The "New Testament" is riddle with contradictions. There is more textual variants in "New Testament" an there are words. You expect someone really to take your so called "New Testament" seriously?
There are thousands of textual variations in every ancient text before the printing press, dude. Including the Hebrew Bible. We actually have the MOST manuscripts for the NT, more than any other ancient text. 5,000 partial and complete Greek texts. Renowned textual scholar Bruce Metzger has estimated that we have certainty about 99% of the text of the New Testament.
You are right there are many textual variations and contradictions in the tanach. There are also many historical inaccuraties. for example, Ai was destroyed 2100 BCE and Jericho was destroyed 1530 BCE. Israel first shows up in Canaan in 1200's BCE.
@KabaneTheChristian, yes there are many, many NT manuscripts. This comes as no surprise since it was the unenviable task of religious scribes to copy and copy to meet demand. That by no means attests to the accuracy or authenticity of these manuscripts, since comparison with the original records is impossible.
I think you have done a lot of research on Christianity and the Bible. Do you know when our earliest NewTestament scripture, or Gospel, dates to (not necessarily an entire Gospel)?
When we have an abundance of manuscripts, we can do better textual criticism and come to a more accurate understanding of the original text, since we have more to work with. We can't compare any document of the ancient world with the original, because we have no original document of the ancient world. All we have are copies. They had no printing press.
The earliest part of the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which is a creed dating to within three years of Jesus' death.
@KabaneTheChristian, thank you for the reply. I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear: I meant to say the earliest N.T. MANUSCRIPT? I've had a little look in Wiki under "biblical manuscipt". The earliest fragment of a Gospel (John's Gospel), named P52, dates perhaps between 100 and 150 AD. It has over 20 Greek words apparently from John 18: 31-33 and (on the other side of the parchment) from John 18:37-38.
This could mean that John's Gospel was available in the first half of the 2nd century.
Ah, yes, p52 is the earliest manuscript of the New Testament we have, and is estimated by most textual critics to date to approximately 125 AD. That's actually remarkably early, considering that Tacitus composed his Annals in 110 AD and our earliest extant manuscripts of those date from the eleventh century. We can be very confident in the purity of the New Testament text we have today.
@KabaneTheChristian, I'm not quite as confident as you on the purity of our canonical Gospels. The fact that we have more NT manuscripts than other historical documents is due to the work of religious scribes, who poured over their writings day and night - it's the nature of religion - whereas there would be far less interest in copying secular, historical documents. Also, religion can be "propagandist" or manipulative in character.
The Gospel of Thomas may date from a similar period to P52.
Their motives are irrelevant, what matters is that we actually have these manuscripts to work with. I understand that the reason that we have these texts is because of their religious nature. Sure. But that doesn't mean that they are irrelevant for the purposes of textual criticism.
Incorrect. We do not have manuscripts of Thomas from that time period. Our manuscripts of Thomas come much later. Nicholas Perrin has argued that Thomas derives from the Diatessaron in Syria...
@KabaneTheChristian, the motives of scribes or their leaders are paramount! I suspect that our Gospel teachings resembled Thomas' message in their original form. Probably Matthew and Mark were likewise originally in Aramaic. However, the "Gentile" Christians couldn't appreciate the esoteric teachings of Jesus.The translation of the Gospel manuscripts into Greek provided an ideal opportunity to redact Jesus' teachings so as to permit Gentiles to appreciate them, according to Hellenized culture.
They are not paramount when it comes to textual criticism. When discerning the original form of a text, the number and date of manuscripts is paramount. GThom is a Gnostic document that has no resemblance to Palestinian Judaism of any time and was chauvinist, pagan, and displays far more Greek influences than the thoroughly Jewish biblical gospels.
Matthew probably composed a gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew, which he translated into the Greek language and reorganized into the Greek Matthew that we have today. There is evidence that the early Jewish Christians in the Church continued to use the original version of Matthew's Gospel, and St Ignatius appears to quote it in his authentic epistles.
It is the Gospel of Thomas which is Gentilized, not the biblical gospels, which say, among other things, that "Salvation is of the Jews", and where Jesus says that He was sent "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The Gospel of Thomas says in saying 113 that a woman has to make herself male in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is absolute gibberish and has nothing to do with the Lord's authentic teachings.
@KabaneTheChristian, Thomas' sayings appear "gibberish" to you, because you (like me) don't have an Essene master to guide. The sayings of Thomas are probably meant to be abstruse to the unitiated. They appear to be consistent with Essene or Gnostic teaching.
The incompleteness of esoteric teaching in the canonical Gospels blazes! In John's Gospel we have fragments of an amazing discourse about what it means to be "born again". But it fizzles out after just 13 verses! It deserves chapters!
Ah, so they only look silly to us because we don't have someone to explain to us the real meaning which is completely indiscernible from the text itself! They're just too "esoteric" for us to understand. Who made you the almighty judge of what is spiritual or not? Jesus is who He is. If you don't find the Jesus of the gospels spiritual enough, then go find someone else to look to.
The Gnostics were not Essenes. Your identification of the Gnostics with the Essenes is completely misguided. The Essenes affirmed the reality and goodness of the created order and affirmed the resurrection of the dead. Gnosticism taught that matter was evil and that Jesus was just an emanation of the one God who hated matter, that Jesus wasn't really human, etc.
Who are you to say that John doesn't go into rebirth enough? Jesus throughout the Gospel of St John teaches about regeneration, and it is taught about in the Book of Acts, the Synoptics, and the Letters of St Paul. What you need to understand is that you don't have the right to judge how accurate a portrait of Jesus is based on how "esoteric" that portrait is. We must use the standards of objective history to do that. And, when we do that, we just don't find...
First, Jesus says no one can see God's kingdom unless born again.
Then he adds that we must be "born of water and the spirit". That raises a host of questions that aren't answered. Is the water symbolic, is it baptismal? Is rebirth initiated by something like the so-called "sinner's prayer", as evangelicals claim? What about our lifestyle? The confusion infecting Christendom results from this type of half-baked, incomplete teaching.
Did you know that for 1600 years, there was absolutely no confusion over what Jesus meant by this? It is Baptism, plain and simple, as all the Church Fathers teach. It was only with the rise of the Baptists 1600 years later that some misguided individuals question this. I find it amusing that you assert that this is vague and unclear, when you yourself are using esotericity as a criterion of truth! On top of this, you stated that I just can't understand Thomas properly...
@KabaneTheChristian, I haven't been so inconsistent. What I maintain is that much esoteric teaching has been omitted in the Gospels, probably because the writers didn't understand much of the record of Jesus' sayings (they weren't eyewitnesses). Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus is almost certainly truncated. It is left hanging in the air, as it were, abruptly passing to a new theme (verse 16). It is deficient in much needed questions and answers.
Your assertion that the authors of the gospels were not eyewitnesses is just that: an assertion, and one that I have spent several videos analyzing and critiquing. Bauckham in his book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" provides a devastating rebuttal to this thesis. You provide conjecture on why Jesus' "esoteric" teachings aren't in the gospels, when there's a much simpler reason. He never taught anything like that. What Jesus says and does in the biblical gospels...
@KabaneTheChristian, although I haven't read Bauckham's book, a glance at the critiques I've seen of the book makes your opinion appear highly speculative at best.
Re. Augustine, are you claiming he didn't kill or persecute so-called heretics?
I am saying he did not kill them. Augustine did advocate some levels of mild persecution. He did not advocate killings and never promoted any such killings. The only killings that are recorded around that time is that of Priscillian and six others like him. This was CONDEMNED by St Ambrose of Milan, who was St Augustine's mentor. Constantine in fact established levels of tolerance much higher than the pagan emperors had established.
Killing of heretics became widespread in the medieval Roman Catholic West. The Orthodox East condemns the Roman Catholic Church as a schismatic body which has departed from the truth of the gospel.
@KabaneTheChristian, massacres of "heretics" became widespread as soon as the Church was legalised and empowered (4th century). Augustine's role in this is not absolutely clear, but he seems to have been responsible for the execution of bishop Priscillian and his followers. He repressed the Donatists, who were staunch Christians. A former pastor of mine, scholar Roger Forster (founder of ICHTHUS, London), condemned Augustine for his brutality.The Spanish Inquisiton may be his greatest legacy.
The Spanish Inquisition occurred centuries after St Augustine. The execution of Priscillian was condemned by the saints of the Church, NOT endorsed by St Augustine and CONDEMNED by St Augustine's personal mentor, St Ambrose of Milan. You can make assertions all you want- backing them up with real history is something altogether different.
As for Bauckham's book, simply noting that there have been critiques is irrelevant. I try to read the opposing side of books that I read. The question is not whether there are critiques (there are critiques of almost everything), but whether there are VALID critiques. You had simply asserted your position as fact without any reference whatsoever.
@KabaneTheChristian, the consensus of modern New Testament scholars is that there is no good evidence that the Gospel accounts are based on eyewitness testimony. Bart Ehrman's research persuades him that the Gospels are NOT based on eyewitiness accounts . Watch the Youtube video: Bart Ehrman number 4: "Do the Gospels contain eyewitness tradition?".
The Gospels were of course penned anonymously. The earliest CLEAR reference to their authorship comes to us from Irenaeus writing in about 180 CE.
You are far overstating the scholarly support for your position, actually. I've read fairly widely here, and yes, I've read Ehrman as well. Your assertion that St Irenaeus is the first to mention apostolic authorship is simply false. St Papias mentions Matthew and Mark, and St Justin mentions the memoirs of the Apostles. MANY histories in the ancient world were penned anonymously, including the Annals of Tacitus. Attribution was rarely contained within the text itself.
