Question for Christians on Morality

Caroljeen

Well-known member
No I haven't read it.
His books have nothing to say on Jesus' lineage.
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.
How did you take that leap from Paul doesn't say anything about a virgin birth to the virgin birth is a lie? Paul had met Jesus' brother by the same mother, James in Jerusalem. Acts 15:13-20 He had plenty of opportunity to hear the stories of Jesus' birth and early life, etc. You are speculating.

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.
Why would they keep Paul's name in the Talmud? The council was trying to kill him. Have you not read the book of the Acts of the apostles?

He was a legend in his own mind.
Paul was simply stating his lineage and education in response to those who were bothering the church.
Why would such educated Jew as Paul (also called Saul before his conversion) not bring up the same point which you use to claim that everything hinges on Jesus' male lineage? Paul worked with the Jewish council to destroy Christians before his conversion.

Acts 8:3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and he would drag away men and women and put them in prison...
Acts 9: 9 Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them in shackles to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,

Acts 26:4-5 So then, all Jews know my way of life since my youth, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and in Jerusalem, 5 since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.

Paul wasn't a legend in his own mind. He was stating his credentials against Jews who were going around to Christians and teaching wrong doctrine.
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.
I'm siding with Paul.
Great! So no virgin birth occurred
This is something you assert definitely not something Paul nor any of the NT authors would agree to.
and Jesus inherited original sin from both parents according to Christian theology.
Original sin- do Jews believe in that doctrine? I don't.

Would you rather be called an Hebrew? I
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Where did I say anything about anything in Tanakh? Quote me.
I'm revisiting this remark again. The problem for your view that Jesus is High Priest is that there is zero mention of a prophecy concerning Messiah being a High Priest.

Jesus himself mentions in Luke 24:44 that he fulfilled everything said of him in the law, prophets, and Psalms.

Where is the evidence for him being a High Priest as alleged in the book of Hebrews?
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
His books have nothing to say on Jesus' lineage.
Probably because it's a hard thing to defend given the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

How did you take that leap from Paul doesn't say anything about a virgin birth to the virgin birth is a lie?
He doesn't mention the virgin. That's a fact. If Jesus was born under the law, then virgin births aren't covered because they don't occur.

Paul had met Jesus' brother by the same mother, James in Jerusalem. Acts 15:13-20 He had plenty of opportunity to hear the stories of Jesus' birth and early life, etc. You are speculating.
Acts was written after Paul's epistles too. Something that important would have been mentioned by Paul with it being the first Christian book.

Why would they keep Paul's name in the Talmud?
Because the great students are mentioned along with their students. Saul isn't recorded as one.

The council was trying to kill him. Have you not read the book of the Acts of the apostles?
Yep, and Saul/Paul worked for the Sadducees and persecuted the way. Then Paul turned on them.

Paul was simply stating his lineage and education in response to those who were bothering the church.
Paul was boasting to try and rip the Jerusalem Church from James. Paul wasn't learned at all, and was caught teaching and abrogating the law.

Why would such educated Jew as Paul (also called Saul before his conversion) not bring up the same point which you use to claim that everything hinges on Jesus' male lineage?
Because this is already known by educated Jews, which Paul try to convert everywhere he went.

Paul worked with the Jewish council to destroy Christians before his conversion.
Yep, the Sadducees. The leader of the Pharisees was Gamaliel, tolerant of the Nazarenes so it's doubtful the gospels are honest of what is really going on.

Acts 8:3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and he would drag away men and women and put them in prison...
Acts 9: 9 Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them in shackles to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
Yep, that's what said.

Acts 26:4-5 So then, all Jews know my way of life since my youth, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and in Jerusalem, 5 since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.
And yet he persecuted people regarding Messiah and the messianic kingdom? Highly doubtful as this is one of the points Pharisees stressed along with the resurrection.

Paul wasn't a legend in his own mind. He was stating his credentials against Jews who were going around to Christians and teaching wrong doctrine.
He faked it all.

I'm siding with Paul.
On what? Non-virgin birth?

This is something you assert definitely not something Paul nor any of the NT authors would agree to.
Leviticus 12:1-8 supports my view. Isaiah 7:14 doesn't support a virgin birth either.

Original sin- do Jews believe in that doctrine? I don't.
I don't believe it. Since you don't believe in original sin then there is zero benefit to a virgin birth.
 

stiggy wiggy

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

Where did I claim Jesus' High Priesthood could be substantiated in the OT? Show me where I said that. And when you fail, drop and give me 20. For that matter I can't "substantiate" in the OT that Jesus walked on water or that James and John were brothers..

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

And don't forget my Gideon Bible and Pink Floyd album, as long as you're now confined to merely itemizing things I've mentioned in the past.

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

Not that close. I'm in Georgia. Fido Reed hales from Wyoming.

I never got into Nat and Tina Turner.

She left Ike for Nat with a time machine? I guess she loved him more, but what's love got to do with it, right? Rotrl (Rolling on the river, laughing)

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

Correct. I love dogs almost as much as cats.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I'm revisiting this remark again.

