Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[Rachel Redux]

Where in any of the things I said did I claim to be Hindu? Like I said, Lies.

You didn't have to claim it. Your words made your polytheism or universalism clear.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Quote it, and show where in it I claim to be Hindu. If you can't, then apologize for lying about me.

If you agree with Taoism, you belive in Hinduism. You should apologize to God.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Did they legalize Marijuana in your state? It might explain a few things ..

No, that would be Georgia. So much for the peaches....

For, it sounds like something a bunch of Hasidic Jews thought up after smoking a joint.

No, that explains your monkey friend.

You are a fool to keep it such a thing a secret... All the Jews are fools to know that and keep it hidden away....... Hidden even from themselves. Communist Russia or China would be broad casting it all over the world. Its a foolish lie.

It's not a secret. Everybody knows humans die. The gospel accounts hide that Jesus was buried twice, which explains the empty tomb. You should really read James Tabor, who's in your camp.

Is that all you have to hold onto?

Nah. I live in reality.

.... and, Mel Brooks would have made a movie about it!

He's working on it with Andrew Lloyd Weber. Its called "Dead men tell no tales". It's more of a musical, Broadway production.

 

[timtams]

He then arrives at the point directly pertinent to your interjection -- which was a welcome one, to be sure -- concerning John the Elder as the author of the fourth (in present canonical order) gospel (218-19). Contrary to Furlong, I don't find Hill's assumption that the fragment reflects the Elder's direct speech unwarranted... it relies on far less speculation than Furlong's own proposal, which involves a conjectured rewording left unstated and the suggestion that Papias' extant comments on Mark were actually offered about all three (so-called) synoptic gospels as they appear in the unattributed fragment by one and the same individual, the Evangelist/Elder. I'm not persuaded by this line of argumentation... it is highly speculative

He argues that both the Evangelist and the Elder discuss the order of the Gospels. Papian tradition says that the three gospels were brought to John, who discussed their omissions etc (their taxis), Papian quotes relate that the Elder discussed the taxis of Matthew and Mark. It sounds reasonable to me, but if I'm missing something, I'd like to hear it.

and begs the question (never answered) of why Eusebius went through so much trouble to reword and suppress both certain elements and the source of the citation when he could leave them it as is, attribute it properly and make another passing comment at Papias' lack of intelligence for confusing the two Johns. It is difficult to opt for a convoluted scenario when a simple one would adequately explain the conjectured evidence.

It's interesting though why we (or at least I) have never really heard about the tradition of the elders/ bishops coming to John in Ephesus and urging him to write a Gospel. Why didn't Eusebius relate that the elders came to John in Ephesus, urging him to write a Gospel? Why does he only allude to the tradition, and only because it was useful for his discussion of the issue of discrepancies in the gospels? What was he trying to hide? The identify of John the Evangelist? Something else? It does seem odd that he didn't relate that tradition in detail.

Furlong resumes the primary thrust of his article, quoting at length from Theodore of Mopsuestia's commentary on John (219-22). He then explores the literary relationship between this and the unattributed fragment in Eusebius, arguing that reliance on a shared source best explains the evidence (222-23). By examining vocabulary shared between Theodore and the attributed Papian fragment in Eusebius, Furlong proposes that he has either expanded on Eusebius or independently utilized a Papian source (223-24). In his conclusion, he returns to the idea that the preceding analysis supports the contention that Papias equated John the Elder with John the Evangelist (225-26). I consider this proposition a secondary and weak element in an otherwise reasonably-argued article. I do think there are other ways the evidence can be interpreted, however, such as Theodore's dependence wholly on Eusebius, replacing the earlier author's focus on contradiction with one of inclusion/exclusion of material and deploying consciously or unconsciously Papian vocabulary as he found it in the thematically-related sections of Eusebius. Indeed, if one does not assume Papias knows John (as Furlong does and I do not), this becomes a reasonable alternative that also explains the evidence.

I thought it made a strong case that Theodore wasn't dependent on Eusebius as Theodore has the Papian elements that are lacking in Eusebius's account.

Thanks for sharing the article and I welcome any comments/criticisms you may have of my summary/evaluation in light of your own reading of the article and the pertinent primary texts...

I'm glad you found it useful, even if not totally persuasive.

 

[Open Heart]

You didn't have to claim it. Your words made your polytheism or universalism clear.

You need apologize for your like calling me a Hindu.

 

[Open Heart]

If you agree with Taoism, you belive in Hinduism. You should apologize to God.

Taoism isn't related at all to Hinduism. But since you have sheltered yourself, you know no better. You condemn things you know nothing about and make horrible mistakes about basic knowledge.

 

[GeneZ]

No, that would be Georgia. So much for the peaches....


No, that explains your monkey friend.


