Just as God is the same before and after the Tabernacle was constructed, God in His essential nature is not changed in the Incarnation. The Memra is addressed and worshiped as God repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures.
God isn't a man. I didn't say He was a man. Quoting those same verses don't change or address my explanations to you. I said that the eternal divine Logos of God at a point in time united Himself to a human nature while preserving the distinction between the divine and human natures.
Except that this wasn't what was being suggested to the Israelites. At all. Your mockery doesn't really make a fool of anything except your own position, because my position is very clear to anybody who is willing to try to understand it. Atheists also are happy to wrap their heads around the idea that ancient Israel was polytheistic and worshiped Hashem besides Asherah. So I don't really care what they do or do not understand.
"Assumes a Divine Logos as a man"? Huh? The Logos (Memra) always existed, and was enfleshed at a specific point in time. There is nothing illogical about that. Is it beyond the power of God to enter into His own creation?
It wasn't a cop-out because that was only a clarification and not an argument. The Trinity and the Incarnation are two distinct doctrines. I know people who disbelieve in the Trinity but believe in the Incarnation. They are called Oneness Pentecostals. I didn't have to hunt for anything. I came across Genesis 18 as I was reading through the Torah and read it the same way that I'm explaining it to my viewers. That's just how it appears when you read the text.
I do not believe that one of the men in Genesis 18 was God enfleshed. The Word was not incarnate in Genesis 18, but God made Himself known to the prophets by means of His Word. In Genesis 18 the Word appears in the form of a man but is not a man. Even Genesis 15 explicitly says the "Word of the Lord."
It would be impossible according to plain logic if I said that God was one person in three persons or one being in three beings. But I'm not. I'm saying that God is one being in three Persons, and that there is a distinction in meaning between being and Person. God is Father, and the Word and Spirit are the arms by which the Father reaches out and touches the world.
I can't believe you are trying to defend this. Jesus' human nature is created. Understood? Jesus was not a man before the incarnation. His human nature is created, not divine, and not eternal. So, no, man did not create man. You either misunderstood it or are committed to not understanding it, because this is not difficult to grasp. You are also not addressing the Trinity here, but the Incarnation.
We would never think of saying that God is three in the same sense that He is one. The Father is God, and His Word and Spirit are the arms by which He touches the world.
Are you being quite serious? Nobody is asserting that Jesus' human nature is divine or eternal. We believe that the divine Logos is eternal, and that the Logos at a specific point in time assumed human flesh and united it to His divine nature while still preserving the distinction of the natures. Before the incarnation, the Word was not human. It is only after the incarnation that the Word becomes flesh and remains so. This doesn't mean His body is God.
Well, I enjoyed discussing with you. You obviously have a strong faith. I am neither Jew nor Christian (I am an ex-Christian), and I have no intention of becoming a Jew. For a start, I hate the idea of circumcising babies, and I would never subject a son of mine to it, although I hear that most U.S. Americans still do it to their boys.
Re. the video at 3:59: I checked out Isaiah 48:16. The verse says: "And now the sovereign Lord has sent me with his spirit". How does Kabane manage to construe out of that verse that God is speaking about himself?! To me, it is pretty obvious that Isaiah implies that God sent HIM (Isaiah). God did not send himself!
Also, in Zechariah 2:15, "you shall know that the Lord has sent me", the "me" is probably Zechariah himself, not God.
@psandbergnz Um, way to go taking that verse out of context. If you read it in context, it is clearly God himself speaking. You didn't read any of the verses around it, did you?
@oedipusrexs, in Isaiah 48:16, the "me" pronoun obviously refers to Isaiah himself, not to God. Btw, I use the NIV text.
Examining Isaiah 48, we see that when God speaks, the passage has inverted commas, E.g. verse 16 commences: "Come near and listen to me...I am there" (i.e. God is speaking). But the verse closes with:
AND NOW THE SOVEREIGN LORD HAS SENT ME WITH HIS SPIRIT [NO inverted commas!]. So there it is Isaiah speaking, since he is not quoting God. My NIV gloss also confirms this.
So, in summary, Kabane abuses the text of Isaiah 48:16 to imply that God is some sort of "complex unity" (Trinity), when the verse indicates nothing of the sort! The same goes for Zechariah 2:11:
the "me" refers to the prophet, Zechariah, not to God. What's your basis for insisting that God speaks of himself? The verse says: "..and you will know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me to you". The prophetic verse means that once fulfilled, it will confirm that Zechariah was sent by God.
@psandbergnz First, the NIV isn't the best translation. Second, in the original texts there weren't quotation marks. They hadn't been invented yet. The translator put them where he interpreted God was speaking, but it could have been a misreading. In the KJV, it is clear that it is God speaking of himself: From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me." The "and" indicates that it continues from what was said right before it.
@oedipusrexs, the best translation is probably the Hebrew Bible in English. The KJV, like NIV, is constantly edited. There were no quotation or punctuation marks in the orignal Hebrew. Christian translators tend to insert them to direct towards a christological interpretation of scripture, wherever possible. In the KJV, it's not clear that the "me" in Isaiah 48:16 refers to God or Isaiah.The NIV appears to think that the "me" is Isaiah.
You can't build a robust argument on a shaky foundation!
@psandbergnz I was simply pointing out that KJV includes the phrase within the quotation marks. Protestants tend to do that, guiding the translation to support their own interpretations. But since the word "and" is there in Hebrew, and there was no punctuation, it indicates to me that it is an addition to the previous clause, rather than ending the words of God and picking up with Isaiah's own words. Because of the lack of punctuation, words like "and" were more important.
@psandbergnz And besides, even if it was Isaiah speaking about himself, it still mentions the Lord God and His Spirit. That still indicates two of the persons in the Trinity.
@oedipusrexsophocles, Isaiah mentions God and His Spirit, that is true. However, it is hard for you to maintain that a duality is implied, since God IS apparently Spirit.
However, a THIRD person in God (as Christians maintain) is off the beaten track.
@psandbergnz But that's exactly what Christians believe! The Spirit IS God. But Father, Son, and Spirit are separate persons in the Trinity. There are plenty of indications in the Old Testament of the Triune nature of God. Right from the start. In the 1st verse of Genesis God is called Elohim, which has a plural ending. God also says "Let us make man in our image." Sure, it could be the royal we, but there's no reason it couldn't have more than one purpose.
@oedipusrexsophocles, yes "Elohim" has a plural connotation. But the plurality reflects the pagan origin of the word. It was first used when the Canaanites believed in many Gods, and that's how it entered the Hebrew language. But as the people (Jews) adopted a monotheistic religion, its meaning changed to refer to the one God. Ignorant Christians are very keen to bandy about such words without the scholarly knowledge to understand it. At any rate, it does not hold the concept of "trinity".
@psandbergnz I said it could be a sort of hint at God's nature, not that it proved the Trinity in itself. But the fact that it is plural takes on a new meaning in light of the Trinity. There are still plenty of other indications in the Old Testament of the Trinity.
@psandbergnz Also, it says the Lord God AND his Spirit have sent me, indicating two separate persons. Since I think these words are also being spoken by God, the speaker would then be the third person of God. Besides, the phrase has to be continuing from the previous one because the speaker says that from the BEGINNING he was there, and NOW the Lord God and his Spirit have sent him. It doesn't make as much sense otherwise.
@oedipusrexsophocles, I think the meaning is influenced by where the punctuation marks are put.The Hebrew Bible in English has Isaiah 48:16 as follows:
"Come ye near unto Me..From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit."
I would understand "me" as being Isaiah, since there is no precedent in the Old Testament to presume a third person in God, or God sending himself. Your interpretation would sound odd.
@psandbergnz "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit. "(Douay-Rheims) I have an interlinear Hebrew Bible which shows this is a quite literal translation from the original text. It's God talking about how he was there from the foundations of the earth, the beginning. And now he's been sent. It's clear past & present are being contrasted and so it is the original speaker (God) still speaking.