Revisiting? Did you call ahead?

The problem for your view that Jesus is High Priest is that there is zero mention of a prophecy concerning Messiah being a High Priest.

Why is that a problem? There's also zero mention of Him converting water into wine. If the NT were only to duplicate the OT, why the need of the NT?

Jesus himself mentions in Luke 24:44 that he fulfilled everything said of him in the law, prophets, and Psalms.

AMEN!

Where is the evidence for him being a High Priest as alleged in the book of Hebrews?

The Book of Hebrews.
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
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.
No it's just that the Gospels claim to give us the words of Jesus.
Paul gives us the words of Paul.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Where did I claim Jesus' High Priesthood could be substantiated in the OT? Show me where I said that. And when you fail, drop and give me 20.
I never said you did. I guess you can't read well But since you can't support the claims of the book of Hebrews concerning Jesus' supposed priesthood via actual prophecy or statements in Tanakh, or as you better understand it, the old testament, the text of Hebrews is discredited.

For that matter I can't "substantiate" in the OT that Jesus walked on water or that James and John were brothers..
True. Nothing in Tanakh claims Messiah had to do this miracle.

And don't forget my Gideon Bible and Pink Floyd album, as long as you're now confined to merely itemizing things I've mentioned in the past.
Sure. Knock yourself out.

Not that close. I'm in Georgia. Fido Reed hales from Wyoming.
Aaaah. I'm sure the 3 of you will connect soon enough.

She left Ike for Nat with a time machine? I guess she loved him more, but what's love got to do with it, right? Rotrl (Rolling on the river, laughing)
I'm sure.

Correct. I love dogs almost as much as cats.
And the Reed Brothers as well. You all look pretty in pink 💗.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Revisiting? Did you call ahead?
Lame jokes.

Why is that a problem? There's also zero mention of Him converting water into wine.
Right. So none of his supposed miracles were any special. Claims of High Priesthood are easily disproven.

If the NT were only to duplicate the OT, why the need of the NT?
You're right in that the NT isn't needed. It's superfluous and adds and subtracts from the law, contrary to the law.

Yep, one thing is saying and another is doing. He falls way short. So, where in Jesus' words regarding the Law, Prophets, or Psalms, are the words of Hebrews fulfilled regarding his High Priesthood?

You don't seem to be as knowledgeable as you boasted about previously. What happened? Cat got your to tongue? Rotfl...

The Book of Hebrews.
That's funny. Jesus doesn't mention anything about Hebrews or the NT for that matter. So your proof of anything is null.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I never said you did.

Then why do you repetitively ask me to substantiate something I don't believe, i.e. that the Tanakh mentions Jesuus as a High Priest?

But since you can't support the claims of the book of Hebrews concerning Jesus' supposed priesthood via actual prophecy or statements in Tanakh, or as you better understand it, the old testament, the text of Hebrews is discredited.

How ironic that you talk about discrediting, since your inability to support your boneheaded assertion that the NT teaching of Jesus as High Priest must be substantiated by the OT is ITSELF unsubstantiated and thus discredits you.

True. Nothing in Tanakh claims Messiah had to do this miracle.

EXACTLY!

Sure. Knock yourself out.

Nah, masochism may be your thing, but not mine.

You all look pretty in pink 💗.

Not interested in your homosexual inclinations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you, I'm just not interested.

Right. So none of his supposed miracles were any special.

Heh, You couldn't turn Cherry Kool Aid into Very Cherry Kool Aid, much less water into wine.

Claims of High Priesthood are easily disproven.

Then get off your duff and disprove it, already.

You're right in that the NT isn't needed.

Where did I say it wasn't needed? But you're right to FINALLY admit that Jesus is High Priest.

That's funny. Jesus doesn't mention anything about Hebrews or the NT for that matter.

Nor does He mention that Dover is the capital of Delaware, but that's OK. I got you to finally admit that Jesus is High Priest.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Give me your definition of grace, what do you say it is?
Grace is what my Mum used to make us say before dinner.
Or in this instance I'd say it is God's favour.

Judgement by the law or by grace doesn't appear much of a choice either, but you will choose one, and only one.
I choose neither.

Oh I think your conscience has that covered.
My conscience has nothing to do with God.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Then why do you repetitively ask me to substantiate something I don't believe, i.e. that the Tanakh mentions Jesuus as a High Priest?
Then why do you believe in what can't be substantiated especially when the NT is supposed to be the fulfillment of the OT?

How ironic that you talk about discrediting, since your inability to support your boneheaded assertion that the NT teaching of Jesus as High Priest must be substantiated by the OT is ITSELF unsubstantiated and thus discredits you.
Of course his supposed High Priesthood must be substantiated. There's no reason to bring it up by the NT otherwise just like the rest of the made-up fulfillments he is said to have fulfilled.

Or any other miracles. So much for proof that he's Messiah.

