Question for Christians on Morality

[stiggy wiggy]

Please show me your support for the High Priesthood for Jesus in Tanakh.

Why would I need to support something I never claimed, Burgundy Boy? Please show me your support for the theory of relativity in Hamlet.

This isn't a movie review.

Really? Then what is it about you that reminds me of Rex Reed?

I've haven't been desperate enough to stay in one.

You've haven't? Getting a little flustered, Burgy?

Who said the NT is scriptural?

Who sad scripture is scriptural, you ask. Who said cream is creamy? Who said fruit is fruity? Who said stupidity is stupid?

It doesn't replace anything as the Torah specifically calls out not to add or subtract from it,

........... He says as he SUBTRACTS the entire NT from scripture.

So, what shade of pink do you wear?

Oh, you mean my plastic cancer awareness bracelet? Basic pink. What about your undies, Rex? I'm guessing blushing pink.

Do you find yourself coughing up phlegm on your keyboard when you constantly read aloud the word "Tanakh?"

 

[Tiburon]

No, careful, Matthew is no more written by Jesus than Hebrews is. You made it sound like one was of Jesus and the other wasnt.

Just a point on this, many of the epistles by Paul were probably written before the synoptic gospels and Acts by Luke which endorses the synoptic gospels and the epistles.
The liberal concept of Paul and Jesus is unfounded and I suspect stems from lgbt objections.

Jesus does teach to people to follow the law and to follow Him as a fulfillment of the law so one needs to also read that He doesnt abolish the law but fulfills it. Therefore I assume that He is reminding people if they want to follow the law they need to follow it perfectly.

I never said that Matthew was written by Jesus. Sorry if I gave that impression. Matthew does claim to be the words of Jesus where as Hebrews is anyone's guess.
I'd say that all the authentic Pauline epistles where written first.
I'd suggest the liberal concept of Paul and Jesus predates any lgbt objections.

 

[Tiburon]

I have no idea.

But you accept it as gospel?

 

[Tiburon]

Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28. By the way, I appreciate how you've given me the opportunity with these questions to educate you and to help dispel some of your ignorance.

I'm more than happy to let people make their case. Neither of your verses suggest that the Law is no longer to be followed.

Against God's will for us, expressed many years ago to the Jews through the Law and to us through the law of our conscience. Romans 2:14-16.

If "the requirements of the law are written on their heart" why bother putting them in stone.
Did this only apply to the gentiles? Did the Hebrews need to have it written down?

The world, the flesh and the devil.

And how are we to recognise that we are sinners without the Law?

 

[Tiburon]

Well that's stupid.

What is stupid?
That Christians choose 'Grace' because it's simple and easy?

Atheists choose death, they are afraid God is alive.

There isn't a choice. We all die.
Atheists just accept that we have no evidence of anything beyond death.
I don't know why we would be afraid God is alive.
We might be afraid of the vengeful Biblical God but there are plenty of others to choose from.
All with equal evidence.

 

[BMS]

I never said that Matthew was written by Jesus. Sorry if I gave that impression. Matthew does claim to be the words of Jesus where as Hebrews is anyone's guess.
I'd say that all the authentic Pauline epistles where written first.
I'd suggest the liberal concept of Paul and Jesus predates any lgbt objections.

Apologies, its just that when someone says Paul wasn't Jesus it implies the the gospels are true and the epistles aren't as though Jesus wrote the gospels and Paul isn't Jesus.

 

[BMS]

But, the Torah doesn't say that divorce is allowed because of the hardness of the heart. So, Jesus added to the law.

We believe Jesus fulfilled the law, as He said.

God is neither a man nor woman.

But rather man and woman are in the image of God. The point however is that God created man to be united with woman

And yet there are times divorce is allowed by God contrary to Jesus' teaching.

Correct, but that isn't in line with the creation in Genesis.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Why would I need to support something I never claimed, Burgundy Boy? Please show me your support for the theory of relativity in Hamlet.

Rotfl... you claimed you believe the writer of Hebrews even though those claims aren't substantiated. How ironic 😒.

Really? Then what is it about you that reminds me of Rex Reed?