@oedipusrexsophocles, the scholars who wrote the NIV don't seem to agree with you. They evidently think that the "me" in Isaiah 48 refers to the prophet himself, and is not about God speaking of himself. You are expressing your opinions, that's all. As such, you don't clinch the argument.
@psandbergnz The NIV is only one translation of many. And not a very good one. Other translations, including KJV and Douay-Rheims include it as part of what God is saying. It's not simply my opinion, it's what makes most sense in context. And other translators clearly agree with me and with Seraphim.
@oedipusrexs, so tell me, what part of the Trinity (1st2/nd/3rd person) do you think God is referring to by: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent ME, and his spirit." (Isaiah 48:16). Since the Lord God is mentioned, as well as His Spirit, you must suppose Jesus is being referred to. But Jesus did not appear until 700 years later, so how is he "now" being sent?! God only would have sent His Spirit "now".
@psandbergnz Isaiah was a prophet prophesying about future events. Christians believe that Jesus (the Son) is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. So, yes, it makes sense if it is a prophecy of Jesus. In fact, when I was reading through other sections of Isaiah, it reminded me very much of Christian teaching.
BTW your videos have helped me. For a couple of years now I've known Protestantism is wrong, because of videos made by Catholics, so for a time I thought perhaps Catholicism might be the true church, while staying open minded. Because of your videos and davidpwithun's videos I'm now leaning more toward Orthodoxy. You're younger than I am but know a lot more. Could you suggest books for further reading?
@Funkifizzle: What is funny is that you may make such a claim and do so rightfully. Though, when it comes to defending such a claim, you lack justification. I have been utterly disgusted at the lack of dignity the Jewish commentators on this video have both intellectually and ethically. I suggest you open your mind out of the Judaistic box you have placed it within, for pride goes before destruction.
Seraphim, do you know when you'll be able to make the next response to geoasher? I believe on your channel he said he's made another video.
Also, on a video mocking Christianity I'm in several debates with atheists. It's kind of fun, but they keep coming from the belief that all Christians are Protestant fundamentalists. It's funny how ignorant they are but they keep calling me stupid! XD
The comments section of this video have been decidedly one sided. Nilhav you have honestly proven that no matter how bad your argument can be, it only gets worse.
I had to block him. He started trying to switch to New Testament arguments against the deity of Christ, about equivalent to Jehovah's Witness quality.
@KabaneTheChristian: I can see why. A majority of the people who are responding negatively have offered little to nothing in support of their claims, except undeniably irrelevant criticism.
But I was speaking individually. For example Dr. Brown is a Messianic and is not considered part of a true branch of Judaism, but he is STILL a Jew nonetheless and needs to return.....agreed?
@straygypsy Yes I would agree with that. Right now he is a heretic. If he repents and returns to Judaism (although as I understand it he was never a religious Jew he just came from a family with Jewish heritage, although I could be wrong) then he would be Jewish (although I think one Orthodox branch requires some sort of a "conversion" thing (classes or something) but I don't know anything about it and it frankly made no sense ot me when I heard it.
A Jew that embraces xtianity is an apostate Jew and we would call them xtian. A ger that converts back is no longer considered a Jew. Depending on the Shul, a past heretical Jew may not be counted in a minyan etc. I was not aware tou had to believe in the trinity to be considered xtian. I am Jewish so xtian laws, rules and dogma are not my fortay. I cam barely keep track of my own
are 3, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform but using some of the criteria some researchers use we would have to break each one down MANY times. Lubavitchers and Breslovs wpuld be seperate. I don't seperate them. Reform would be broken down even more. I TOTALLY disagree that j is foretold in the Tanach. I agree with Rabbi Asher and he is a friend as wellbut it sounds to me that kabane and UK are simply stating their beliefs, as we do.
Ok,this has gotten out of hand. My Ipad is not letting me comment on individual comments so I will commen here. I am Jewish and do not agree with xtian views obviously but I want to point out some things. We cn disagree and have civil debate. Second, Kabane and Uk are my friends. They don't lie. We can disagee without name calling or character assasination. The number of denominations is like most things, the number comes from the criteria the researcher used. As Jews we like to think there.....
Hey Kabane. Do you know that Eastern Orthodoxy is Protestant and that Martin Luther founded your denomination (or denominations I should say)? Straygypsy just told me.
@ukchristian28 And well done for telling yet another lie (which seems to be your standard of logical reasoning). No one claimed Orthodox Xtianity was founded by Martin Luther. I only claimed Protestantism.
When you are done telling lies let me know then we can have a logical debate...
OH! And by the way! Nice job for never addressing not a single time *NOT ONCE* regarding the source core doctrine of Xtianity of different beliefs regarding the trinity doctrine.
@ukchristian28 I shall provide you one last time to address the different core doctrines of Xtianity of different beliefs regarding the trinity doctrine.*WITHOUT* showing your childish cartoons....
@ukchristian28 This is comedy right? Since when would I be held to a "Xtian encyplopedia" standard?
Do not use athiest arguments for me (as you have) and do not use Catholic arguments for me (which you have). I only use Jewish arguments, which you have yet to show..
But since you insist your pathetic rules, OK!
I think your brand of Xtianity is incorrect because Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church says so!
"This is comedy right? Since when would I be held to a "Xtian encyplopedia" standard?"
That's where the 33,000 denomination figure comes from you ignoramus.
"Do not use athiest arguments for me (as you have) and do not use Catholic arguments for me".
Atheists and Roman Catholics use the 33,000 denomination figure in the exact same ignorant way you do. I am sorry you are unaware of who you have joined hands with.
I think your brand of Xtianity is incorrect because Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church says so!"
Err what? I never used reasoning like that. I said that different evangelical denominations recognise each other as true Christians. Westboro would be an exception however.
Lol, your standard of logic is what? Throw out a figure (not even knowing where it came from), get refuted and just repeat the same thing back. Seems so.
"Yes, you did in fact use reasoning since your childish cartoon used athiest arguements for my case and Catholic arguments for my case."
Look, I know you have severe comprehension problems but try very hard to understand this very simple point. You may not be an atheist or a Roman Catholic but you are using the exact same stupid argument that they do. The points in those two videos which refute the atheists and the Roman Catholics therefore also refute you. Understand now?
@ukchristian28 "The points in those two videos which refute the atheists and the Roman Catholics therefore also refute you. Understand now?"
No. Athiests reject religion totally. Catholics reject everything that isn't Catholic. I reject both arguments.
Kabane believes one cant be a Xtian unless they believe in the trinity, which solidifies my argument since some xtians do not believe in the trinity. Case closed.
Go back and read the exchanges. I didn't "just show vids". I made several points and directed you to those videos to illustrate my point further. What's wrong with directing you to vids anyway if they provide information which counters your points?
"No. Athiests reject religion totally. Catholics reject everything that isn't Catholic. I reject both arguments."
And you all use the same idiotic argument to reach your conclusions.
Errr what? How? I don't go around pointing out that there 33,000 other denominations and using that as some kind of validation for rejecting them. But, you admitted you didn't even watch most of DrOakley1689's video and by the looks of it you didn't watch TektonTV's properly either. I suppose I can't expect you see how the RC and atheists are making the exact same stupid argument you are.
You believe that you can't be a religious Jew unless you are a unitarian, but Messianic Jews are religious Jews and Trinitarian! See how that was a begged question? That was exactly what you did.
Stray. I'm talking about non-apostate Jews. Don't be difficult and play semantic games with me. You claim that if a Jew professes faith in the Trinity, they are apostate. With me? Okay, good. By that same standard, I am saying that if a Christian denies faith in the Trinity, he is apostate. Since nobody is born Christian like they are born Jewish, they are not a Christian in any sense of the word.