@KabaneTheChristian, it is far from clear that Papias mentions the Matthew and Mark of the Gospels.They were common names. Ehrmann makes that very point. As for Tacitus, nobody doubts Rome's greatest historian,Tacitus, wrote the annals. Tacitus is an established historical figure. In contrast, NOBODY knows who your Matthew, Mark, Luje and John were! All you have is conjecture and a resolute mindset.
The Inquisition arose in the middle ages - aided and abetted by Augustine's writing.
They were common names? LOL. That's absolutely contrived, to suggest that the Matthew and Mark of Papias are any different from the same Matthew and Mark named in the gospels and by all the Fathers as the authors of the first two Gospels. It's an invented argument. It's faux history. It's special pleading to weasel out of the obvious conclusion. Under your argument, there's literally no way I could establish the authorship of the gospels...
...because, well, maybe multiple people had so and so name. Maybe multiple people were named Cornelius Tacitus! After all, it's not an uncommon name! How do we know that the Tacitus of Tertullian is the Tacitus of later writers.
If you seriously contend that we don't know that the Twelve existed, I don't know what to say to you. Paul mentions them. We have the disciples of the Twelve Apostles. We know they existed.
lol, that thing about St Augustine is vague. The question is not whether people centuries later tried to use St Augustine to justify their behavior, but whether St Augustine would have endorsed such behavior.
In fact, the first attribution of the Annals to Tacitus was from Tertullian, writing about eighty years after the Annals were first penned. The attribution of the gospels to the Apostles is even better. I know all of the information you are presenting to me. These things are not new to me. I have several videos on these issues.
...makes sense against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism. The teachings of the GThom make no sense against that backdrop. It's late, as almost all scholars have agreed. Only the radical and far-left Jesus Seminar has tried to suggest that it's early. Sure, it's "deficient" if you get to decide what counts as deficient and sufficient. But that's just arbitrary, and you can create whatever criteria you want.
...because I don't have a Gnostic teacher! How inconsistent!
Anyways, as Jesus explains in St John 14-16, He will send the Church the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) from the Father to guide it into all Truth. This is how all things remain clear, because the Church, the Orthodox Church, is given the Holy Spirit which keeps it pure in teaching.
...an Essene or Gnostic teacher. We find a man who believed that He was Israel's Messiah and the personal embodiment of Israel's God, who believed that He would fight against the dark spiritual forces and usher in God's kingdom through His own suffering, death, and resurrection. The Gospel of Thomas is late, displays Gnostic influences, and has not a trace of the authentic Jewish Jesus of the biblical gospels.
@KabaneTheChristian, quite untrue! About half of the sayings in Thomas' Gospel are immediately recognisable from the canonical synoptic Gospels. They OBVIOUSLY shared one or more common sources.
Thus, almost all scholars say that the author of Thomas used the Gospels (thus it comes AFTER the biblical gospels), edited the sayings of Jesus to conform to his own Gnostic or proto-Gnostic beliefs, and then added more sayings that were explicitly Gnostic. So, if you want to say that the only good stuff in Thomas is that which is copied from the biblical gospels, then we're in agreement.
@KabaneTheChristian, "nearly all scholars say.." CHRISTIAN scholars, yes, who gain their livelihood selling Christian books! We don't know if tThomas' Gospel came after the canonicals. We know that the early church fathers, who were Romans or Greeks, repressed any writing not conforming to their own beliefs, which were shaped by their Genitle cultures. We know that Chistianity failed to convince the great majority of Jews. There, Paul was an abject failure! "Stiff-necked" Jews, I suppose?
As for repressing, this is silly. The Church was under official state persecution for most of its early history. It had no power to repress anybody. And the rejection of the Messiah was written about in the Prophets. "Who has believed what has been heard from us?" "The stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner."
@KabaneTheChristian, the Chruch started systematic repression and massacres of "unbelievers" as soon as it was legalised in the 4th century, and so empowered to do so.
Augustine (I suppose you call him a saint!) massacred and burnt alive believers of a different brand of Christinity from his, Unfortunately, this has been a common ocurrence with people, who like you, believe that their church is superior to any other and under the blessing of the Paraclete.
Sorry, that's just false. You are familiar with popular myths about Christianity, but you aren't very familiar with actual Church History. Your statement about St Augustine is absolutely laughable and has no basis in historical fact whatsoever. I've spent years learning about the New Testament and church history, and having to dispel these myths again and again gets tiring.
We certainly can. We have the testimony of St Irenaeus that it was composed by John, who died around that time. St Irenaeus was taught by St Polycarp, who, in turn, was taught by the Apostle John himself. So, we have a direct line of testimony going back to the apostle that bears witness to its apostolic authorship. Furthermore, the early date of p52 bears witness to a date around 90 AD. Had John's Gospel been composed much later, it is almost unthinkable that it could have...
@KabaneTheChristian, you say "St. Irenaeus was taught by St. Polycapr, who..was taught by the Apostle John". That's quite a lot of conjecture, strengthened in your mind I suppose by your addition of "St." to their names.
From Wiki: "Polycarp does not quote from the Gospel of John in his surviving letter, which may be an indication that whichever John he knew was not the author of that gospel (or that the gospel was not finished during Polycarp's discipleship with John)".
I said "St" because I am Orthodox and that is how I speak of the Fathers of the Church. It has nothing to do with my argumentation. I'm sorry friend, but Wikipedia is not a valid source for your argumentation here. St Polycarp only has a single surviving letter and the omission is only strange if you give us a reason that he should have quoted John's Gospel in that particular context. The writings of his disciple, St Irenaeus, are much more abundant and are quite clear about John
I do accept your point that with more copies of manuscipts, we can undertake better textual criticism. The NT manuscript copies are far more numerous than any other contemporary writings, as you say.
I generally use the ESV, simply because I have a program which enables me to easily copy and paste biblical quotations with their references. That said, I don't really have a favorite translation. I never use the NIV, but I often consult the NET and the EOB. In cases where the translation is controversial, I check a wide variety of translations and discussions of the particular Hebrew or Greek word in question.
Friend, to be honest, I have spent years carefully studying these issues and learning all I can about them, from all sides of the issue. I ask you to do the same. Don't just read "lists of contradictions", try to find answers to them as well. Secular websites list "loads of contradictions" from the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible.
Rather, His observance of the law is in His continued worship of the one true God, not in the number of times that he prayed per day. That's just reading into the text based on much later rabbinic traditions.
Yes, this is a very common example given for the so called "oral Torah." The answer is simple. Darius had commanded that all people pray not to their gods, but to Darius alone. The law that Daniel was observing was to have no other gods before the one true God of Israel. Thus, he refused to worship Darius but continued to worship the God of Israel. That's it. There's nothing in the text that suggests that if he prayed twice a day that this would have been in violation of the law.
Are you suggesting that during these times of national apostasy, when the written Torah was almost entirely lost and virtually every Israelite was in idolatry, that they were able to maintain an extremely complex corpus of entirely unwritten laws? I submit that there is no evidence for this and that it stretches the boundaries of imagination.
Let me ask you this. Within the Hebrew Bible, there are accounts of several national apostasies. One of the most prominent is the apostasy that occurred before the reign of King Josiah. As Josiah tried to restore righteousness to the land, they discovered the Book of the Covenant hidden in the Temple, one of the only copies left in the entire land. During this period of apostasy, almost all of the written Torah had been lost and had to be rediscovered.
There are many traditions and customs that various people develop. For example, it is customary for Russian Orthodox Christians to celebrate Holy Pascha by drinking a few alcoholic drinks. This isn't sinful, but it also isn't part of the law of God to us. It's a custom. Likewise, praying three times a day is a good custom. Nowhere in the text does it suggest that this is part of the Torah of Moses.
@ukchristian28- wtf dude? I was going out of my way to be civil, what gives with the condesending tone? Again, you guys took our Torah and tell us we interpret it wrong. I don't even have to dialogue if you are going to be smarmy.
Does anyone else see the irony that this is a debate about jesus and messianic prophecy and both hitler and phelps have raised their ugly heads? Sorry.....just seems odd LOL
@ukchristian28- here we were having a rationsl debate, not my strong suit and you just had to thow out the name of old Fred Phelps and ruin the ride. I could have gone the rest of my life without hearing his name....you spoil sport LOL
Lol, well I am sorrry. Seriously though, that's really the only church claiming to be Protestant that claims to be the only true church. Only cults make such claims so straygypsy is just wrong.
@straygypsy- As a Jew I understand where you are coming from but that is emotion talking. i think we can learn more if wevtry to stay rational. in 1946 Abba Kovner and the Nakam attempted to poison the drinking water of 4 German cities as revenge. They even got the poison. If they had carried it out, would Torah be to blame for the deaths of those innocent German children? The answer is no. It is the same as saying xtianity caused the holocaust.
@KabaneTheChristian-yet no where does it give the exact way. This would point towards an oral tradition, at least for me. Often in Torah a story seems to stop without detail saying "as I have commanded you" yet there is no specific instruction in Torah. I can five examples of this if you want but figured you didn't need them
@KabaneTheChristian- I think yes, Moshe did ask Hashem but I don't think he could askhim every question. The many questions he would have had to seek guidance on. It seems more likely, to me, there was an oral tradition. If you look at the command for kosher slaughtering, we see Hashem say "you shall slaughter your cattle as i have commanded you"
Why is this oral tradition never mentioned, then? You assert that it's "likely that he had an oral tradition." Why is it likely? I submit that there was no need to divinely reveal the precise definition of every single word, simply because most were obvious. When things weren't obvious, Moses went to God and God revealed to Him a law that was written down. Deuteronomy 27:8 says clearly, "you shall WRITE on the stones ALL THE WORDS of this law very plainly."