Another one of your fantasies. First the pink panties and now your with Rex and waffles at a Motel 6. I guess his your king and high priest to.

You've haven't? Getting a little flustered, Burgy?

Rotfl... funny how you talk about your favorite places and foods.

Who sad scripture is scriptural, you ask. Who said cream is creamy? Who said fruit is fruity? Who said stupidity is stupid?

You did.

........... He says as he SUBTRACTS the entire NT from scripture.

The null testament isn't scripture. Just false additions.

Oh, you mean my plastic cancer awareness bracelet? Basic pink. What about your undies, Rex? I'm guessing blushing pink.

Rotfl... playing the sympathy card? Oh you're feelings must be hurt.

Do you find yourself coughing up phlegm on your keyboard when you constantly read aloud the word "Tanakh?"

Rotfl... seek some medical attention, followed by spiritual. I didn't know you were so fragile.

 

[Jewjitzu]

We believe Jesus fulfilled the law, as He said.

And yet he didn't.

But rather man and woman are in the image of God.

Yep, not that God is either.

The point however is that God created man to be united with woman

Ok.

Correct, but that isn't in line with the creation in Genesis.

Creation doesn't talk about a lot of things.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

But you accept it as gospel?

Yes.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Neither of your verses suggest that the Law is no longer to be followed.

No one said they did. They show that His sacrifice fulfilled the Law by paying the ransom.

If "the requirements of the law are written on their heart" why bother putting them in stone.

We repress what is in our hearts.

Did this only apply to the gentiles?

To everyone.

Did the Hebrews need to have it written down?

Yes.

And how are we to recognise that we are sinners without the Law?

With great difficulty. We numb our consciences.

 

[BMS]

And yet he didn't.

According to you, but according to His testimony, which we believe, He did.

Yep, not that God is either.

Never said he was either, I just pointed out the Genesis account which is part of the Torah

Creation doesn't talk about a lot of things.

But I am interested in what it does talk about, and seeing as you referred to it and so does Jesus, its topical

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Rotfl...

Should we call Life Alert?

you claimed you believe the writer of Hebrews

Correct.

even though those claims aren't substantiated.

By whom? YOU? Correct.

First the pink panties

Good. You SHOULD put them on first. And THEN your pants.

and now your with Rex and waffles at a Motel 6.

Shhhhh. Don't tell the desk clerk. They don't allow dogs.

The null testament isn't scripture.

Correct. By definition it wouldn't be.

Oh you're feelings must be hurt.

Jewjtzu wanna cracker? SQUAWK!

Rotfl...

Your cage has a floor, squawker? Don't you mean Rotfs, squawker?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Should we call Life Alert?

If it's one of the bracelets you wear.

By whom? YOU? Correct.

Why don't you substantiate your claim since Jesus supposedly fulfilled this in Tanakh? But, you can't which is why you've been on a rant for a while.

Good. You SHOULD put them on first. And THEN your pants.

They belong to you and your "Rex". You've admitted to wearing pink

Shhhhh. Don't tell the desk clerk. They don't allow dogs.

Great. You admit to being there with "Rex". You're making progress.

Correct. By definition it wouldn't be.

So why do you accept the NT, null testament?

Jewjtzu wanna cracker? SQUAWK!

Rotfl... Another bracelet you wear?

Your cage has a floor, squawker? Don't you mean Rotfs, squawker?

Must be what your pet repeats to you. I bet its bracelets match yours and "Rex".

 

[Jewjitzu]

According to you, but according to His testimony, which we believe, He did.

But the law says nowhere that someone else keeps it for you. Jesus and the NT missed the boat here.

BTW, you do know the implications of fulfilling the law with the sacrifices, temple donations, contact with the dead, etc.,? The person admits to being a sinner either intentionally or not.

Never said he was either, I just pointed out the Genesis account which is part of the Torah.

Ok.

But I am interested in what it does talk about, and seeing as you referred to it and so does Jesus, its topical

Ok, but you understand that the law itself doesn't say divorce is a sin?

 

[Furion]

What is stupid?
That Christians choose 'Grace' because it's simple and easy?

Give me your definition of grace, what do you say it is?