My whole point was that you can't claim absolute unity within Judaism when you define the boundaries of Judaism according to that supposed unity. If you do that, I can do the same with Christianity. Understand?
"I *SPECIFICALLY* and *UNDERSTANDABLY* and *WITHOUT QUESTION* clearly stated--->PROTESTANTISM! I did not include Orthodoxy as founded under Lutheran."
I know, but the World Christian Encyclopedia which is what the 33,000 denomination figure is based on includes over 700 Eastern Orthodox "denominations". But hey, you're so ignorant you didn't even know that that's where that figure came from so I can't expect you to know how it was arrived at and what it includes.
Stray, the World Christian Encyclopedia is the source for the claim you have been making. It is where this 28,000 figure comes from. So Jason pointing to it is very relevant. I think it's a bit sad that you didn't even know the original source for your own argument.
And that wasn't even his claim. What the heaven? His argument wasn't that the World Christian Encyclopedia says Judaism is wrong. Dude, seriously, you look ridiculous, lol.
@KabaneTheChristian Secondly, if you must know I did not get that figure from the xtain encyclopedia. So to assume I read Xtian publications to make my case for Judaism/7 laws you are incorrect...
You said "Have all 30,000 Protestant denominations forgotten that their founding father Martin Luther was an excommunicated Catholic?" That 33,000 figure includes "denominations" which are Eastern Orthodox. Over 700 in fact. I am sorry you are so ignorant of what the World Christian Encyclopedia says.
Logical debate? I'd get a more logical debate from one of my parents' pet cats.
Kabane already addressed your idiotic point about the Trinity. Try improving your reading skills.
Im not moving the goalpost, you're just changing the rules as you play. I said doctrines "per se" meaning whatever each *PER*son includes as far as doctrine (which is what I say) as opposed to results of *following* a certain doctrine (whch is what you claim) is concerned.
There is absolutely no difference between Messianic Judaism and Orthodox Xtianity. None whatsoever.
But I don't label Mess Jews as no longer being Jews. They are more commonly labeled as apostate Jews.
Right, you think they have forfeited their religious Jewishness. You don't consider them to be true religious Jews. Fine. I don't consider non-Trinitarians to be true religious Christians. Thus, all Christianity agrees on the Trinity. You can either drop the standard, in which case Judaism disagrees within itself about the Trinity, or you can keep the standard and apply it consistently, in which case Christians agree about the Trinity.
Oh, by the way, by "Orthodox Christianity" did you mean the Orthodox Church? If you did, then you are wrong. There are lots of differences between the teachings of Messianic Judaism and the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
Stray. Ukchristian answered you no less than three times about this 28,000 figure. It is nonsense. They count different ethnic groups within the same church as different denominations. There are about five major divisions within Christianity- Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Easterns. There are about five major divisions within Judaism- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and Secular.
Um, yes they are dude. As you go down the line, you will find more who reject the unique chossenness of the Jewish people. The Reform reject the idea of an individual Jewish Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple. Many groups reject the oral Law. Not a doctrinal difference? What a joke.
You have been nothing but snarky. After getting repeatedly shown up as wrong, you'd think that you would give up and at least try to have a respectful dialogue.
I said no doctrinal difference per se! Meaning all embrace the core seed of a one Gd and ALL reject the pagan trinity and ALL reject the idea of a a Messiah being a "mangod".
Jews have always disagreed on issues of who is a Messiah and who isn't (ie Chabad) and whether a Messiah will come at all (ie Reform)
No, you're moving the goalpost. You didn't say "different doctrines" as it relates to the nature of God. You said different doctrines, period. By the way, you're wrong too. Secular Judaism disagrees within itself about whether God is a person or a metaphor. On top of this, Messianic Jews claim to be a sect of Judaism and believe in the Trinity. Of course, you'll say that they aren't true Jews. Fine. If we can play that game, then I say anybody who disbelieves in the Trinity...
Something tells me Kabane is wasting his time with you. If you're just going to ignore what people say and repeat the same arguments back we may as well be trying to explain things to a flock of town pigeons.
Would you mind telling me what was wrong with my explanation. Any idiot can dismiss something as an "excuse" but it's another thing to demonstrate why something is wrong.
watch?v=6lvLNuygq9Y&feature=channel_video_title and also read the article he links to in the description box. It would be interesting to see you take on the maker of that video of that video.
@ukchristian28 First of all, I hate watching cartoons. Secondly, that program only gives an atheistic point of view (which I despise). Atheists are too busy filing lawsuits against people with xmas decorations to be taken seriously (at the same time supporting muslims in all they do).
As a result, that video said not a SINGLE WORD regarding theocratic core doctrines that separates all 30,000+ denominations.
@ukchristian28 As for the second vid. I only watched a few minutes because it only addressed Catholic arguments which I also think are pointless. Xtians arguing against Xtians again solidifies my point.
you will never see a pussy in your life geek
pana376 3 weeks ago
@pana376
<3
KabaneTheChristian 2 weeks ago
Enjoyed the truths and structure, i only hope that the "rabbi" is interested in seeking the harmony of the scriptures in truth rather than only wanting to be heard (debate/prosthelytizing) for at least three of the verses u used to document devine judgement the term shama is used! Keep praising Hashem in spirit and truth KabaneTheChristian.
KRU78 2 months ago
No one is obligated to accept the writings of the Talmud as authoritative in the way implied by the beginning of this video. I do not accept your segue from discussing Jews who, as you explain it, are cut off from the covenant to Gentiles who become part of the covenant by accepting Jesus. Christians have no proof that faith in Jesus is necessary for anyone, Jew or Gentile, to be part of the covenant or that Jews, as a group, are cut off as a people which seems implied by your video.
BraidedLily 2 months ago
3) You say that the "prophetic perfect" is very common, and depicts a prophecy intended for the future. I disagree on all levels. There is no evidence of a "prophetic perfect" used in this way anywhere in the Bible, although I appreciate that the rerm has been coined. All prophecies with a past tense can be understood to have been fulfilled.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I disagree based off of Isaiah 5:13, where Israel is described in exile in the past tense, even though this is specified as a prophecy in 5:9. I do want to thank you, though, for keeping the conversation calm and respectful.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, sorry, Isaiah 5:9 and 5:13 are written in the FUTURE tense.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
?
"Therefore My people are gone into captivity, for want of knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude are parched with thirst" (Isaiah 5:13)
That's from the Jewish Publication Society translation.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, yes I've checked the Hebrew Bible in English, and they do put Isaiah 5:13 into the past tense ("are gone.."). My NIV puts it in the future tense. However, it makes no difference to me, since these events had happened at the time Isaiah was writing. After all, it's the theme of the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Eh, I really don't like the NIV. They often paraphrase and interpret instead of translate. In Isaiah 5, it is certainly a prophecy. He isn't describing a past event, Israel and Judah are not yet exiled obviously, because in Isaiah 7 he prophesies to King Ahaz that Judah will be preserved. I think this establishes fairly definitively the existence of the prophetic perfect.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, Isaiah 5:13 does not necessarily exemplify the "prophetic perfect" tense. Assuming it is truly written in the past tense (to the shame of my NIV!), there is no sound reason to believe that it predates the events in chapter 7, i.e. that there is a chronological order there. Chapter 7 does not appear to be a continuation of events from the preceding chapters; it's very different in character. Chapter 5 may be a lament of past history by Isaiah.
But you COULD be right!