As for Deuteronomy 12:21, which you cited, look at the surrounding context. God is saying that if they want to eat meat, they can slaughter it within their own towns. See:
(Deuteronomy 12:15) "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer.
Deuteronomy 12:21 simply references this earlier command that had been written down in 12:15. It's not talking about ritual slaughter, it's a statement that if they want meat, they can slaughter it in their own towns.
And by the way, yes, I've blocked you. If somebody believes that "faith, hope, and love" were actually three different gods that the early Christians worshiped and proceeds to tell ME to learn Church History, then I see no point in dialoguing with them. That idea is complete fantasy.
That is asinine. Faith, hope, and love are Christian virtues, not gods. Sophia is Divine Wisdom, mentioned in Proverbs 8, and is an attribute of God, not God's wife. Christians believe that Divine Wisdom became incarnate in the person of Christ. Just look up Luke 11 to see that. The problem for you is that I've actually read the writings of the earliest Christians. Yes, all of them. The Apostolic Fathers. Read the Didache, one of the earliest extracanonical Christian writings.
I encourage everybody to watch the video that gypsy linked. Unfortunately for him, gypsy appears to be severely blinded by his own biases. Rabbi Asher remained respectful, but was respectfully dismantled. And I'm not going to get into a debate over who won it here, I'm simply going to tell everybody to go watch it for themselves.
"Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence"
And then in Sanhedrin 37b-37a of the Talmud:
" Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven."
So, in trying to refute Christianity you not only contradict the Bible but your own rabbinic traditions!
I know that Zerubbabel was not king but royal governor. My point focused around the language of the signet ring. There are rabbinic traditions which say the curse was reversed. For example, Numbers Rabbah 20:20:
By the way the Gnostics were not the original Christians. Gnosticism is a merging of paganism and Christianity. The Gnostic texts were written long after the time of Jesus in contrast to the biblical gospels which were written only a few decades after the time of Jesus. Sitting next to me is multiple several volume sets of Church history as well as the 38 volume AD 30-800 set of Church Fathers. Please don't try to teach me church history.
No, completely false. The Neronian and Diocletianic persecutions of the first and third centuries are the most prominent of the many state persecutions of the mainstream Christians. Christianity only became the state religion in 380 with Theodosius I, Constantine LEGALIZED it in 313 in the Edict of Milan. This is because it was an illegal religion before him.
The false prophet (or antichrist) is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39). this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25)
Unless you have another name another candidate that fits this besides Jesus, this discussion is over..
"Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts."
Please quote the passage in the New Testament which demonstrates that Jesus honored a god unknown to his ancestors with gold and silver, and with precious stones and costly gifts.
"Unless you have another name another candidate that fits this besides Jesus, this discussion is over.."
No. Unless YOU name the candidate that fits this (because it ain't Jesus), this discussion is over..
"Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with GOLD and SILVER, with PRECIOUS STONES and costly gifts."
NO WAY can this be taken metaphorically.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.......I rest my case..
First, you do not have the right quote. I will quote you the proper scripture tomorrow but I will answer your question. Jesus disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin.
Secondly, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) ..continued
Does your translation mention the gold and silver and jewels? If so, simply demonstrate that Jesus offered these as gifts to his god. Real simple task.
Yeah, this was already answered in these videos. There's been no response to anything I said in the video. Instead, you've made a plethora of assumptions about me, all of which have been shown to be wrong, accused me of being a Nazi, asserted that Jesus caused the Holocaust, that the New Testament caused Islam, and things like that. Give it up.
Yeah, Nero Caesar, emperor of Rome, exalted himself to the place of God, sieged Jerusalem, and set up images of himself inside the Temple
@theman77777777232 ......and for the second part of your question considering "gifts of gold". I would guess that nothing fulfills that better than your nt Matt 2:11.
But I will be checking my Tanack for a more clearer description this weekend...
The problem is that I've never heard any Jew or Noahide accept the historicity of the account in Matthew 2. If you accept Matthew 2 as historically reliable, well, that's got the virgin birth too.
"and for the second part of your question considering 'gifts of gold'. I would guess that nothing fulfills that better than your nt Matt 2:11."
First, Matthew 2:11 does not mention silver and jewels. Second, gold was given to Jesus as a gift at his birth. I'm still looking for the verse in the New Testament that describes JESUS (not wiseman) offering gold, silver, & precious stones to his god.
And still witing for you to "check your Tanack for a more clearer description".
Yeah dude, are you familiar with the Jewish War 67-73? The armies marched into the Temple and placed images of Caesar inside it and worshiped and revered him inside the Jewish Temple, under the order of Caesar Nero, who considered himself a god.
This new testament was like a bomb that exploded into a mass blob that has confused mankind into 1000s of different beliefs!
All these beliefs from the nt has done nothing but cause war and bloodshed from its inception. The main character of this nt is called a god (by xtians) and a prophet (by Muslims).
Under this mans name more Jews have been murdered than any other.
These descriptions fit the ID of the false prophet in Daniel.
That is BS. More Jews were murdered in Hitler's name than in Jesus' name, and Hitler hated Christianity. Jason has already taken out the nonsense about 28,000 denominations. You go on to repeat your points without addressing either of us.
By the way, war and bloodshed from its inception? You mean from the time that Christians were systematically persecuted by the Roman state to the time when Theodosius demanded official tolerance for the Jewish people?
@straygypsy: You have failed to maintain the focus of the discussion at hand, forcing the discussion within the comments section to spiral downward toward irrelevancy. This can be attributed to two things: 1) Your lack of skill in argumentation, 2) A lack of skill coupled with a lack of substance in argumentation. I would rather you stopped commenting, considering you are doing a disservice to your Jewish brothers by commenting on completely irrelevant things. Forgive me if I have offended you.
Just go look through your comments. Who brought up all the crap about Hitler? Who ran away from the manuscript issue? Who ran away from all the issues that the video actually deals with?
In Mein Kaumph, Jesus's quotes are all over it (gee what a shock). In fact Hitler believed Jesus would "Smile on his people again" (speaking as the Aryan he was). I will add more quotes from MK later.
The bottom line is this:
If the NT was never written...The Holocaust would have never happened. The Crusades and Inquisitions would have never happened and Mohammad would have never found Islam.
Sounds like the true culprit of what the book of Daniel speaks of NO DOUBT!
Yes, Hitler attempted to co-opt the Roman Catholic bishops into supporting his cause. But this was not his motivation. It is clear from his private writings that he hated Christianity.
If Moses had never existed, then no Christianity! No Christianity, no Holocaust or Islam! Sounds like the true culprit of what the book of Daniel speaks about NO DOUBT!
It's not just that MK is offensive. It's that it doesn't matter. We've already agreed that Hitler outwardly tried to co-opt Christians into supporting his evil cause. The question is whether this internally motivated him or not. And his private writings prove that it didn't.
Even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything as to the truth of Christianity. That would be a fallacy, appeal to consquences.
@straygypsy "If the NT was never written...The Holocaust would have never happened"
Without Christianity history would have taken an entirely different course anyway, probably with completely different empires, nations and borders, and different people living - there are countless possible alternatives. But you do not know either if the Jews would have survived 2000 years without that massive persecution, maybe they would have completely assimilated in a more benign environment.
If you want to get a really good Tanach that has commentary that Orthodox and Conservative Jews use and is not written in Hebrew but is as close a translation as you can get go to Artscroll and type in "The Jewish Bible for the English Reader". It has commentary and even diagrams and stuff. I would give you the exact link but YT won't let me :(
I check Jewish translations too. Yes, I'm aware there are differences in translation between the various texts. There is also a difference in which manuscript tradition they use. This doesn't automatically mean that the Orthodox Jewish one is correct, that would just be begging the question. So, send me the message when you've prepared your examples.
@KabaneTheChristian Wrong. When Jewish scribes in Israel handwrite a Torah scroll, if as much as 1 letter is incorrect, the ENTIRE SCROLL is done away with. This practice has been done for centuries. In fact if you as much as compare a Torah scroll written last week and compare it with one written 2500 years ago you will *NOT* find any difference at all.
So when Xtians claim all 10000 of their translations are correct (except of course the Hebrew), its tantamount to comedy...
Yes, that is the copying method that was used for the Masoretic texts. This method became prominent in the seventh century. You have retroacted this medieval copying method onto all ancient texts. The Masoretic differs in key respects from both the LXX and the DSS. There are also differences within the various Masoretic texts. For example, some Masoretics read "ka'aru" in Psalm 22 while others read "ka'ari."
On top of this, most Protestant translations use the Masoretic tradition. I have various Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Orthodox Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible, which variously translate the Masoretic, the LXX, the DSS, and some other texts as well.
@KabaneTheChristian "I have various Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Orthodox Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible, "
You are wrong again.
You have the JPS translation which was promptly rejected by the Orthodox Jews for altering scripture to specifically cater to the Xtian dollar.
The DSS was jaded which is why Jewish scholars believe those scrolls were discreetly buried in caves. Because the scrolls had Hebrew writings on them they could not be destroyed or burned.
The interesting thing is that the DSS texts often correspond with the LXX, which suggests that the variants aren't just in there because of the nature of the copyists. They were probably buried in caves because the Qumran community withdrew itself from the community. They are nonetheless, extremely valuable as ancient texts and the earliest manuscripts of the Tanakh.
It doesn't matter if you don't like the copyists who made the DSS. Asserting that the copying was bad because they differed with traditional Judaism is (1) begging the question and (2) asserting a point with absolutely zero textual evidence. You asserted that the Masoretic Torah was the same today as it was 2500 years ago. This is an incredibly misleading claim because the first Masoretics we have are centuries after the NT was even written...