There isn't a choice. We all die.

Judgement by the law or by grace doesn't appear much of a choice either, but you will choose one, and only one.

I don't know why we would be afraid God is alive.

Oh I think your conscience has that covered.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Why don't you substantiate your claim since Jesus supposedly fulfilled this in Tanakh?

Where did I say anything about anything in Tanakh? Quote me.

They belong to you and your "Rex". You've admitted to wearing pink

You must be talking about me wearing my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon T-shirt. What's that have to do with Tanakh? Go make me a gin and Tanakh.

Great. You admit to being there with "Rex".

Correct. And his brother Fido.

So why do you accept the NT,

So you DON'T accept Nat Turner? Are you pro-slavery?

Rotfl

Why do you keep rolling over that fat lady?

 

[Caroljeen]

Yep, so we have here a discussion on inheritance of land as it pertains to the tribes.

Prior to this point, the land inheritance would go to the males, based on their tribes.

In this case, only females were able to inherit from their father. So that the overall tribal land inheritance wouldn't pass to another, a law was added to require Tzelophehad's daughters to marry within their own father's tribe so as not to avoid land loss.

This is one proof that male tribal lineage is determined by the males as well as their inheritance.

Ok, that's what I thought. Have you ever read or heard of the book series "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" by Michael L. Brown? If you have, what do you think of it?

But Paul asserts that Jesus does have a male tribal lineage:

Romans 1: 1-4 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

This Paul who is no stranger to Judaism and it's law.

2 Cor 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I.
Phil 3:4-6 ...although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
Acts 22:3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] , educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the Law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

Why should I believe you over Paul when it comes to Jesus' lineage?

Luke 3:23-31 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years old, being, as was commonly held, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of [n]Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, ...

 

[Jewjitzu]

Where did I say anything about anything in Tanakh? Quote me.

Why can't you substantiate the supposed High Priesthood of Jesus with Tanakh, or the Old Testament if you prefer?

You must be talking about me wearing my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon T-shirt. What's that have to do with Tanakh? Go make me a gin and Tanakh.

You forget your pink cancer bracelet to go with your gin, Rex, and waffles.

Looks like your still living in the 80s.

Correct. And his brother Fido.

Wow, I didn't know Rex Reed, his brother Fido, and you were that close.

So you DON'T accept Nat Turner? Are you pro-slavery?

I never got into Nat and Tina Turner. Your jokes are become lamer, rolling down the river, washed out.

Why do you keep rolling over that fat lady?

Why do roll around with Rex and Fido? You've actually admitted to it is the funniest part.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Ok, that's what I thought. Have you ever read or heard of the book series "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" by Michael L. Brown? If you have, what do you think of it?

No I haven't read it.

But Paul asserts that Jesus does have a male tribal lineage:

Romans 1: 1-4 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

What's interesting is that Paul mentions nothing of a virgin birth and his epistles were written before the gospels.

This would make the virgin birth a lie. I don't have a problem with a natural birth, though it would destroy Christian theology.

This Paul who is no stranger to Judaism and it's law.

2 Cor 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I.
Phil 3:4-6 ...although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
Acts 22:3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] , educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the Law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

The funny thing is that there is zero mention of Saul as a student of the Nasi Gamaliel in the Talmud nor as an outstanding Pharisee of Pharisees.

He was a legend in his own mind.

Why should I believe you over Paul when it comes to Jesus' lineage?

Then you need to decide if Jesus was born naturally or not. With Paul mentioning that Jesus was born under the law, it's even more doubtful a virgin birth occurred. Mary followed the law in Leviticus 12:1-8, conceived, tazria, via human seed, which should leave no doubt what happened then. You decide.

Keep in mind that the law here in Leviticus doesn't mention virgins bringing sacrifices because there aren't any in this case.

Luke 3:23-31 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years old, being, as was commonly held, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of [n]Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, ...

Great! So no virgin birth occurred and Jesus inherited original sin from both parents according to Christian theology.

You previously had a reference to chabad with regards to matrilineal descent which proves Jewishness like Timothy was, but that doesn't include tribal lineage which is exclusive to the fathers.