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, "a light to the nations" is entirely different from a covenant relationship! Isaiah emphasises that Jews will be a light to the Gentiles, for Gentiles will seize the hem of a Jew's cloak to learn of the ways of God. So the Gentiles do not appear to be assimilated. Since universal inclusion in a covenant with God is central to the New Testament (based on faith), its prophetic omission in the Old Testament, and particularly in Isaiah, is stark.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
We're just hitting the wall here, honestly. I maintain that 49:6 identifies the means of lighting the nations as covenantal relationship. (I also think that Genesis 12:3 implies it.) You disagree. On this point we are basically at an impasse.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
You know, you declaring something doesn't make it so. I really don't think I am obligated to have an extensive argument with you in text commentary, especially when you have just demonstrated your fondness for being dishonest with everything I say to you.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Furthermore, you KNOW that I was not using Zechariah 9 as an apologetic, but as an example of what prophecy is in contrast to typology. Even though you knew this, you chose to misrepresent me and present this as the "best prophecy I could give" to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. I am appalled at this low level of argumentation and I think it really demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
You have just knowingly misrepresented everything I said to you. I said over and over again that typology is not the platform upon which somebody says that Jesus is the Messiah. Types are things you find when you have already accepted Jesus as the Messiah. How you can read my statements and conclude that I am saying that "typology is the entire platform for accepting Jesus as the Messiah" is beyond me. I said the exact opposite.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
No, no, that's speaking in the second person. The speaker of Isaiah 61 says "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because He has anointed me..." like Isaiah 11, "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him", and then Isaiah 42 (of the same subject as Isaiah 53), "I will put my Spirit on Him."
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, there's nothing in Isaiah that points to Jesus. Isaiah introduces CYRUS in chapter 41 ("Who has stirred up one from the east, calling him in righteousness.."). Cyrus then continues into chapter 42 (verse 1) as "my servant, whom I uphold". Note that Jesus never referred to himself as God's "servant".
In chapter 61, verse 1: "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is upon me..". Isaiah is referring to himself, as he preaches. Note that Isaiah 53 is written mainly in the past tense.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Yes...Isaiah 53 is written in the past tense. This is called prophetic perfect. The prophet writes something in the past tense because God has revealed it to Him. This is VERY common, and I'm surprised you even raised this objection. I recommend you read through all of Isaiah 61. It is a clear depiction of the Messianic Age, and is written in the first person because it has the Anointed One speaking.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
As for Isaiah 42, it can't be Cyrus. In Isaiah 45 God says that Cyrus does not know the Lord, but in 42 the Servant is described as indwelt with God's own Spirit and as a giver of a covenant. Cyrus never made a divine covenant, but Messiah does.As for Jesus never being referred to as the servant, in Matthew 12, Isaiah 42 is quoted and applied to Jesus and in Acts 4 Jesus is called "[God's] holy servant."
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, (1): Isaiah 42:1-4 CAN be about Cyrus, although admittedly it may just as easily refer to God's servant, Israel (NB. no reason to believe it refers to Jesus). 42:1 does not say that the Servant will be "indwelt" with God''s Spirit; rather, it says "I will put my Spirit on him" (presumably meaning to guide him).
42: 5-7 is about God's servant (Israel); note that the "he" in 1-4 now changes to "you", which may indicate a different person (i.e. a change from Cyrus to Israel).
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
(1) That's all I meant by indwelt. This is the same language used to describe faithfulness in Ezekiel 36, which wouldn't really make sense if Cyrus doesn't know the Lord, as Isaiah 45 indicates. I don't think 42:5-7 is about corporate Israel because it contrasts so starkly with the description of national Israel in 42:18-20.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, I think you do make a good point that Isaiah 42 is unlikely to describe Cyrus, because it really reflects someone without violence ("a bruised reed he will not break.."), so thanks for pointing that out. I tend to believe that it refers to the Servant, Israel.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I would disagree with that based on the contrast between 42:1-7 and 42:18-20, the latter of which clearly describes national Israel. 42:7 describes a servant who opens the eyes of the blind while 42:19 describes a servant who is blind! I believe that this contrast is made to show that the second servant's redemption will come through the first servant.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, there is a contrast in the Servant description seen in Isaiah 42:18-20, but so what?The servant is human (not God!) and subject to frailty, although he will see God's plan through. There is no evidence or sound indication that the "servant" here is different from elsewhere in Isaiah. Don't edit Isaiah!
In the N.T, the Gentiles are incorporated into the house of Israel, true. However, in Isaiah, Israel is held to be "a light" to the Gentiles, and no more.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
The contrast is so stark, one is blind, the other opens the eyes of the blind, that I think a distinction between the servants needs to be made. The language in Isaiah 42 also compares with Isaiah 11, where the Spirit rests on the messianic Son of David. I simply don't see a reason to take 42:1-7 as a reference to national Israel. It fits much better with a messianic interpretation.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
A light to them in the sense of 49:6, so that in the same way that the Servant saves Israel, the Servant brings salvation to the ends of the Earth.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, Isaiah's depiction of salvation extending to the ends of the earth refers to all life, and all creatures. It refers to the time when the "wolf and lamb will feed together". Hence they also enter into the type of salvation that Isaiah has in mind. It does not carry the Christian sense of salvation from eternal damnation, nor is it based on any type of atoning sacrifice, which you really need to be able to bring to your argument to clinch your interpretation.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I don't think that's the meaning at all. It expressly connects the "light to the Gentiles" to "my salvation extending to the end of the Earth." Given this, I think your reading connecting it to 11:6 is a bit forced.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, God's "salvation" in Isaiah extends to the whole world - everything in it. I don't find this point I make forced or contrived at all. In the last days, Israel will be instrumental in ushering in salvation to the ends of the earth. This would include the animal kingdom, in Isaiah's meaning of "salvation". It doesn't have the Christian meaning.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I wasn't arguing for or against the Christian meaning here. I was just pointing out that in Isaiah 49, "salvation" means the same thing for Jew and Gentile. I disagree with your connection of it to Isaiah 11 because it isn't talking about the animal kingdom. It's talking about Gentiles, and doesn't mention anything else there.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, but why does Isaiah appear to make a clear distinction between the people of the covenant and a "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6. You don't seem to have the internal evidence you need to make your point. Isaiah doesn't say "a covenant for the people and the Gentiles", You are basing your case on too many subjective opinions.
"Salvation" in Isaiah (as a Hebrew word) does not necessarily have the same connotation as the Greek word used in the N.T,
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
One could actually read Isaiah 42:6 as alluding to the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of Israel. Thus, "a covenant for the people, a light for the Gentiles." I don't think the distinction is nearly as clear as you make it out to be.