@KabaneTheChristian "Asserting that the copying was bad because they differed with traditional Judaism is (1) begging the question and......"
Wrong yet again.
Asserting that that copying was incorrect because it was different was (and is to this very day) Masoric Law.
My opinion is irrelevant.
But since you believe (and stated previously) that 'a variety of texts' is fine yet you wont read an Artscroll is the whole basis of this debate and why Spiderman could very well be the Messiah.
You just rephrased your position. You disregard it because it disagrees with the laws of traditional Judaism. I'm not a traditional Jew. I believe traditional Judaism is false. So why should I disregard a text because it disagrees with a position that I don't agree with in the first place? This is a plainly circular line of argumentation, bro.
I already told you that I check the Stone edition's translation, not the JPS. The "Artscroll" as I understand it is a translation with commentary. That's fine, but I thought this was just about translation? I'll pick one up if you want.
...nowhere near the bizarre figure of 2,500 years that you asserted. The fact is that the earliest complete texts of the Torah that we have is the DSS, not the Masoretic.
@KabaneTheChristian Thats what I used to think but Jewish scholars at the IDA knew the DSS were incorrect somehow which led them to the conclusion as to why they were buried and hidden in discreet caves..
Okay, so do you actually have any evidence for that position? I don't grant that Orthodox Judaism is true. So unless you can provide evidence for this, I see no reason to believe it.
@KabaneTheChristian Which position? That xtianity is false? Anybody can shove scripture in peoples faces but I also consider world events in addition. When you consider the following: The Inquisitions
The Crusades
WWI
WWII (With WWIII well on its way)
The Holocaust
more than 28,000 warring divisions and cults all claiming to be...."The true christian church"
And the NT's greatest creation....ISLAM!
and yet when reading the true scriptures (Daniel) you will see who Jesus really is..
@straygypsy Ok....umm I am an Modern Orthodox Jew and I don't see the relevance of bringing up the holocuast etc when talking about this. I agree with you on many things but Kabane is a friend of mine. He is not responsible for the events that have brought terror on our people. I think if we stick to the points....he wants proof Rabbinic Judaism is true and we can't give him proof that he accepts. He states xtianity is true and he can't give us proof we accept. Agree to disagree
@straygypsy Then I stand corrected. Your assesment is correct. Apparently I misunderstood your intention in writing that. I am giong to leave this "debate" because I am certainly not adding anything to it....UGH. Sorry!
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to say that Jesus caused the Holocaust? Hitler was not of Jewish descent, the idea that he was born illegitimately of a Jew is historical fiction. Nor did the world hail Hitler as a god. Most people other than Germans hated Hitler.
@KabaneTheChristian Actually Hitler's DNA does suggest he was Jewish and apparently knew it from his dealings with William Patrick Hitler, his nephew. He was not born illegitimate to a Jewish father but his own father was. Hitler was not hailed as a diety but he attempted to raise himself to that level in the minds of the Germans. The Austrians loved him or as one reporter said, if Hitler is "raping Austria it appears the Austrians, liked being raped".
By the way, your suggestion that Christianity caused the Holocaust is both disgusting and historically inaccurate. Hitler was a German pagan who spoke of his hatred for Christianity in his personal writings. His hatred for the Jewish people arose from nationalism, not Christianity.
@KabaneTheChristian . I think you are both right and wrong. Hitler professed publically to be not be a xtian but he used xtianity to spur on the masses in the acts that they later committed in his name. Hitler was not a xtian. Stalin killed almost as many Jews as Hitler (over many years though) and that was not brought about by xtianty whatsoever. Germany had a long tradition of "Jews are the killers of jesus" so it was not much of a stretch for him to use religion to rally the masses
@KabaneTheChristian I think if you study the Jane Elliot Riceville Iowa studies you will find that anyone of any fath and any race, when given no controls and allowed to do whatever they want to another group of people, will often respond the way the nazi's did (maybe to a lesser degree but they had direct orders to kill so that made the difference). Kapos, Jewish prisoners in charge of other Jews, in the camps were some of the most vicious. Jane Elliots research findings explain it all
@straygypsy How did xtianity creat islam? Also....saying these events disprove xtianity is wrong. That is like saying because we spawned Bernie Madoff, Monica Lewinksy, Bugsy Seigel or the others that Judaism is wrong. I don't believe in xtianity but I think we need to discuss honestly. How can we dialogue with others if we don't. Yes, I have used that same argument but in reality, its not PROOF xtianity is wrong
@DarkQuietWyattON Ask any Muslim. They will tell you themselves that if it weren't for the NT then there would be no Islam. This book has caused the most confusion and caused the most destruction among mankind beyond defintion...
Like I said...I like to show world events along with scripture to show my case...
That's simply not true. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but that the New Testament is by and large a misrepresentation of His teachings. Muhammad didn't even read the New Testament. This is widely acknowledged by scholars.
Muslims claim to have four holy books. The Torah (which they say has been corrupted), the Scrolls of Abraham (which they say have been lost), the Injil (which they say is a lost book written by Jesus) and the Quran (which they say is the only pure holy book left.) I've studied Islam. You have no idea what you are talking about here. The NT isn't revered in any official sense.
They may accept some as authentic, but not as scriptural. If they accept a particular hadith as authentic, they regard it as authoritative by virtue of being spoken by Muhammad, rather than on its authority as a holy book.
"This book (New Testament) has caused the most confusion and caused the most destruction among mankind beyond defintion"
lol. Is that right? Is that why the New Testament is responsible for the vAST MAJORITY of homeless shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, and charities that exist today? lol
"Ask any Muslim. They will tell you themselves that if it weren't for the NT then there would be no Islam."
Like Kabane said, Muhammad never had access to a New Testament, genius.
@theman77777777232 "Like Kabane said, Muhammad never had access to a New Testament, genius."
He sure knew about Jesus.........genius.
And by the way, what is your point about soup kitchens, charities, hospitals..etc? Every religion on earth has its own charities, soup kitchens and hospitals. Even the Freemasons have hospitals.
Yeah, and he also knew about Moses and the Prophets and claimed to believe in all of the Jewish prophets as well. You asserted that the New Testament was the cause of Islam. You have now been proven wrong and are trying to move the goalpost. Unfortunately, if you try to cause guilt by association on the grounds that he claimed to believe in Jesus, Judaism also gets associated with Muhammad because he claimed to believe in Moses.
Furthermore, study history. The practice of having religious hospitals and charities began with Christianity and did not exist in the pagan religions of the world. After this practice became widespread in Christianity, other religions began imitating it. The point is that it was the ideal of the New Testament that inspired this great zeal for charity. "Love one another." "Salvation is of the Jews." "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." These are all NT quotations.
@KabaneTheChristian -I think the Sri Lankans had hospital or the percursor thereof, around 450 BCE and I think the ancient Romans had charity hospitals called Asclepieions which were kind of the same thing and date from about 350 BCE. The kingdom in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan had them under King Ashoka in 250 BCE but the Council of Nicea did indicate a charity hosptial was to be built in every town I believe. I could be wrong about that but I think that is the case.
hmm. That may be true. The fact remains that Christianity made it a very widespread practice and made it normative. It also emphasized the equality of all men before God, which was definitely not a part of paganism.
lol. From gnostic texts. lol. He had no acces to the New Testament. You have no idea how ridiculous you look.
"And by the way, what is your point about soup kitchens, charities, hospitals..etc? "
Umm, well, since most of them that exist are Christian, it doesn't fit with your statement... "caused the most confusion and caused the most destruction among mankind beyond defintion" hmmmm
I'm a Jew your the bomb, Yeshua is your shield and buckler. AMEN!!!!
MsOmeGa29 1 month ago
I agree with this. You sure have grown up. rabbi Asher is a master of straw arguments.
paulgem123 3 months ago
I intended: "meant to be abstruse to the uninitiated".
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
The "New Testament" is riddle with contradictions. There is more textual variants in "New Testament" an there are words. You expect someone really to take your so called "New Testament" seriously?
bluejayscottable 4 months ago
@bluejayscottable
There are thousands of textual variations in every ancient text before the printing press, dude. Including the Hebrew Bible. We actually have the MOST manuscripts for the NT, more than any other ancient text. 5,000 partial and complete Greek texts. Renowned textual scholar Bruce Metzger has estimated that we have certainty about 99% of the text of the New Testament.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
You are right there are many textual variations and contradictions in the tanach. There are also many historical inaccuraties. for example, Ai was destroyed 2100 BCE and Jericho was destroyed 1530 BCE. Israel first shows up in Canaan in 1200's BCE.
bluejayscottable 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, yes there are many, many NT manuscripts. This comes as no surprise since it was the unenviable task of religious scribes to copy and copy to meet demand. That by no means attests to the accuracy or authenticity of these manuscripts, since comparison with the original records is impossible.
I think you have done a lot of research on Christianity and the Bible. Do you know when our earliest NewTestament scripture, or Gospel, dates to (not necessarily an entire Gospel)?
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
When we have an abundance of manuscripts, we can do better textual criticism and come to a more accurate understanding of the original text, since we have more to work with. We can't compare any document of the ancient world with the original, because we have no original document of the ancient world. All we have are copies. They had no printing press.
The earliest part of the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which is a creed dating to within three years of Jesus' death.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, thank you for the reply. I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear: I meant to say the earliest N.T. MANUSCRIPT? I've had a little look in Wiki under "biblical manuscipt". The earliest fragment of a Gospel (John's Gospel), named P52, dates perhaps between 100 and 150 AD. It has over 20 Greek words apparently from John 18: 31-33 and (on the other side of the parchment) from John 18:37-38.