It's not a secret. Everybody knows humans die. The gospel accounts hide that Jesus was buried twice, which explains the empty tomb. You should really read James Tabor, who's in your camp.


Nah. I live in reality.


He's working on it with Andrew Lloyd Weber. Its called "Dead men tell no tales". It's more of a musical, Broadway production.

Good bye.... You offer only emptiness.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Good bye.... You offer only emptiness.

You offer vegetables... not real meat.

 

[En Hakkore]

He argues that both the Evangelist and the Elder discuss the order of the Gospels. Papian tradition says that the three gospels were brought to John, who discussed their omissions etc (their taxis), Papian quotes relate that the Elder discussed the taxis of Matthew and Mark. It sounds reasonable to me, but if I'm missing something, I'd like to hear it.

Sure. The portion I've highlighted in your post through bold underline is not in evidence, but is Furlong's conjecture. The direct evidence to which you refer is twofold: (1) the Evangelist discusses the order of three gospels (Theodore) and (2) the Elder discusses the order of Matthew and Mark (Papias c/o Eusebius). Furlong argues that Theodore did not utilize Eusebius and therefore must have been reliant directly upon Papian tradition; Furlong then equates the discussion of order in and the speaking subjects of both accounts in the conjectured original form of Papian tradition. Is this reconstruction possible? I suppose, but it relies on too much speculation to dissuade me from a far simpler solution: Theodore utilized Eusebius and reworked the pertinent material (the Papian and the unattributed) to his own apologetic ends. I am not persuaded by Furlong's argument for Theodore's non-use of Eusebius... if Furlong can rightly recognize where Eusebius intrudes upon his source and then resumes, so could Theodore and pass over it. Furlong is not alone in ascribing far too mechanistic a method to ancient writers and their sources, it is a widespread practice in scholarship... I understand trying to be cautious not to posit a literary connection where there may not be one, but to strip authors of almost any creative engagement with their sources leads to its own problems and at times, as I suggest here, to overlook a simpler and perfectly viable solution.

It's interesting though why we (or at least I) have never really heard about the tradition of the elders/ bishops coming to John in Ephesus and urging him to write a Gospel. Why didn't Eusebius relate that the elders came to John in Ephesus, urging him to write a Gospel? Why does he only allude to the tradition, and only because it was useful for his discussion of the issue of discrepancies in the gospels? What was he trying to hide? The identify of John the Evangelist? Something else? It does seem odd that he didn't relate that tradition in detail.

These questions legitimately arise if one embraces Furlong's suggestion... not otherwise. Speculation upon speculation leads to question upon question, which prompts more speculation to answer... at some point Occam's razor needs to be applied.

I thought it made a strong case that Theodore wasn't dependent on Eusebius as Theodore has the Papian elements that are lacking in Eusebius's account.

To what Papian elements do you refer that are not also found in Eusebius? Whether we are talking about the attributed or the (ostensibly) non-attributed fragments, our access to them is through Eusebius... I'm arguing nothing more than Theodore is similarly reliant. Furlong himself acknowledges this possibility before he provides four reasons why he doesn't think so (222), none of which I find compelling as they deny to Theodore the ability to critically engage with and rework Eusebius. In order, they are the ideas that (1) Theodore cannot recognize and omit Eusebius' parenthesis, (2) he cannot supply his own subject to a passive voice clause without some source to inform him, (3) he cannot make a simple deduction from reading the gospels in light of a tradition that the disciple John was the author of the gospel so attributed, and (4) cannot develop the concept of ταξις without a source to guide him. I consider Theodore capable of all four.

I'm glad you found it useful, even if not totally persuasive.

If you don't mind my asking, what is your relationship to academia? It is rare to find someone here who both cites and engages with scholarly work... it is a breath of fresh air. Not looking for specifics since I don't share such things either, just in general, and if you're a layperson familiar with academic resources that's cool, too. In case you haven't seen it in the other thread on this forum, I hold graduate-level degrees in theological and biblical studies and am a researcher currently affiliated with a mainstream multidenominational Christian theological seminary committed to interfaith dialogue and the peaceful coexistence of all people, religious and secular. I look forward to other fruitful and scholarly discussions...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Newbirth]

I never said she was a blood relative. But, she is an Israelite by virtue of having a kinsman redeemer.

Since she is not a blood relative then she is not an Israelite... that is very simple... kinsman redeemer cannot make one a blood relative...

Yes, they are part of the people. Just like America is not limited to one race.

Part of the people/ native does not make you one of the natives...if Europeans have children in China are they Chinese?

Read up on brit.

There is no explanation for your nonsense sir... Israelites are the children of Israel... not the children of Moab...

Yes, Israel is one nation made up of twelve nations. Genesis 35:1 proves this.