I would agree in part. Salvation in the Hebrew Bible has a much wider range of meanings than it does in the Greek New Testament.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, I will review some of the references you have made, and possibly respond tomorrow. Good ngiht.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
(2) Very important in Isaiah 42:6 is: "..I will keep you and make you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the Gentiles". This cannot really refer to Jesus, because Jesus would be a covenant for EVERYONE, but Isaiah stops shor of saying that the Servant will be a covenant to the Gentiles. "People" here reflects the Jews (not the Gentiles, as even my NIV study Bible says). "People" is used in the same context in 49:8, speaking of the return of the Jews to their homeland.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
(2) In order to understand this, you have to understand that in New Testament understanding, the Gentiles are incorporated into the house of Israel through Messiah, so that Messiah's only covenant people is Israel, which includes both Jew and Gentile faithful to Messiah Jesus. Even under the Old Covenant Gentiles could be incorporated into the people of Israel by coming under the Law of Moses.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...cont
In addition, I would suggest that 49:6 implies the same type of salvation given to the Gentiles. "It is too little that you should...raise up the tribes of Jacob...I will make you a light to the nations, that my salvation might reach the ends of the Earth." So, in the same sense that the Servant saves the Jewish people, He extends His salvation to the ends of the Earth.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, yes, Isaiah 49:6 does speak of God's salvation extending to the world, but you are weaving a Christian notion of "salvation" into the text of Isaiah, which I think is gratuitous. Remember, God does not speak of embracing Gentiles in a covenant relationship with him, which I think is key. Individual Gentiles CAN be if they are physcially merged into the Jewish population (and are circumcised), in which case they become Jews.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Oh no, I only quoted that to show that in the same way that the Jews are saved by the Servant, so are the Gentiles. That is, the "light to the nations" is accomplished because the Gentiles cry out to the one true God and are incorporated into the people of Israel.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Facepalm.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Sure, I was just giving you an example of what a prophecy is in contrast to a biblical type.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
I really don't want to start a whole other line of argument on Isaiah 53, but in short I think it is messianic because of its parallels with Isaiah 11 and 61, because the tribes of Israel are regathered by the Servant in Isaiah 49, and because references to the Servant in the plural end in Isaiah 48.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Okay, I would say that Zechariah 9:9 is a prophecy, as is Isaiah 49-53.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
The Jews rejected Matthew because they rejected Jesus. These criticisms of his typology were not made until very recently for a reason. Everybody understood what he was doing. And no...typology is a foreshadowing, prophecy is a prediction.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
by the way...when an argument gets ridiculous enough I usually just end it by blocking the person making the arguments. I usually only do it to atheists. Keep this in mind, and don't continue to use arguments of the quality of the ones you just tried to put forward.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
I'm not ignoring anything, you are just accepting any argument that you think refutes the New Testament no matter what the quality of the argument is, and it's really getting quite asinine. The reason that Hosea 11 typifies Messiah is because the Messiah is the perfect representative of His people. You need to actually study the Gospel of Matthew using actual scholarship and not these rabbinic polemics against it.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Dude....come on. Seriously, no Matthew scholar of any religious affiliation has suggested that Matthew is not using typology here. Fulfillment means "brought to completion." and is used of both types and prophecies in the New Testament. I'm sorry, these are really ridiculous arguments that you are using. How dumb do you think Matthew was? Oh, yeah, I'm writing to Jews, let me just hope that they forgot what Hosea actually says.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
...why would that do anything to defeat my faith in Jesus? Even some pre-Christian Jewish writings describe the Messiah as a New Moses with a New Exodus and Messianic Passover. Seriously dude, your whole hatred of the concept of typology is weirding me out, because I know that you would never read a rabbinic writing and be like THIS IS RIDICULOUS just because a rabbi uses a passage typologically.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
I have pretty extensive comments on Isaiah 9 in my next video, and honestly I don't feel like typing it out for you here.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Yes, Hosea 11 is talking about Israel. What in the world? It's a type, not a prophecy. Types are common in rabbinic literature. As I said...these are not arguments. These are little things Christians find when we read the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the New Testament. I don't use them as apologetics against traditional Judaism, and never have. You are pretending that I do so that you can have an argument.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
lol. I'm not using typology as an argument for Christianity, and you know that very well. If I was, that would be a weak argument. But I'm not. I'm explaining why the authors of the New Testament read certain passages as foreshadowings of the Messiah.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
There are often prophecies that have multiple applications. I clearly stated that I am not using this as an argument for Christianity. This is something that you see in hindsight. Once you have a clear picture of who the Messiah is, then you look back through the Hebrew Bible and find foreshadowings and allusions to Him everywhere. But those aren't arguments for the faith. These are explanations about how the Apostle Matthew is not being deceptive.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
...these texts and try to understand why Matthew saw a messianic application in Isaiah 7.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
I will say it again. Matthew was a Jew. Matthew was writing to Jews. Do you really think that he just crossed his fingers and hoped that nobody would figure out that he was screwing with them? Of course not. He was drawing on common typological and messianic interpretive methods found in the rabbinic writings of his day, and was often more sober in his use of these texts than the rabbis were. You can either declare him a dumb liar, or you can carefully examine...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Yeah, okay, I actually mentioned Isaiah 8 as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7. Asher doesn't even mention Isaiah 8 as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7, instead he goes to Isaiah 9. I never use Isaiah 7 as an apologetic for Christianity. It's not something that one can read and immediately apply to Messiah. It's something that you look back on and see a messianic application.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
See, the funny thing is that I actually mentioned 8:3 as the immediate application of 7:14. Something tells me that you didn't watch my video in full.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Matthew scholars generally agree that Matthew is very sober in his use of texts from the Hebrew Bible and drew on well known Jewish interpretive methods. He was often more careful in his use of these texts than the ancient rabbis were. But what I've noticed is that my critics don't seem to be interested in the idea that the New Testament authors or modern Christians are being sincere and have been misunderstood. Nope, we're all just filthy liars preying on elderly Jews.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
There's nothing vague about it. We both agree that God is one. The question is whether this oneness implies unipersonality. I addressed Isaiah 7 in this video and have addressed it in past videos as well. Seriously, do you just think Matthew expected his readers to be stupid and not check out the texts they knew very well? Perhaps you should consider that Matthew, as an ancient Jew, was familiar with Jewish methods of intepretation.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Well, that's the dispute. So let's not focus on Deut 13 or 18, but instead on the texts which describe the nature of God. Then based on those texts, we can decide who is the false prophet.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
My case is based around the fact that in the Hebrew Bible God is one, yet the Word and Spirit of God are presented as distinct from God, yet still divine. Distinct in terms of personhood, one in terms of being.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
The Word was made incarnate in the womb of a woman, yes, but His divine nature did not take its existence from her. And yes, if I was actually asserting that Deuteronomy 13 and 18 proved my position, I would have to first prove that they refer to a Trinity. But I'm not saying that. It is you that has assumed your position. Seriously dude, I know that you understand what I'm saying, don't play silly.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
You said that Deut 13 and 18 says not to worship gods the Israelites had not known. This presumes that the Israelites did not know the preincarnate Jesus. This is the very point under dispute. Thus, to use the conclusion, "The Israelites did not know Jesus" as a premise in your argument is circular reasoning. That is the definition of circular reasoning. This isn't too hard.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Yes, it was an assumption. I said that to provide an example to you of what your argument looked like to somebody who doesn't already believe what you were saying. You said that since the Tanakh teaches to only worship God, and Jesus isn't God, the Tanakh says not to worship Jesus. Of course, that second premise is assumed (it's a begged question). This was my point.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Okay, but your argument was a begged question. That would be like me saying "The Hebrew Bible says to worship God, and since God is a Trinity, to be a traditional Jew is anti-biblical!"
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Asserting something does not make it so.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
That begs the question obviously. If Jesus is the Memra of the Lord mentioned in the Hebrew Bible then to worship Jesus is to worship the same God described in the Hebrew Scriptures.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
No. God did not change. The attributes of deity remained exactly the same. Just as God is the same before and after the Tabernacle was constructed, God in His essential nature is not changed in the Incarnation. The Memra is addressed and worshiped as God repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
God isn't a man. I didn't say He was a man. Quoting those same verses don't change or address my explanations to you. I said that the eternal divine Logos of God at a point in time united Himself to a human nature while preserving the distinction between the divine and human natures.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Except that this wasn't what was being suggested to the Israelites. At all. Your mockery doesn't really make a fool of anything except your own position, because my position is very clear to anybody who is willing to try to understand it. Atheists also are happy to wrap their heads around the idea that ancient Israel was polytheistic and worshiped Hashem besides Asherah. So I don't really care what they do or do not understand.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
"Assumes a Divine Logos as a man"? Huh? The Logos (Memra) always existed, and was enfleshed at a specific point in time. There is nothing illogical about that. Is it beyond the power of God to enter into His own creation?
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
It wasn't a cop-out because that was only a clarification and not an argument. The Trinity and the Incarnation are two distinct doctrines. I know people who disbelieve in the Trinity but believe in the Incarnation. They are called Oneness Pentecostals. I didn't have to hunt for anything. I came across Genesis 18 as I was reading through the Torah and read it the same way that I'm explaining it to my viewers. That's just how it appears when you read the text.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
I do not believe that one of the men in Genesis 18 was God enfleshed. The Word was not incarnate in Genesis 18, but God made Himself known to the prophets by means of His Word. In Genesis 18 the Word appears in the form of a man but is not a man. Even Genesis 15 explicitly says the "Word of the Lord."