This could mean that John's Gospel was available in the first half of the 2nd century.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Ah, yes, p52 is the earliest manuscript of the New Testament we have, and is estimated by most textual critics to date to approximately 125 AD. That's actually remarkably early, considering that Tacitus composed his Annals in 110 AD and our earliest extant manuscripts of those date from the eleventh century. We can be very confident in the purity of the New Testament text we have today.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, I'm not quite as confident as you on the purity of our canonical Gospels. The fact that we have more NT manuscripts than other historical documents is due to the work of religious scribes, who poured over their writings day and night - it's the nature of religion - whereas there would be far less interest in copying secular, historical documents. Also, religion can be "propagandist" or manipulative in character.
The Gospel of Thomas may date from a similar period to P52.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Their motives are irrelevant, what matters is that we actually have these manuscripts to work with. I understand that the reason that we have these texts is because of their religious nature. Sure. But that doesn't mean that they are irrelevant for the purposes of textual criticism.
Incorrect. We do not have manuscripts of Thomas from that time period. Our manuscripts of Thomas come much later. Nicholas Perrin has argued that Thomas derives from the Diatessaron in Syria...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, the motives of scribes or their leaders are paramount! I suspect that our Gospel teachings resembled Thomas' message in their original form. Probably Matthew and Mark were likewise originally in Aramaic. However, the "Gentile" Christians couldn't appreciate the esoteric teachings of Jesus.The translation of the Gospel manuscripts into Greek provided an ideal opportunity to redact Jesus' teachings so as to permit Gentiles to appreciate them, according to Hellenized culture.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
They are not paramount when it comes to textual criticism. When discerning the original form of a text, the number and date of manuscripts is paramount. GThom is a Gnostic document that has no resemblance to Palestinian Judaism of any time and was chauvinist, pagan, and displays far more Greek influences than the thoroughly Jewish biblical gospels.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Matthew probably composed a gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew, which he translated into the Greek language and reorganized into the Greek Matthew that we have today. There is evidence that the early Jewish Christians in the Church continued to use the original version of Matthew's Gospel, and St Ignatius appears to quote it in his authentic epistles.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
It is the Gospel of Thomas which is Gentilized, not the biblical gospels, which say, among other things, that "Salvation is of the Jews", and where Jesus says that He was sent "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The Gospel of Thomas says in saying 113 that a woman has to make herself male in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is absolute gibberish and has nothing to do with the Lord's authentic teachings.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, Thomas' sayings appear "gibberish" to you, because you (like me) don't have an Essene master to guide. The sayings of Thomas are probably meant to be abstruse to the unitiated. They appear to be consistent with Essene or Gnostic teaching.
The incompleteness of esoteric teaching in the canonical Gospels blazes! In John's Gospel we have fragments of an amazing discourse about what it means to be "born again". But it fizzles out after just 13 verses! It deserves chapters!
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Ah, so they only look silly to us because we don't have someone to explain to us the real meaning which is completely indiscernible from the text itself! They're just too "esoteric" for us to understand. Who made you the almighty judge of what is spiritual or not? Jesus is who He is. If you don't find the Jesus of the gospels spiritual enough, then go find someone else to look to.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
The Gnostics were not Essenes. Your identification of the Gnostics with the Essenes is completely misguided. The Essenes affirmed the reality and goodness of the created order and affirmed the resurrection of the dead. Gnosticism taught that matter was evil and that Jesus was just an emanation of the one God who hated matter, that Jesus wasn't really human, etc.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, thanks for that correction re. the Gnostics and Essenes. I think you are probably right there.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Who are you to say that John doesn't go into rebirth enough? Jesus throughout the Gospel of St John teaches about regeneration, and it is taught about in the Book of Acts, the Synoptics, and the Letters of St Paul. What you need to understand is that you don't have the right to judge how accurate a portrait of Jesus is based on how "esoteric" that portrait is. We must use the standards of objective history to do that. And, when we do that, we just don't find...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, well, just look at John 3 again!
First, Jesus says no one can see God's kingdom unless born again.
Then he adds that we must be "born of water and the spirit". That raises a host of questions that aren't answered. Is the water symbolic, is it baptismal? Is rebirth initiated by something like the so-called "sinner's prayer", as evangelicals claim? What about our lifestyle? The confusion infecting Christendom results from this type of half-baked, incomplete teaching.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Did you know that for 1600 years, there was absolutely no confusion over what Jesus meant by this? It is Baptism, plain and simple, as all the Church Fathers teach. It was only with the rise of the Baptists 1600 years later that some misguided individuals question this. I find it amusing that you assert that this is vague and unclear, when you yourself are using esotericity as a criterion of truth! On top of this, you stated that I just can't understand Thomas properly...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, I haven't been so inconsistent. What I maintain is that much esoteric teaching has been omitted in the Gospels, probably because the writers didn't understand much of the record of Jesus' sayings (they weren't eyewitnesses). Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus is almost certainly truncated. It is left hanging in the air, as it were, abruptly passing to a new theme (verse 16). It is deficient in much needed questions and answers.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Your assertion that the authors of the gospels were not eyewitnesses is just that: an assertion, and one that I have spent several videos analyzing and critiquing. Bauckham in his book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" provides a devastating rebuttal to this thesis. You provide conjecture on why Jesus' "esoteric" teachings aren't in the gospels, when there's a much simpler reason. He never taught anything like that. What Jesus says and does in the biblical gospels...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, although I haven't read Bauckham's book, a glance at the critiques I've seen of the book makes your opinion appear highly speculative at best.
Re. Augustine, are you claiming he didn't kill or persecute so-called heretics?
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I am saying he did not kill them. Augustine did advocate some levels of mild persecution. He did not advocate killings and never promoted any such killings. The only killings that are recorded around that time is that of Priscillian and six others like him. This was CONDEMNED by St Ambrose of Milan, who was St Augustine's mentor. Constantine in fact established levels of tolerance much higher than the pagan emperors had established.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Killing of heretics became widespread in the medieval Roman Catholic West. The Orthodox East condemns the Roman Catholic Church as a schismatic body which has departed from the truth of the gospel.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, massacres of "heretics" became widespread as soon as the Church was legalised and empowered (4th century). Augustine's role in this is not absolutely clear, but he seems to have been responsible for the execution of bishop Priscillian and his followers. He repressed the Donatists, who were staunch Christians. A former pastor of mine, scholar Roger Forster (founder of ICHTHUS, London), condemned Augustine for his brutality.The Spanish Inquisiton may be his greatest legacy.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
The Spanish Inquisition occurred centuries after St Augustine. The execution of Priscillian was condemned by the saints of the Church, NOT endorsed by St Augustine and CONDEMNED by St Augustine's personal mentor, St Ambrose of Milan. You can make assertions all you want- backing them up with real history is something altogether different.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
By the way, the vague word "repressed" does not actually include executions. No saint of the Church advocated their murder.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
As for Bauckham's book, simply noting that there have been critiques is irrelevant. I try to read the opposing side of books that I read. The question is not whether there are critiques (there are critiques of almost everything), but whether there are VALID critiques. You had simply asserted your position as fact without any reference whatsoever.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, the consensus of modern New Testament scholars is that there is no good evidence that the Gospel accounts are based on eyewitness testimony. Bart Ehrman's research persuades him that the Gospels are NOT based on eyewitiness accounts . Watch the Youtube video: Bart Ehrman number 4: "Do the Gospels contain eyewitness tradition?".
The Gospels were of course penned anonymously. The earliest CLEAR reference to their authorship comes to us from Irenaeus writing in about 180 CE.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
You are far overstating the scholarly support for your position, actually. I've read fairly widely here, and yes, I've read Ehrman as well. Your assertion that St Irenaeus is the first to mention apostolic authorship is simply false. St Papias mentions Matthew and Mark, and St Justin mentions the memoirs of the Apostles. MANY histories in the ancient world were penned anonymously, including the Annals of Tacitus. Attribution was rarely contained within the text itself.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, it is far from clear that Papias mentions the Matthew and Mark of the Gospels.They were common names. Ehrmann makes that very point. As for Tacitus, nobody doubts Rome's greatest historian,Tacitus, wrote the annals. Tacitus is an established historical figure. In contrast, NOBODY knows who your Matthew, Mark, Luje and John were! All you have is conjecture and a resolute mindset.
The Inquisition arose in the middle ages - aided and abetted by Augustine's writing.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
They were common names? LOL. That's absolutely contrived, to suggest that the Matthew and Mark of Papias are any different from the same Matthew and Mark named in the gospels and by all the Fathers as the authors of the first two Gospels. It's an invented argument. It's faux history. It's special pleading to weasel out of the obvious conclusion. Under your argument, there's literally no way I could establish the authorship of the gospels...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...because, well, maybe multiple people had so and so name. Maybe multiple people were named Cornelius Tacitus! After all, it's not an uncommon name! How do we know that the Tacitus of Tertullian is the Tacitus of later writers.
If you seriously contend that we don't know that the Twelve existed, I don't know what to say to you. Paul mentions them. We have the disciples of the Twelve Apostles. We know they existed.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
lol, that thing about St Augustine is vague. The question is not whether people centuries later tried to use St Augustine to justify their behavior, but whether St Augustine would have endorsed such behavior.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
In fact, the first attribution of the Annals to Tacitus was from Tertullian, writing about eighty years after the Annals were first penned. The attribution of the gospels to the Apostles is even better. I know all of the information you are presenting to me. These things are not new to me. I have several videos on these issues.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...makes sense against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism. The teachings of the GThom make no sense against that backdrop. It's late, as almost all scholars have agreed. Only the radical and far-left Jesus Seminar has tried to suggest that it's early. Sure, it's "deficient" if you get to decide what counts as deficient and sufficient. But that's just arbitrary, and you can create whatever criteria you want.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...because I don't have a Gnostic teacher! How inconsistent!