Of which Moab is not one

Gentile is the word goy or goyim in Hebrew, and used for a non-Jew or a Jew, or a nation.

That would make you a gentile...so much for your common sense.. you are saying that Jews are Gentiles non Jews are Gentiles and nations are Gentiles... Tell me who are not Gentiles...

And you're supporting mine that the gentiles don't have a covenant with God.

Remember you are claiming that Jews are Gentiles... therefore don't have a covenant with God... notice your double speak.

Yes, Israel is a nation of nations. Anything else?

That means Israel is a single nation made up of 12 (sons) nations directly related by blood being sons of Israel.

This verse doesn't speak of messiah after his death. Why are you changing context?

I am. You should too.


Yep.


Yep.


Yes, the nations of Israel seek after messiah. The rest is gravy.


Israel is a nation of nations, and gentiles come from different nations.

I give up about you. You show no signs of being able to reason.

God looked at his creation and said, "It is good." Western worldview doesn't see creation as good, but only as "good for us to use." It needs an overhaul. That overhaul begins with understanding that we are the Gardeners of the world, that we have responsibilities, that creation is wondrous all by itself apart from us.

Nothing to do with the discussion... Ruth is not an Israelite she is a Moabitess woman.... deal with it

 

[Jewjitzu]

Since she is not a blood relative then she is not an Israelite... that is very simple... kinsman redeemer cannot make one a blood relative...

It makes them family and adopted into Israel.

Part of the people/ native does not make you one of the natives...if Europeans have children in China are they Chinese?

I never said converts are biological Israelites, but they are adopted Israelites.

There is no explanation for your nonsense sir... Israelites are the children of Israel... not the children of Moab...

See above.

Of which Moab is not one.

See above.

That would make you a gentile...so much for your common sense.. you are saying that Jews are Gentiles non Jews are Gentiles and nations are Gentiles... Tell me who are not Gentiles...

Not in the sense you're thinking, but a people or nation. Nations can be Israel or otherwise. Learn the difference.

Remember you are claiming that Jews are Gentiles... therefore don't have a covenant with God... notice your double speak.

No silly. In the Hebrew, goy or goyim doesn't have the same connotation as gentile alone. So learn the difference.

That means Israel is a single nation made up of 12 (sons) nations directly related by blood being sons of Israel.

Yes, a nation of natives and adopted citizens.

Nothing to do with the discussion... Ruth is not an Israelite she is a Moabitess woman.... deal with it

She is an a non native Israelite.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Taoism isn't related at all to Hinduism. But since you have sheltered yourself, you know no better. You condemn things you know nothing about and make horrible mistakes about basic knowledge.

So let me see if I have this right.
You aren't upset that I called you out on your apparent infatuation with yet another religion, but that I compared Taoism to Hinduism. They are similar...anyone can research it.

You claim to respect all religions. This was the mistake Solomon made when he allowed his wives to bring their foreign gods in. It led to the eventual downfall of the kingdom.

Yes, I do condemn it. All religions that are not of God are anathema. I'm just calling you on the junk you're putting out here on the forum.

 

[Newbirth]

It makes them family and adopted into Israel.

people adopt dogs...as part of their family...what is your point? Dogs don't become humans and gentiles don't become Israelites...

I never said converts are biological Israelites, but they are adopted Israelites.

that argument would make dogs not biological humans nut adopted humans wouldn't it?

See above.

nothing to see except you believe dogs are adopted humans

See above.

nothing to see except dogs are not humans and Moabites are not Israelites..

Not in the sense you're thinking, but a people or nation. Nations can be Israel or otherwise. Learn the difference.

It is not what I am thinking but what you are saying...Gentile is the word goy or goyim in Hebrew, and used for a non-Jew or a Jew, or a nation.
therefore you are a gentile...you said it not me

No silly. In the Hebrew, goy or goyim doesn't have the same connotation as gentile alone. So learn the difference.

here is your quote..Gentile is the word goy or goyim in Hebrew, and used for a non-Jew or a Jew, or a nation.... it is also used to represent you/Jew.... so you are a gentile by your own admission...

Yes, a nation of natives and adopted citizens.

Natives would be Israelites and adopted would be Gentiles /non-Israelites.... which is not so hard to understand...

She is an a non native Israelite.

therefore she is a gentile...this is an example of your double speak...a non-native is not a native...therefore a non-native Israelite is not a native Israelite...Which make her a Gentile...

 

[Newbirth]

Show your evidence? Or is she from Zimbabwe? You don't evidence that she's not.

you don't evidence that she is not Israelite...

Look up and down on the response.

It didn't change the outcome

Sure I did.

that is what I said ...you addressed your argument

No it's not. So why can't you understand that some sin infection from daddy is not okay?

that is what I keep telling you ...it is not OK

Great! So we agree that Jesus is infected by Mary from her father and mother. If you disagree, tell me why?

not with the gene to make boys...only Males pass it on to other males.