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
It would be impossible according to plain logic if I said that God was one person in three persons or one being in three beings. But I'm not. I'm saying that God is one being in three Persons, and that there is a distinction in meaning between being and Person. God is Father, and the Word and Spirit are the arms by which the Father reaches out and touches the world.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
I can't believe you are trying to defend this. Jesus' human nature is created. Understood? Jesus was not a man before the incarnation. His human nature is created, not divine, and not eternal. So, no, man did not create man. You either misunderstood it or are committed to not understanding it, because this is not difficult to grasp. You are also not addressing the Trinity here, but the Incarnation.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Please, don't even try to defend this argument that you made right here. Just admit that you misunderstood the doctrine and move on.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
We would never think of saying that God is three in the same sense that He is one. The Father is God, and His Word and Spirit are the arms by which He touches the world.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Are you being quite serious? Nobody is asserting that Jesus' human nature is divine or eternal. We believe that the divine Logos is eternal, and that the Logos at a specific point in time assumed human flesh and united it to His divine nature while still preserving the distinction of the natures. Before the incarnation, the Word was not human. It is only after the incarnation that the Word becomes flesh and remains so. This doesn't mean His body is God.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
Well, I enjoyed discussing with you. You obviously have a strong faith. I am neither Jew nor Christian (I am an ex-Christian), and I have no intention of becoming a Jew. For a start, I hate the idea of circumcising babies, and I would never subject a son of mine to it, although I hear that most U.S. Americans still do it to their boys.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz Yes, interesting discussion.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
Re. the video at 3:59: I checked out Isaiah 48:16. The verse says: "And now the sovereign Lord has sent me with his spirit". How does Kabane manage to construe out of that verse that God is speaking about himself?! To me, it is pretty obvious that Isaiah implies that God sent HIM (Isaiah). God did not send himself!
Also, in Zechariah 2:15, "you shall know that the Lord has sent me", the "me" is probably Zechariah himself, not God.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz Um, way to go taking that verse out of context. If you read it in context, it is clearly God himself speaking. You didn't read any of the verses around it, did you?
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexs, in Isaiah 48:16, the "me" pronoun obviously refers to Isaiah himself, not to God. Btw, I use the NIV text.
Examining Isaiah 48, we see that when God speaks, the passage has inverted commas, E.g. verse 16 commences: "Come near and listen to me...I am there" (i.e. God is speaking). But the verse closes with:
AND NOW THE SOVEREIGN LORD HAS SENT ME WITH HIS SPIRIT [NO inverted commas!]. So there it is Isaiah speaking, since he is not quoting God. My NIV gloss also confirms this.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
So, in summary, Kabane abuses the text of Isaiah 48:16 to imply that God is some sort of "complex unity" (Trinity), when the verse indicates nothing of the sort! The same goes for Zechariah 2:11:
the "me" refers to the prophet, Zechariah, not to God. What's your basis for insisting that God speaks of himself? The verse says: "..and you will know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me to you". The prophetic verse means that once fulfilled, it will confirm that Zechariah was sent by God.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz First, the NIV isn't the best translation. Second, in the original texts there weren't quotation marks. They hadn't been invented yet. The translator put them where he interpreted God was speaking, but it could have been a misreading. In the KJV, it is clear that it is God speaking of himself: From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me." The "and" indicates that it continues from what was said right before it.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexs, the best translation is probably the Hebrew Bible in English. The KJV, like NIV, is constantly edited. There were no quotation or punctuation marks in the orignal Hebrew. Christian translators tend to insert them to direct towards a christological interpretation of scripture, wherever possible. In the KJV, it's not clear that the "me" in Isaiah 48:16 refers to God or Isaiah.The NIV appears to think that the "me" is Isaiah.
You can't build a robust argument on a shaky foundation!
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz I was simply pointing out that KJV includes the phrase within the quotation marks. Protestants tend to do that, guiding the translation to support their own interpretations. But since the word "and" is there in Hebrew, and there was no punctuation, it indicates to me that it is an addition to the previous clause, rather than ending the words of God and picking up with Isaiah's own words. Because of the lack of punctuation, words like "and" were more important.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@psandbergnz And besides, even if it was Isaiah speaking about himself, it still mentions the Lord God and His Spirit. That still indicates two of the persons in the Trinity.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexsophocles, Isaiah mentions God and His Spirit, that is true. However, it is hard for you to maintain that a duality is implied, since God IS apparently Spirit.
However, a THIRD person in God (as Christians maintain) is off the beaten track.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz But that's exactly what Christians believe! The Spirit IS God. But Father, Son, and Spirit are separate persons in the Trinity. There are plenty of indications in the Old Testament of the Triune nature of God. Right from the start. In the 1st verse of Genesis God is called Elohim, which has a plural ending. God also says "Let us make man in our image." Sure, it could be the royal we, but there's no reason it couldn't have more than one purpose.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexsophocles, yes "Elohim" has a plural connotation. But the plurality reflects the pagan origin of the word. It was first used when the Canaanites believed in many Gods, and that's how it entered the Hebrew language. But as the people (Jews) adopted a monotheistic religion, its meaning changed to refer to the one God. Ignorant Christians are very keen to bandy about such words without the scholarly knowledge to understand it. At any rate, it does not hold the concept of "trinity".
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz I said it could be a sort of hint at God's nature, not that it proved the Trinity in itself. But the fact that it is plural takes on a new meaning in light of the Trinity. There are still plenty of other indications in the Old Testament of the Trinity.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@psandbergnz Also, it says the Lord God AND his Spirit have sent me, indicating two separate persons. Since I think these words are also being spoken by God, the speaker would then be the third person of God. Besides, the phrase has to be continuing from the previous one because the speaker says that from the BEGINNING he was there, and NOW the Lord God and his Spirit have sent him. It doesn't make as much sense otherwise.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexsophocles, I think the meaning is influenced by where the punctuation marks are put.The Hebrew Bible in English has Isaiah 48:16 as follows:
"Come ye near unto Me..From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit."
I would understand "me" as being Isaiah, since there is no precedent in the Old Testament to presume a third person in God, or God sending himself. Your interpretation would sound odd.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit. "(Douay-Rheims) I have an interlinear Hebrew Bible which shows this is a quite literal translation from the original text. It's God talking about how he was there from the foundations of the earth, the beginning. And now he's been sent. It's clear past & present are being contrasted and so it is the original speaker (God) still speaking.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexsophocles, the scholars who wrote the NIV don't seem to agree with you. They evidently think that the "me" in Isaiah 48 refers to the prophet himself, and is not about God speaking of himself. You are expressing your opinions, that's all. As such, you don't clinch the argument.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz The NIV is only one translation of many. And not a very good one. Other translations, including KJV and Douay-Rheims include it as part of what God is saying. It's not simply my opinion, it's what makes most sense in context. And other translators clearly agree with me and with Seraphim.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexs, so tell me, what part of the Trinity (1st2/nd/3rd person) do you think God is referring to by: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent ME, and his spirit." (Isaiah 48:16). Since the Lord God is mentioned, as well as His Spirit, you must suppose Jesus is being referred to. But Jesus did not appear until 700 years later, so how is he "now" being sent?! God only would have sent His Spirit "now".
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz Isaiah was a prophet prophesying about future events. Christians believe that Jesus (the Son) is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. So, yes, it makes sense if it is a prophecy of Jesus. In fact, when I was reading through other sections of Isaiah, it reminded me very much of Christian teaching.
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
BTW your videos have helped me. For a couple of years now I've known Protestantism is wrong, because of videos made by Catholics, so for a time I thought perhaps Catholicism might be the true church, while staying open minded. Because of your videos and davidpwithun's videos I'm now leaning more toward Orthodoxy. You're younger than I am but know a lot more. Could you suggest books for further reading?