Anyways, as Jesus explains in St John 14-16, He will send the Church the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) from the Father to guide it into all Truth. This is how all things remain clear, because the Church, the Orthodox Church, is given the Holy Spirit which keeps it pure in teaching.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, there appears to be a lot more unity of belief in the Orthodox church than probably any other, so much is true.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...an Essene or Gnostic teacher. We find a man who believed that He was Israel's Messiah and the personal embodiment of Israel's God, who believed that He would fight against the dark spiritual forces and usher in God's kingdom through His own suffering, death, and resurrection. The Gospel of Thomas is late, displays Gnostic influences, and has not a trace of the authentic Jewish Jesus of the biblical gospels.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, quite untrue! About half of the sayings in Thomas' Gospel are immediately recognisable from the canonical synoptic Gospels. They OBVIOUSLY shared one or more common sources.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Thus, almost all scholars say that the author of Thomas used the Gospels (thus it comes AFTER the biblical gospels), edited the sayings of Jesus to conform to his own Gnostic or proto-Gnostic beliefs, and then added more sayings that were explicitly Gnostic. So, if you want to say that the only good stuff in Thomas is that which is copied from the biblical gospels, then we're in agreement.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, "nearly all scholars say.." CHRISTIAN scholars, yes, who gain their livelihood selling Christian books! We don't know if tThomas' Gospel came after the canonicals. We know that the early church fathers, who were Romans or Greeks, repressed any writing not conforming to their own beliefs, which were shaped by their Genitle cultures. We know that Chistianity failed to convince the great majority of Jews. There, Paul was an abject failure! "Stiff-necked" Jews, I suppose?
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
No, not Christian scholars. Ehrman dates Thomas decades after the canonical gospels and is an atheist.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
As for repressing, this is silly. The Church was under official state persecution for most of its early history. It had no power to repress anybody. And the rejection of the Messiah was written about in the Prophets. "Who has believed what has been heard from us?" "The stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner."
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, the Chruch started systematic repression and massacres of "unbelievers" as soon as it was legalised in the 4th century, and so empowered to do so.
Augustine (I suppose you call him a saint!) massacred and burnt alive believers of a different brand of Christinity from his, Unfortunately, this has been a common ocurrence with people, who like you, believe that their church is superior to any other and under the blessing of the Paraclete.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
Sorry, that's just false. You are familiar with popular myths about Christianity, but you aren't very familiar with actual Church History. Your statement about St Augustine is absolutely laughable and has no basis in historical fact whatsoever. I've spent years learning about the New Testament and church history, and having to dispel these myths again and again gets tiring.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...which dates it post 175 AD, in contrast to John's Gospel, which dates from around 90 AD.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian. I don't think we can be sure that John's Gospel dates so early, can we? I know that many scholars agree with you.
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
We certainly can. We have the testimony of St Irenaeus that it was composed by John, who died around that time. St Irenaeus was taught by St Polycarp, who, in turn, was taught by the Apostle John himself. So, we have a direct line of testimony going back to the apostle that bears witness to its apostolic authorship. Furthermore, the early date of p52 bears witness to a date around 90 AD. Had John's Gospel been composed much later, it is almost unthinkable that it could have...
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian, you say "St. Irenaeus was taught by St. Polycapr, who..was taught by the Apostle John". That's quite a lot of conjecture, strengthened in your mind I suppose by your addition of "St." to their names.
From Wiki: "Polycarp does not quote from the Gospel of John in his surviving letter, which may be an indication that whichever John he knew was not the author of that gospel (or that the gospel was not finished during Polycarp's discipleship with John)".
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I said "St" because I am Orthodox and that is how I speak of the Fathers of the Church. It has nothing to do with my argumentation. I'm sorry friend, but Wikipedia is not a valid source for your argumentation here. St Polycarp only has a single surviving letter and the omission is only strange if you give us a reason that he should have quoted John's Gospel in that particular context. The writings of his disciple, St Irenaeus, are much more abundant and are quite clear about John
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
...disseminated so widely so that it could appear where p52 appears and enjoyed universal recognition in the Church.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
I do accept your point that with more copies of manuscipts, we can undertake better textual criticism. The NT manuscript copies are far more numerous than any other contemporary writings, as you say.
Btw, what version of the Bible do you prefer?
psandbergnz 3 months ago
@psandbergnz
I generally use the ESV, simply because I have a program which enables me to easily copy and paste biblical quotations with their references. That said, I don't really have a favorite translation. I never use the NIV, but I often consult the NET and the EOB. In cases where the translation is controversial, I check a wide variety of translations and discussions of the particular Hebrew or Greek word in question.
KabaneTheChristian 3 months ago
@bluejayscottable
Friend, to be honest, I have spent years carefully studying these issues and learning all I can about them, from all sides of the issue. I ask you to do the same. Don't just read "lists of contradictions", try to find answers to them as well. Secular websites list "loads of contradictions" from the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
So this not contradiction?
How many animals did Jesus ride?
Jesus rode two animals.
Matthew 21:7: They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set [Him] on them.
Jesus rode one animal.
Mark 11:7: Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it.
bluejayscottable 4 months ago
Great response
TheFaithHunter 4 months ago
Here is my response to your video /watch?v=O-zy6cgdXpU
geoasher023 4 months ago
@geoasher023
Thanks for the response! Mine will be out Sunday or Monday.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Rather, His observance of the law is in His continued worship of the one true God, not in the number of times that he prayed per day. That's just reading into the text based on much later rabbinic traditions.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Yes, this is a very common example given for the so called "oral Torah." The answer is simple. Darius had commanded that all people pray not to their gods, but to Darius alone. The law that Daniel was observing was to have no other gods before the one true God of Israel. Thus, he refused to worship Darius but continued to worship the God of Israel. That's it. There's nothing in the text that suggests that if he prayed twice a day that this would have been in violation of the law.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Are you suggesting that during these times of national apostasy, when the written Torah was almost entirely lost and virtually every Israelite was in idolatry, that they were able to maintain an extremely complex corpus of entirely unwritten laws? I submit that there is no evidence for this and that it stretches the boundaries of imagination.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@Funkifizzle
Let me ask you this. Within the Hebrew Bible, there are accounts of several national apostasies. One of the most prominent is the apostasy that occurred before the reign of King Josiah. As Josiah tried to restore righteousness to the land, they discovered the Book of the Covenant hidden in the Temple, one of the only copies left in the entire land. During this period of apostasy, almost all of the written Torah had been lost and had to be rediscovered.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@Funkifizzle
There are many traditions and customs that various people develop. For example, it is customary for Russian Orthodox Christians to celebrate Holy Pascha by drinking a few alcoholic drinks. This isn't sinful, but it also isn't part of the law of God to us. It's a custom. Likewise, praying three times a day is a good custom. Nowhere in the text does it suggest that this is part of the Torah of Moses.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
How come geoasher hasn't enterd into the comment debate?
theman77777777232 4 months ago
I suppose you script your videos. How much text is 50 minutes of video material of non stop talking?
GuitarSongCoverDude 4 months ago
@GuitarSongCoverDude
hahah, about 26 pages double spaced, 13 single spaced.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
I have to go to OT but will pick this back up tonight if that is ok. I would love to go more in depth with you about those passages.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@ukchristian28- wtf dude? I was going out of my way to be civil, what gives with the condesending tone? Again, you guys took our Torah and tell us we interpret it wrong. I don't even have to dialogue if you are going to be smarmy.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
I wasn't intending to have a condesending tone there. I am sorry if it came across that way. I wouldn't be condesending to you.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
Does anyone else see the irony that this is a debate about jesus and messianic prophecy and both hitler and phelps have raised their ugly heads? Sorry.....just seems odd LOL
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@ukchristian28- here we were having a rationsl debate, not my strong suit and you just had to thow out the name of old Fred Phelps and ruin the ride. I could have gone the rest of my life without hearing his name....you spoil sport LOL
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
Lol, well I am sorrry. Seriously though, that's really the only church claiming to be Protestant that claims to be the only true church. Only cults make such claims so straygypsy is just wrong.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@straygypsy- As a Jew I understand where you are coming from but that is emotion talking. i think we can learn more if wevtry to stay rational. in 1946 Abba Kovner and the Nakam attempted to poison the drinking water of 4 German cities as revenge. They even got the poison. If they had carried it out, would Torah be to blame for the deaths of those innocent German children? The answer is no. It is the same as saying xtianity caused the holocaust.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian-yet no where does it give the exact way. This would point towards an oral tradition, at least for me. Often in Torah a story seems to stop without detail saying "as I have commanded you" yet there is no specific instruction in Torah. I can five examples of this if you want but figured you didn't need them
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian- I think yes, Moshe did ask Hashem but I don't think he could askhim every question. The many questions he would have had to seek guidance on. It seems more likely, to me, there was an oral tradition. If you look at the command for kosher slaughtering, we see Hashem say "you shall slaughter your cattle as i have commanded you"
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
Why is this oral tradition never mentioned, then? You assert that it's "likely that he had an oral tradition." Why is it likely? I submit that there was no need to divinely reveal the precise definition of every single word, simply because most were obvious. When things weren't obvious, Moses went to God and God revealed to Him a law that was written down. Deuteronomy 27:8 says clearly, "you shall WRITE on the stones ALL THE WORDS of this law very plainly."