Nah, masochism may be your thing, but not mine.
Based in your posts, you're into it.

Not interested in your homosexual inclinations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you, I'm just not interested.
That's funny considering your fondness with the Rex Brothers and wearing pink. All of which you've admitted to. Your home state of Georgia I'm sure makes you fit just right in to that "community".

Heh, You couldn't turn Cherry Kool Aid into Very Cherry Kool Aid, much less water into wine.
Neither which Jesus did.

Then get off your duff and disprove it, already.
I already have. Melchizedek wasn't a High Priest, and neither was Jesus from the Levitical Priesthood. So, he has zero claim in either case.

Where did I say it wasn't needed? But you're right to FINALLY admit that Jesus is High Priest.
The NT serves zero purpose, it fulfills nothing. No admission on my part of Jesus being a High Priest, let alone Messiah or the God.

Nor does He mention that Dover is the capital of Delaware, but that's OK. I got you to finally admit that Jesus is High Priest.
Satanist have a High Priest too, but that proves nothing. I think your confused with what you wish for in Hebrews regarding Jesus, reality, and what I believe or said.

BTW, Jesus wouldn't know the capital of most places as he admits he ain't omniscient. He's quite stationary in the grave too.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Then why do you believe in what can't be substantiated especially when the NT is supposed to be the fulfillment of the OT?

Why do YOU believe in what can't be substantiated, especially your mere assertion that all things in the NT must be substantiated in the OT?

Of course his supposed High Priesthood must be substantiated.

And it is. See Hebrews.

There's no reason to bring it up by the NT
......

Other than the fact that it occurred.

That's funny considering your fondness with the Rex Brothers

You hate dogs as well as cats?

and wearing pink. All of which you've admitted to.

Correct. I'm currently wearing this:

"https://i.etsystatic.com/19660208/r/il/c1421e/2178847356/il_794xN.2178847356_nl73.jpg"

Melchizedek wasn't a High Priest, .......

And yet he was. See Hebrews.

The NT serves zero purpose,

You serve zero purpose.

............... it fulfills nothing.

You serve zero purpose.

No admission on my part of Jesus being a High Priest,

Correct. Just like no admission on my part that the NT wasn't needed.

Satanist have a High Priest too, but that proves nothing.

Wrong. It proves Satanists have high priests.

Jesus wouldn't know the capital of most places as he admits he ain't omniscient.

Partial credit for you on this one. On earth He wasn't. In Heaven He is.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
I never said you did. I guess you can't read well But since you can't support the claims of the book of Hebrews concerning Jesus' supposed priesthood
The fact it bounces off your head does not mean it is not supported. There are plenty of things you cannot support and one would be why a solo God speaks. Or why we should be relational which would be contradictory to the character of a solo god. Other than because God said so,
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Why do YOU believe in what can't be substantiated, especially your mere assertion that all things in the NT must be substantiated in the OT?
I don't believe the book of Hebrews, nor the NT, nor any ideology concerning Jesus. The whole point of the NT is the supposed completion of the law in Jesus, which never happened.

Can you show where Melchizedek was a High Priest in Hebrews 7, Gen 14?

Partial credit for you on this one. On earth He wasn't. In Heaven He is.
He's still in the same body with the same brain. Not much has changed but being in the grave...
 
Last edited:

Harry Leggs

Super Member
I don't believe the book of Hebrews, nor the NT, nor any ideology concerning Jesus.
You can believe what you want. It is not evidence of anything except perhaps a fixed bias. Christian truth claims are based on bodily resurrection of Jesus. That is it. That proves Jesus as Messiah. All the other things you argue about is really incidental relative to resurrection.

 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
The fact it bounces off your head does not mean it is not supported. There are plenty of things you cannot support and one would be why a solo God speaks. Or why we should be relational which would be contradictory to the character of a solo god. Other than because God said so,
So maybe you can answer. What support is there for Jesus being a supposed High Priest in the order of Melchizedek when neither Gen 14 nor Hebrews 7 speak of the High Priesthood belonging to Melchizedek in the first place? Where is it prophesied that messiah would be a High Priest? Psalm 110 doesn't mention a High Priesthood either.

BTW, the premise that Levitical Priesthood has gone away is false as well as Jeremiah 33:17-26 speaks of it with the Davidical King, as well as Ezekiel 37-45, Zech 12:13, etc.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You can believe what you want. It is not evidence of anything except perhaps a fixed bias. Christian truth claims are based on bodily resurrection of Jesus. That is it. That proves Jesus as Messiah. All the other things you argue about is really incidental relative to resurrection.
And yet there is really no proof Jesus was resurrected. Have you read about Talpiot and his family tomb?
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
So maybe you can answer.
I did answer and it bounced off your head and any of your other of your concerns can easily be obtained on any Christian apologetics website. I am not going to waste time since you would not reciprocate with your false beliefs of a solo God as opposed to the Christian concept of relational God. Solo God by definition nonrelational.
 
Top