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@Funkifizzle: What is funny is that you may make such a claim and do so rightfully. Though, when it comes to defending such a claim, you lack justification. I have been utterly disgusted at the lack of dignity the Jewish commentators on this video have both intellectually and ethically. I suggest you open your mind out of the Judaistic box you have placed it within, for pride goes before destruction.
dimic 3 months ago
ANSWERING JEWISH OBJECTIONS TO JESUS, by Brown; and THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH, by Edersheim. They refute the Jewish claims.
Pilgrim1411 3 months ago
Seraphim, do you know when you'll be able to make the next response to geoasher? I believe on your channel he said he's made another video.
Also, on a video mocking Christianity I'm in several debates with atheists. It's kind of fun, but they keep coming from the belief that all Christians are Protestant fundamentalists. It's funny how ignorant they are but they keep calling me stupid! XD
oedipusrexsophocles 3 months ago
@oedipusrexsophocles
Unfortunately my computer is down at the moment, with my script for the next video. It should be up sometime early in this week.
Atheists are by and large the least critical people I've ever talked to. It's quite pitiful.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
The comments section of this video have been decidedly one sided. Nilhav you have honestly proven that no matter how bad your argument can be, it only gets worse.
dimic 3 months ago
@dimic
I had to block him. He started trying to switch to New Testament arguments against the deity of Christ, about equivalent to Jehovah's Witness quality.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian: I can see why. A majority of the people who are responding negatively have offered little to nothing in support of their claims, except undeniably irrelevant criticism.
dimic 3 months ago
Also Stray, a messianic Jew- is a xtian to religious Jews. Messianic Judaism is not a true branch of Judaism in our world.
DarkQuietWyattON 3 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON AGREED!
But I was speaking individually. For example Dr. Brown is a Messianic and is not considered part of a true branch of Judaism, but he is STILL a Jew nonetheless and needs to return.....agreed?
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy Yes I would agree with that. Right now he is a heretic. If he repents and returns to Judaism (although as I understand it he was never a religious Jew he just came from a family with Jewish heritage, although I could be wrong) then he would be Jewish (although I think one Orthodox branch requires some sort of a "conversion" thing (classes or something) but I don't know anything about it and it frankly made no sense ot me when I heard it.
DarkQuietWyattON 3 months ago
A Jew that embraces xtianity is an apostate Jew and we would call them xtian. A ger that converts back is no longer considered a Jew. Depending on the Shul, a past heretical Jew may not be counted in a minyan etc. I was not aware tou had to believe in the trinity to be considered xtian. I am Jewish so xtian laws, rules and dogma are not my fortay. I cam barely keep track of my own
DarkQuietWyattON 3 months ago
are 3, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform but using some of the criteria some researchers use we would have to break each one down MANY times. Lubavitchers and Breslovs wpuld be seperate. I don't seperate them. Reform would be broken down even more. I TOTALLY disagree that j is foretold in the Tanach. I agree with Rabbi Asher and he is a friend as wellbut it sounds to me that kabane and UK are simply stating their beliefs, as we do.
DarkQuietWyattON 3 months ago
Ok,this has gotten out of hand. My Ipad is not letting me comment on individual comments so I will commen here. I am Jewish and do not agree with xtian views obviously but I want to point out some things. We cn disagree and have civil debate. Second, Kabane and Uk are my friends. They don't lie. We can disagee without name calling or character assasination. The number of denominations is like most things, the number comes from the criteria the researcher used. As Jews we like to think there.....
DarkQuietWyattON 3 months ago
Hey Kabane. Do you know that Eastern Orthodoxy is Protestant and that Martin Luther founded your denomination (or denominations I should say)? Straygypsy just told me.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 And well done for telling yet another lie (which seems to be your standard of logical reasoning). No one claimed Orthodox Xtianity was founded by Martin Luther. I only claimed Protestantism.
When you are done telling lies let me know then we can have a logical debate...
OH! And by the way! Nice job for never addressing not a single time *NOT ONCE* regarding the source core doctrine of Xtianity of different beliefs regarding the trinity doctrine.
....ctnd
straygypsy 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 I shall provide you one last time to address the different core doctrines of Xtianity of different beliefs regarding the trinity doctrine.*WITHOUT* showing your childish cartoons....
ONE LAST TIME!
straygypsy 3 months ago
Comment removed
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 This is comedy right? Since when would I be held to a "Xtian encyplopedia" standard?
Do not use athiest arguments for me (as you have) and do not use Catholic arguments for me (which you have). I only use Jewish arguments, which you have yet to show..
But since you insist your pathetic rules, OK!
I think your brand of Xtianity is incorrect because Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church says so!
See how ridiculous you look?
That your standard of logic.
Sucks huh?
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
"This is comedy right? Since when would I be held to a "Xtian encyplopedia" standard?"
That's where the 33,000 denomination figure comes from you ignoramus.
"Do not use athiest arguments for me (as you have) and do not use Catholic arguments for me".
Atheists and Roman Catholics use the 33,000 denomination figure in the exact same ignorant way you do. I am sorry you are unaware of who you have joined hands with.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@straygypsy
"But since you insist your pathetic rules, OK!
I think your brand of Xtianity is incorrect because Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church says so!"
Err what? I never used reasoning like that. I said that different evangelical denominations recognise each other as true Christians. Westboro would be an exception however.
Lol, your standard of logic is what? Throw out a figure (not even knowing where it came from), get refuted and just repeat the same thing back. Seems so.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 Can you Puhhhlease stop lying just ONCE? Just once is all I ask!
Yes, you did in fact use reasoning since your childish cartoon used athiest arguements for my case and Catholic arguments for my case.
I *SPECIFICALLY* and *UNDERSTANDABLY* and *WITHOUT QUESTION* clearly stated--->PROTESTANTISM! I did not include Orthodoxy as founded under Lutheran.
Don't they teach reading in the UK schools?
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
"Yes, you did in fact use reasoning since your childish cartoon used athiest arguements for my case and Catholic arguments for my case."
Look, I know you have severe comprehension problems but try very hard to understand this very simple point. You may not be an atheist or a Roman Catholic but you are using the exact same stupid argument that they do. The points in those two videos which refute the atheists and the Roman Catholics therefore also refute you. Understand now?
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 "The points in those two videos which refute the atheists and the Roman Catholics therefore also refute you. Understand now?"
No. Athiests reject religion totally. Catholics reject everything that isn't Catholic. I reject both arguments.
Kabane believes one cant be a Xtian unless they believe in the trinity, which solidifies my argument since some xtians do not believe in the trinity. Case closed.
You on the other hand just show vids.
Cant prove your case yourself?
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Go back and read the exchanges. I didn't "just show vids". I made several points and directed you to those videos to illustrate my point further. What's wrong with directing you to vids anyway if they provide information which counters your points?
"No. Athiests reject religion totally. Catholics reject everything that isn't Catholic. I reject both arguments."
And you all use the same idiotic argument to reach your conclusions.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 "I made several points and directed you to those videos to illustrate my point further."
When? You still have yet to address the core trinitarian differences in Xtianity.
But don't worry, I full know well why...
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
"... also refute you."
Errr what? How? I don't go around pointing out that there 33,000 other denominations and using that as some kind of validation for rejecting them. But, you admitted you didn't even watch most of DrOakley1689's video and by the looks of it you didn't watch TektonTV's properly either. I suppose I can't expect you see how the RC and atheists are making the exact same stupid argument you are.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@straygypsy
You believe that you can't be a religious Jew unless you are a unitarian, but Messianic Jews are religious Jews and Trinitarian! See how that was a begged question? That was exactly what you did.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Wrong, but nice try.
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew regardless even if he leaves the faith. He may be an apostate Jew, but he is a Jew nonetheless.