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
As for Deuteronomy 12:21, which you cited, look at the surrounding context. God is saying that if they want to eat meat, they can slaughter it within their own towns. See:
(Deuteronomy 12:15) "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
Deuteronomy 12:21 simply references this earlier command that had been written down in 12:15. It's not talking about ritual slaughter, it's a statement that if they want meat, they can slaughter it in their own towns.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
And by the way, yes, I've blocked you. If somebody believes that "faith, hope, and love" were actually three different gods that the early Christians worshiped and proceeds to tell ME to learn Church History, then I see no point in dialoguing with them. That idea is complete fantasy.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
Sorry, mis-citation. Actually from the Soncino Midrash Rabbah.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
You'll find that it teaches nothing of what you assert.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
That is asinine. Faith, hope, and love are Christian virtues, not gods. Sophia is Divine Wisdom, mentioned in Proverbs 8, and is an attribute of God, not God's wife. Christians believe that Divine Wisdom became incarnate in the person of Christ. Just look up Luke 11 to see that. The problem for you is that I've actually read the writings of the earliest Christians. Yes, all of them. The Apostolic Fathers. Read the Didache, one of the earliest extracanonical Christian writings.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
Hey everyone...Micheal Brown debates Rabbi Asher!
Brown got OWNED big time!
I knew it was going to happen the second he argued that Nathan (not Solomon as scripture requires) can produce the seed of David!
w w w(.)youtube(.)c o m/watch?v=4ToXm-WfliA&feature=digest_fri
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
I encourage everybody to watch the video that gypsy linked. Unfortunately for him, gypsy appears to be severely blinded by his own biases. Rabbi Asher remained respectful, but was respectfully dismantled. And I'm not going to get into a debate over who won it here, I'm simply going to tell everybody to go watch it for themselves.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
OK...from this point on...I SHALL discuss the geneology of Jesus...No other issues will be debated on for comments....
I got off on tangents (that I feel very strongly about)..
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
lol
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
Comment removed
MAchoManRandySavag 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
"Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence"
And then in Sanhedrin 37b-37a of the Talmud:
" Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven."
So, in trying to refute Christianity you not only contradict the Bible but your own rabbinic traditions!
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
I know that Zerubbabel was not king but royal governor. My point focused around the language of the signet ring. There are rabbinic traditions which say the curse was reversed. For example, Numbers Rabbah 20:20:
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
I addressed most of your arguments in this video, anyway.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
By the way the Gnostics were not the original Christians. Gnosticism is a merging of paganism and Christianity. The Gnostic texts were written long after the time of Jesus in contrast to the biblical gospels which were written only a few decades after the time of Jesus. Sitting next to me is multiple several volume sets of Church history as well as the 38 volume AD 30-800 set of Church Fathers. Please don't try to teach me church history.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@1daewoo888
No, completely false. The Neronian and Diocletianic persecutions of the first and third centuries are the most prominent of the many state persecutions of the mainstream Christians. Christianity only became the state religion in 380 with Theodosius I, Constantine LEGALIZED it in 313 in the Edict of Milan. This is because it was an illegal religion before him.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
The false prophet (or antichrist) is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39). this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25)
Unless you have another name another candidate that fits this besides Jesus, this discussion is over..
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
I'm quoting from the NIV. If you have a translation that fits better, please cite it.
umm, ok... Daniel 11:38...
"Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts."
Please quote the passage in the New Testament which demonstrates that Jesus honored a god unknown to his ancestors with gold and silver, and with precious stones and costly gifts.
Seriously.
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@straygypsy
"Unless you have another name another candidate that fits this besides Jesus, this discussion is over.."
No. Unless YOU name the candidate that fits this (because it ain't Jesus), this discussion is over..
"Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with GOLD and SILVER, with PRECIOUS STONES and costly gifts."
NO WAY can this be taken metaphorically.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.......I rest my case..
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@theman77777777232
First, you do not have the right quote. I will quote you the proper scripture tomorrow but I will answer your question. Jesus disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin.
Secondly, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) ..continued
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Does your translation mention the gold and silver and jewels? If so, simply demonstrate that Jesus offered these as gifts to his god. Real simple task.
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Yeah, this was already answered in these videos. There's been no response to anything I said in the video. Instead, you've made a plethora of assumptions about me, all of which have been shown to be wrong, accused me of being a Nazi, asserted that Jesus caused the Holocaust, that the New Testament caused Islam, and things like that. Give it up.
Yeah, Nero Caesar, emperor of Rome, exalted himself to the place of God, sieged Jerusalem, and set up images of himself inside the Temple
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@theman77777777232 ......and for the second part of your question considering "gifts of gold". I would guess that nothing fulfills that better than your nt Matt 2:11.
But I will be checking my Tanack for a more clearer description this weekend...
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
The problem is that I've never heard any Jew or Noahide accept the historicity of the account in Matthew 2. If you accept Matthew 2 as historically reliable, well, that's got the virgin birth too.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@straygypsy
"and for the second part of your question considering 'gifts of gold'. I would guess that nothing fulfills that better than your nt Matt 2:11."
First, Matthew 2:11 does not mention silver and jewels. Second, gold was given to Jesus as a gift at his birth. I'm still looking for the verse in the New Testament that describes JESUS (not wiseman) offering gold, silver, & precious stones to his god.
And still witing for you to "check your Tanack for a more clearer description".
theman77777777232 3 months ago
@straygypsy
Yeah dude, are you familiar with the Jewish War 67-73? The armies marched into the Temple and placed images of Caesar inside it and worshiped and revered him inside the Jewish Temple, under the order of Caesar Nero, who considered himself a god.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
This new testament was like a bomb that exploded into a mass blob that has confused mankind into 1000s of different beliefs!
All these beliefs from the nt has done nothing but cause war and bloodshed from its inception. The main character of this nt is called a god (by xtians) and a prophet (by Muslims).
Under this mans name more Jews have been murdered than any other.
These descriptions fit the ID of the false prophet in Daniel.
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
That is BS. More Jews were murdered in Hitler's name than in Jesus' name, and Hitler hated Christianity. Jason has already taken out the nonsense about 28,000 denominations. You go on to repeat your points without addressing either of us.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
By the way, war and bloodshed from its inception? You mean from the time that Christians were systematically persecuted by the Roman state to the time when Theodosius demanded official tolerance for the Jewish people?
GIVE ME A BREAK.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy: You have failed to maintain the focus of the discussion at hand, forcing the discussion within the comments section to spiral downward toward irrelevancy. This can be attributed to two things: 1) Your lack of skill in argumentation, 2) A lack of skill coupled with a lack of substance in argumentation. I would rather you stopped commenting, considering you are doing a disservice to your Jewish brothers by commenting on completely irrelevant things. Forgive me if I have offended you.
dimic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dimic Give me a break...I am debating and answering 4 different people here.
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Just go look through your comments. Who brought up all the crap about Hitler? Who ran away from the manuscript issue? Who ran away from all the issues that the video actually deals with?
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
In Mein Kaumph, Jesus's quotes are all over it (gee what a shock). In fact Hitler believed Jesus would "Smile on his people again" (speaking as the Aryan he was). I will add more quotes from MK later.
The bottom line is this:
If the NT was never written...The Holocaust would have never happened. The Crusades and Inquisitions would have never happened and Mohammad would have never found Islam.
Sounds like the true culprit of what the book of Daniel speaks of NO DOUBT!
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Yes, Hitler attempted to co-opt the Roman Catholic bishops into supporting his cause. But this was not his motivation. It is clear from his private writings that he hated Christianity.
If Moses had never existed, then no Christianity! No Christianity, no Holocaust or Islam! Sounds like the true culprit of what the book of Daniel speaks about NO DOUBT!
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy You don't need to add more quotes from Mein Kampf....its irrelvant
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON I won't quote if it offends you, but YES, Jesus is written all in it!
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
It's not just that MK is offensive. It's that it doesn't matter. We've already agreed that Hitler outwardly tried to co-opt Christians into supporting his evil cause. The question is whether this internally motivated him or not. And his private writings prove that it didn't.
Even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything as to the truth of Christianity. That would be a fallacy, appeal to consquences.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy "If the NT was never written...The Holocaust would have never happened"
Without Christianity history would have taken an entirely different course anyway, probably with completely different empires, nations and borders, and different people living - there are countless possible alternatives. But you do not know either if the Jews would have survived 2000 years without that massive persecution, maybe they would have completely assimilated in a more benign environment.
eltamin1966 4 months ago
If you want to get a really good Tanach that has commentary that Orthodox and Conservative Jews use and is not written in Hebrew but is as close a translation as you can get go to Artscroll and type in "The Jewish Bible for the English Reader". It has commentary and even diagrams and stuff. I would give you the exact link but YT won't let me :(
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
First of all. Your theories are correct-----> ONLY FOR XTIAN TRANSLATIONS!!!!!!
This is why you cannot under any circumstances use any other translation other than any Orthodox Jewish translation (ie Artscroll).
The translations that you use could very well be made to make Spiderman be the Messiah. (Especially your translation of Solomon)
Examples to come (OH AND MANY!). So get ready to sit long hours and study.
Oh and please get yourself a copy of an Artscroll Tanach while your at it.
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
I check Jewish translations too. Yes, I'm aware there are differences in translation between the various texts. There is also a difference in which manuscript tradition they use. This doesn't automatically mean that the Orthodox Jewish one is correct, that would just be begging the question. So, send me the message when you've prepared your examples.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Wrong. When Jewish scribes in Israel handwrite a Torah scroll, if as much as 1 letter is incorrect, the ENTIRE SCROLL is done away with. This practice has been done for centuries. In fact if you as much as compare a Torah scroll written last week and compare it with one written 2500 years ago you will *NOT* find any difference at all.
So when Xtians claim all 10000 of their translations are correct (except of course the Hebrew), its tantamount to comedy...