First off, the NT ain't scripture.

Lol scripture means writings...you just exposed your ignorance...

But if you want, show me specifically where it says God physically fathered Jesus.

I already did in Luke's writings...

Blind people as yourself can't

no one can see what is not there...

And I stand by it. You just don't understand it.

standing by your doublespeak...has nothing to do with my understanding...

Of course God created. After that, man had all of the sperm. There's zero evidence that Mary was impregnated by God.

there is zero evidence that God made Adam from dust...If you are using... There's zero evidence that Mary was impregnated by God..... as an argument then you better throw out your Tanakh.

Tell me how he isn't infected based on biological inheritance from his mother, who inherits portions of the X gene from her father and mother. Explain where Mary gets her X genes from and how Jesus is not impacted by it? Be specific.

simple the Y chromosome is passed only from male father to male son...It in itself is the depiction of the Man...Man creates seed/sperm cells from within himself both X and Y while the woman is born with her eggs only X...

 

[Newbirth]

OK... play that way. I don't need you.

you made the charges...defend them or concede that you are wrong...

 

[Newbirth]

I give up about you. You show no signs of being able to reason.

reason about what...seeing rivers and rocks as my equal?

God looked at his creation and said, "It is good." Western worldview doesn't see creation as good, but only as "good for us to use." It needs an overhaul. That overhaul begins with understanding that we are the Gardeners of the world, that we have responsibilities, that creation is wondrous all by itself apart from us.

I don't see what that has to do with seeing rivers rocks and trees as having souls. What teaching shows that we are responsible for teaching rivers rocks and trees have souls?

 

[GeneZ]

Note:





"Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence,
they still would not believe in him."

John 12:37



So, you are going to convince somebody?


.​

 

[Jewjitzu]

people adopt dogs...as part of their family...what is your point? Dogs don't become humans and gentiles don't become Israelites...

You're conflating nor are we talking about your own experiences.

that argument would make dogs not biological humans nut adopted humans wouldn't it?

No, that's only in your family and friends.

nothing to see except you believe dogs are adopted humans

See above.

nothing to see except dogs are not humans and Moabites are not Israelites..

I was never talking about your dog pack, and Ruth was adopted and part of Israel. Again, Isaiah 56:1-8 clearly shows this.

It is not what I am thinking but what you are saying...Gentile is the word goy or goyim in Hebrew, and used for a non-Jew or a Jew, or a nation.
therefore you are a gentile...you said it not me

Nation or people is also goy in Hebrew. Learn the difference.

here is your quote..Gentile is the word goy or goyim in Hebrew, and used for a non-Jew or a Jew, or a nation.... it is also used to represent you/Jew.... so you are a gentile by your own admission...

No, I am a person in the nation of Israel. You're a person/goy in a non Jewish nation.

Natives would be Israelites and adopted would be Gentiles /non-Israelites.... which is not so hard to understand...

A convert is no longer a member of the non Jewish nation, but adopted into Israel.

therefore she is a gentile...this is an example of your double speak...a non-native is not a native...therefore a non-native Israelite is not a native Israelite...Which make her a Gentile...

She's biologically a Moabite but part of the Jewish nation. No different than different people from different races and nationalities being US citizens.

 

[Jewjitzu]

you don't evidence that she is not Israelite...

You don't evidence she's not from Zimbabwe. It doesn't help your case for Jesus's tribal lineage.

It didn't change the outcome

it does. You're just wilfully ignoring them.

that is what I said ...you addressed your argument

No, I addressed your arguments.

that is what I keep telling you ...it is not OK

So why do you accept it in Jesus inherited from Mary and Adam?

not with the gene to make boys...only Males pass it on to other males.

And the mothers pass their X inherited from both father and mother. Jesus is infected.

Lol scripture means writings...you just exposed your ignorance...

If you want play ignorant, that's fine. Anyone normal would know that means sacred and holy, authoritative.

I already did in Luke's writings...

It doesn't say what you think.

no one can see what is not there...

Which is your defense.

standing by your doublespeak...has nothing to do with my understanding...

No double speak on my part.

there is zero evidence that God made Adam from dust...If you are using... There's zero evidence that Mary was impregnated by God..... as an argument then you better throw out your Tanakh.

The Bible said so, unless you dispute that? Where is the verse that says God impregnates Mary?

simple the Y chromosome is passed only from male father to male son...It in itself is the depiction of the Man...Man creates seed/sperm cells from within himself both X and Y while the woman is born with her eggs only X...

Where does a male get his X from? Where does a female get her X from?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Note:





"Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence,
they still would not believe in him."

John 12:37



So, you are going to convince somebody?


.​

False prophets have signs too.