How "religious" they are is debatable. I would prefer a Messianic Pro-Israeli Jew over a Re constructionist secular humanistic Jew any day.
However you will call someone a Xtian only if he believes in the trinity. What about JWs? Unitarians? They "believe in Jsus" as well.
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Stray. I'm talking about non-apostate Jews. Don't be difficult and play semantic games with me. You claim that if a Jew professes faith in the Trinity, they are apostate. With me? Okay, good. By that same standard, I am saying that if a Christian denies faith in the Trinity, he is apostate. Since nobody is born Christian like they are born Jewish, they are not a Christian in any sense of the word.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
My whole point was that you can't claim absolute unity within Judaism when you define the boundaries of Judaism according to that supposed unity. If you do that, I can do the same with Christianity. Understand?
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian You cannot do the same...
ME--> If a Jew leaves the faith...he is STILL a Jew (apostate or not)
YOU--> If a Xtian no longer believes the trinity he is NOT a Xtian.....
what is the difficulty in understanding this?
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Because we are talking about two different categories. We are talking about religious beliefs, dude. We aren't talking about ethnic inheritance.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
"I *SPECIFICALLY* and *UNDERSTANDABLY* and *WITHOUT QUESTION* clearly stated--->PROTESTANTISM! I did not include Orthodoxy as founded under Lutheran."
I know, but the World Christian Encyclopedia which is what the 33,000 denomination figure is based on includes over 700 Eastern Orthodox "denominations". But hey, you're so ignorant you didn't even know that that's where that figure came from so I can't expect you to know how it was arrived at and what it includes.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 "but the World Christian Encyclopedia "
Powerful argument!
Judaism is wrong because some xtian publication says so.....
HAHAHA! I fold you win!
What a great debater you are! You are a master debater!
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Stray, the World Christian Encyclopedia is the source for the claim you have been making. It is where this 28,000 figure comes from. So Jason pointing to it is very relevant. I think it's a bit sad that you didn't even know the original source for your own argument.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
[sorry, 33,000, not 28,000]
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
And that wasn't even his claim. What the heaven? His argument wasn't that the World Christian Encyclopedia says Judaism is wrong. Dude, seriously, you look ridiculous, lol.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Secondly, if you must know I did not get that figure from the xtain encyclopedia. So to assume I read Xtian publications to make my case for Judaism/7 laws you are incorrect...
straygypsy 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 Oh and please do not debate your cats. Their intellect if far FAR more advanced than yours obviously...
straygypsy 3 months ago
Comment removed
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@straygypsy
You said "Have all 30,000 Protestant denominations forgotten that their founding father Martin Luther was an excommunicated Catholic?" That 33,000 figure includes "denominations" which are Eastern Orthodox. Over 700 in fact. I am sorry you are so ignorant of what the World Christian Encyclopedia says.
Logical debate? I'd get a more logical debate from one of my parents' pet cats.
Kabane already addressed your idiotic point about the Trinity. Try improving your reading skills.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
Im not moving the goalpost, you're just changing the rules as you play. I said doctrines "per se" meaning whatever each *PER*son includes as far as doctrine (which is what I say) as opposed to results of *following* a certain doctrine (whch is what you claim) is concerned.
There is absolutely no difference between Messianic Judaism and Orthodox Xtianity. None whatsoever.
But I don't label Mess Jews as no longer being Jews. They are more commonly labeled as apostate Jews.
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Right, you think they have forfeited their religious Jewishness. You don't consider them to be true religious Jews. Fine. I don't consider non-Trinitarians to be true religious Christians. Thus, all Christianity agrees on the Trinity. You can either drop the standard, in which case Judaism disagrees within itself about the Trinity, or you can keep the standard and apply it consistently, in which case Christians agree about the Trinity.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Oh, by the way, by "Orthodox Christianity" did you mean the Orthodox Church? If you did, then you are wrong. There are lots of differences between the teachings of Messianic Judaism and the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
You claim that G-d didn't break his covenant with his people (and thats true).
To bad your other 28,000 different denominations of Xtianity claim G-d did.....
Sure wish Xtianity sure could get their doctrines in line...
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Stray. Ukchristian answered you no less than three times about this 28,000 figure. It is nonsense. They count different ethnic groups within the same church as different denominations. There are about five major divisions within Christianity- Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Easterns. There are about five major divisions within Judaism- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and Secular.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Plus, the fact that those who refer to themselves as Christians disagree with each other proves absolutely nothing. Nothing! What if I said:
You claim that Jews must keep Torah. Too bad lots of other Jewish denominations and groups disagree with that.
Sure wish Judaism could get their doctrines in line...
Would you accept that? Of course not. It would be a stupid argument to make. But that's the exact argument you make against Christianity.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Lame.
The different sections of Judaism are not different doctrines (per se). ALL reject the pagan trinity. However
Orthodox-->Conservative-->Reform-->etc.. All seem to water down the requirements for mitszvahs as you go down the line.
Xtianity on the other hand, each belief has a different doctrine TOTALLY!
Some believe the trinity, some dont.
Some believe j'sus was G-d, some do not
Some believe the NT was final, some do not
Your claim is baseless and without evidence
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Um, yes they are dude. As you go down the line, you will find more who reject the unique chossenness of the Jewish people. The Reform reject the idea of an individual Jewish Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple. Many groups reject the oral Law. Not a doctrinal difference? What a joke.
You have been nothing but snarky. After getting repeatedly shown up as wrong, you'd think that you would give up and at least try to have a respectful dialogue.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian You're dodging my argument totally....
I said no doctrinal difference per se! Meaning all embrace the core seed of a one Gd and ALL reject the pagan trinity and ALL reject the idea of a a Messiah being a "mangod".
Jews have always disagreed on issues of who is a Messiah and who isn't (ie Chabad) and whether a Messiah will come at all (ie Reform)
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
No, you're moving the goalpost. You didn't say "different doctrines" as it relates to the nature of God. You said different doctrines, period. By the way, you're wrong too. Secular Judaism disagrees within itself about whether God is a person or a metaphor. On top of this, Messianic Jews claim to be a sect of Judaism and believe in the Trinity. Of course, you'll say that they aren't true Jews. Fine. If we can play that game, then I say anybody who disbelieves in the Trinity...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
...isn't a true Christian. So all Christians accept the Trinity. Either way, your argument fails.
Even IF I granted that those who call themselves Christians disagree about the Trinity, it still proves nothing. Your point is meaningless.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Oh, and nice job ignoring ukchristian's refutation to the 28k figure again.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Something tells me Kabane is wasting his time with you. If you're just going to ignore what people say and repeat the same arguments back we may as well be trying to explain things to a flock of town pigeons.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 I am asking Kabane because I never heard what he had to say which is why I wasn't asking you.
I already heard your excuse...
unimpressed to say the least (or most for that matter)
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Would you mind telling me what was wrong with my explanation. Any idiot can dismiss something as an "excuse" but it's another thing to demonstrate why something is wrong.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 send me the video again. I shall rewatch it and tell you..
straygypsy 3 months ago
@straygypsy
watch?v=6lvLNuygq9Y&feature=channel_video_title and also read the article he links to in the description box. It would be interesting to see you take on the maker of that video of that video.
This video is also insightful also:
watch?v=n_ZXbrbfXrY
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 First of all, I hate watching cartoons. Secondly, that program only gives an atheistic point of view (which I despise). Atheists are too busy filing lawsuits against people with xmas decorations to be taken seriously (at the same time supporting muslims in all they do).
As a result, that video said not a SINGLE WORD regarding theocratic core doctrines that separates all 30,000+ denominations.
I will comment on the second vid later...
straygypsy 3 months ago
@ukchristian28 As for the second vid. I only watched a few minutes because it only addressed Catholic arguments which I also think are pointless. Xtians arguing against Xtians again solidifies my point.
Have all 30,