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Yes, that is the copying method that was used for the Masoretic texts. This method became prominent in the seventh century. You have retroacted this medieval copying method onto all ancient texts. The Masoretic differs in key respects from both the LXX and the DSS. There are also differences within the various Masoretic texts. For example, some Masoretics read "ka'aru" in Psalm 22 while others read "ka'ari."
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
On top of this, most Protestant translations use the Masoretic tradition. I have various Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Orthodox Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible, which variously translate the Masoretic, the LXX, the DSS, and some other texts as well.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian "I have various Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Orthodox Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible, "
You are wrong again.
You have the JPS translation which was promptly rejected by the Orthodox Jews for altering scripture to specifically cater to the Xtian dollar.
The DSS was jaded which is why Jewish scholars believe those scrolls were discreetly buried in caves. Because the scrolls had Hebrew writings on them they could not be destroyed or burned.
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
No, I don't. I use the Stone edition.
The interesting thing is that the DSS texts often correspond with the LXX, which suggests that the variants aren't just in there because of the nature of the copyists. They were probably buried in caves because the Qumran community withdrew itself from the community. They are nonetheless, extremely valuable as ancient texts and the earliest manuscripts of the Tanakh.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
It doesn't matter if you don't like the copyists who made the DSS. Asserting that the copying was bad because they differed with traditional Judaism is (1) begging the question and (2) asserting a point with absolutely zero textual evidence. You asserted that the Masoretic Torah was the same today as it was 2500 years ago. This is an incredibly misleading claim because the first Masoretics we have are centuries after the NT was even written...
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian "Asserting that the copying was bad because they differed with traditional Judaism is (1) begging the question and......"
Wrong yet again.
Asserting that that copying was incorrect because it was different was (and is to this very day) Masoric Law.
My opinion is irrelevant.
But since you believe (and stated previously) that 'a variety of texts' is fine yet you wont read an Artscroll is the whole basis of this debate and why Spiderman could very well be the Messiah.
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
You just rephrased your position. You disregard it because it disagrees with the laws of traditional Judaism. I'm not a traditional Jew. I believe traditional Judaism is false. So why should I disregard a text because it disagrees with a position that I don't agree with in the first place? This is a plainly circular line of argumentation, bro.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
I already told you that I check the Stone edition's translation, not the JPS. The "Artscroll" as I understand it is a translation with commentary. That's fine, but I thought this was just about translation? I'll pick one up if you want.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian You might actually enjoy the Artscoll. It won't change your mind I am sure but it would be a good reference tool for you
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@straygypsy
...nowhere near the bizarre figure of 2,500 years that you asserted. The fact is that the earliest complete texts of the Torah that we have is the DSS, not the Masoretic.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Thats what I used to think but Jewish scholars at the IDA knew the DSS were incorrect somehow which led them to the conclusion as to why they were buried and hidden in discreet caves..
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Okay, so do you actually have any evidence for that position? I don't grant that Orthodox Judaism is true. So unless you can provide evidence for this, I see no reason to believe it.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Which position? That xtianity is false? Anybody can shove scripture in peoples faces but I also consider world events in addition. When you consider the following: The Inquisitions
The Crusades
WWI
WWII (With WWIII well on its way)
The Holocaust
more than 28,000 warring divisions and cults all claiming to be...."The true christian church"
And the NT's greatest creation....ISLAM!
and yet when reading the true scriptures (Daniel) you will see who Jesus really is..
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy Ok....umm I am an Modern Orthodox Jew and I don't see the relevance of bringing up the holocuast etc when talking about this. I agree with you on many things but Kabane is a friend of mine. He is not responsible for the events that have brought terror on our people. I think if we stick to the points....he wants proof Rabbinic Judaism is true and we can't give him proof that he accepts. He states xtianity is true and he can't give us proof we accept. Agree to disagree
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Yes I know and nobody is blaming anybody here for the Holocaust.
But debating on accuracy of scripture can only be effective when displayed along happenings the Tanach prophesied would happen.
Is the holocaust the most evil event in our time? Yes.
Was it prophesised to happen by a man the world would call a god? Yes
Did this man come from a Jewish tribe? Yes
Daniel 11:36-39 and Daniel 7:8, 20-25
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy Then I stand corrected. Your assesment is correct. Apparently I misunderstood your intention in writing that. I am giong to leave this "debate" because I am certainly not adding anything to it....UGH. Sorry!
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@straygypsy
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to say that Jesus caused the Holocaust? Hitler was not of Jewish descent, the idea that he was born illegitimately of a Jew is historical fiction. Nor did the world hail Hitler as a god. Most people other than Germans hated Hitler.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian Actually Hitler's DNA does suggest he was Jewish and apparently knew it from his dealings with William Patrick Hitler, his nephew. He was not born illegitimate to a Jewish father but his own father was. Hitler was not hailed as a diety but he attempted to raise himself to that level in the minds of the Germans. The Austrians loved him or as one reporter said, if Hitler is "raping Austria it appears the Austrians, liked being raped".
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@straygypsy
By the way, your suggestion that Christianity caused the Holocaust is both disgusting and historically inaccurate. Hitler was a German pagan who spoke of his hatred for Christianity in his personal writings. His hatred for the Jewish people arose from nationalism, not Christianity.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian . I think you are both right and wrong. Hitler professed publically to be not be a xtian but he used xtianity to spur on the masses in the acts that they later committed in his name. Hitler was not a xtian. Stalin killed almost as many Jews as Hitler (over many years though) and that was not brought about by xtianty whatsoever. Germany had a long tradition of "Jews are the killers of jesus" so it was not much of a stretch for him to use religion to rally the masses
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian I think if you study the Jane Elliot Riceville Iowa studies you will find that anyone of any fath and any race, when given no controls and allowed to do whatever they want to another group of people, will often respond the way the nazi's did (maybe to a lesser degree but they had direct orders to kill so that made the difference). Kapos, Jewish prisoners in charge of other Jews, in the camps were some of the most vicious. Jane Elliots research findings explain it all
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@straygypsy How did xtianity creat islam? Also....saying these events disprove xtianity is wrong. That is like saying because we spawned Bernie Madoff, Monica Lewinksy, Bugsy Seigel or the others that Judaism is wrong. I don't believe in xtianity but I think we need to discuss honestly. How can we dialogue with others if we don't. Yes, I have used that same argument but in reality, its not PROOF xtianity is wrong
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON Ask any Muslim. They will tell you themselves that if it weren't for the NT then there would be no Islam. This book has caused the most confusion and caused the most destruction among mankind beyond defintion...
Like I said...I like to show world events along with scripture to show my case...
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
That's simply not true. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but that the New Testament is by and large a misrepresentation of His teachings. Muhammad didn't even read the New Testament. This is widely acknowledged by scholars.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Muslims claim to have four holy books. The Torah (which they say has been corrupted), the Scrolls of Abraham (which they say have been lost), the Injil (which they say is a lost book written by Jesus) and the Quran (which they say is the only pure holy book left.) I've studied Islam. You have no idea what you are talking about here. The NT isn't revered in any official sense.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
Also, I believe some muslims accept the hadiths/sunnahs, right?
;-)
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@theman77777777232
They may accept some as authentic, but not as scriptural. If they accept a particular hadith as authentic, they regard it as authoritative by virtue of being spoken by Muhammad, rather than on its authority as a holy book.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
"This book (New Testament) has caused the most confusion and caused the most destruction among mankind beyond defintion"
lol. Is that right? Is that why the New Testament is responsible for the vAST MAJORITY of homeless shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, and charities that exist today? lol
"Ask any Muslim. They will tell you themselves that if it weren't for the NT then there would be no Islam."
Like Kabane said, Muhammad never had access to a New Testament, genius.
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@theman77777777232 "Like Kabane said, Muhammad never had access to a New Testament, genius."
He sure knew about Jesus.........genius.
And by the way, what is your point about soup kitchens, charities, hospitals..etc? Every religion on earth has its own charities, soup kitchens and hospitals. Even the Freemasons have hospitals.
Your point?
straygypsy 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Yeah, and he also knew about Moses and the Prophets and claimed to believe in all of the Jewish prophets as well. You asserted that the New Testament was the cause of Islam. You have now been proven wrong and are trying to move the goalpost. Unfortunately, if you try to cause guilt by association on the grounds that he claimed to believe in Jesus, Judaism also gets associated with Muhammad because he claimed to believe in Moses.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
Furthermore, study history. The practice of having religious hospitals and charities began with Christianity and did not exist in the pagan religions of the world. After this practice became widespread in Christianity, other religions began imitating it. The point is that it was the ideal of the New Testament that inspired this great zeal for charity. "Love one another." "Salvation is of the Jews." "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." These are all NT quotations.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian -I think the Sri Lankans had hospital or the percursor thereof, around 450 BCE and I think the ancient Romans had charity hospitals called Asclepieions which were kind of the same thing and date from about 350 BCE. The kingdom in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan had them under King Ashoka in 250 BCE but the Council of Nicea did indicate a charity hosptial was to be built in every town I believe. I could be wrong about that but I think that is the case.
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
hmm. That may be true. The fact remains that Christianity made it a very widespread practice and made it normative. It also emphasized the equality of all men before God, which was definitely not a part of paganism.
KabaneTheChristian 4 months ago
@straygypsy
"He sure knew about Jesus.........genius."
lol. From gnostic texts. lol. He had no acces to the New Testament. You have no idea how ridiculous you look.
"And by the way, what is your point about soup kitchens, charities, hospitals..etc? "
Umm, well, since most of them that exist are Christian, it doesn't fit with your statement... "caused the most confusion and caused the most destruction among mankind beyond defintion" hmmmm
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@theman77777777232 You didn't answer my question......
Did Mohammad know about Jesus? A simple yes or no will do just fine.......
I
straygypsy 4 months ago