Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[Open Heart]

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.

Rachel, I am irritated in general with your complete unfamiliarity with other religions, and the ease with which you condemn that which you have never even studied. I am irritated with the constant barrage of errors about other religions, your statement that Taoism is Hinduism is simply the most recent.

What I am offended about is that you called me a Hindu, which was a LIE. You owe me an apology for that.

 

[Open Heart]

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

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?

Why do you think other things having souls makes them your equal, or having to teach them? You have all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. Hence my comment about being unable to reason with you.

 

[timtams]

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.

Hello. We'll have to disagree on this one. I think it's far more likely that Theodore was using an independent Papian source than that he combined Papian terminology into Eusebius's account, and that he combined this with the tradition of the elders/bishops of Ephesus coming to John and imploring him to write a Gospel. That just seems very complex and unlikely to me.

I think Hill ("What Papias said"), Bauckham (Testimony of the Beloved Disciple) and Furlong (Identity of John the Evangelist) document this tradition of the elders/bishops coming to John and urging him to write. If it's in dispute, I can pull some quotes.

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.

What are you identifying as the suggestion? The tradition of the elders/bishops coming to John?

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.

Yes, I think the points are at least all individually suggestive, and collectively quite compelling. At least it seems more likely that Theodore independently drew from Papias than that he introduced Papian language into Eusebius's account, which was then cast into the tradition of the elders coming to John and imploring him to write.

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.

(1) it's possible but it seems a bit unlikely to me.
(2) But we have pre Theodoran sources that speak of the Asian elders/bishops of Asia/John's companions/fellow disciples coming to John and urging him to write, and Theodore identifies them as John's brothers, the Asian faithful. Scholars have already argued (Bauckham, Hill, Harnack, others) that these traditions derive from Papias, so I think it makes sense.
(3) I'm not understanding this point. Forgive me, this discussion is complex!
(4) The article makes the point, the context is Papian, whereas in Eusebius the context is the apparent discrepancies of the Gospels, in which he appears to be answering Origen (Scott Manor, Epiphanius' Alogi, and Furlong, Identity, discuss this). It seems that Eusebius has used Papian material out of the original context, for a separate discussion.

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

I haven't seen anything, but I'm interested to hear of you academic experience. I do hold graduate degrees in biblical studies, but I did not continue to be involved in academia afterward.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Rachel, I am irritated in general with your complete unfamiliarity with other religions, and the ease with which you condemn that which you have never even studied. I am irritated with the constant barrage of errors about other religions, your statement that Taoism is Hinduism is simply the most recent.

What I am offended about is that you called me a Hindu, which was a LIE. You owe me an apology for that.

Deflecting as usual.

Do you know that Taoism has many "gods?"

San-ch’ing | Chinese Religion, Taoism & Immortals

San-ch’ing, (Chinese: “Three Pure Ones”) highest triad of deities in the generalized pantheon of sectarian religious Taoism. First in evidence during the T’ang dynasty, the triad represented a ranking of three deities associated with the three highest heavens (or “pure” realms) in the Taoist

www.britannica.com

San-ch’ing, (Chinese: “Three Pure Ones”) , Pinyin Sanqing, highest triad of deities in the generalized pantheon of sectarian religious Taoism. First in evidence during the T’ang dynasty, the triad represented a ranking of three deities associated with the three highest heavens (or “pure” realms) in the Taoist cosmology. Today the deities are identified as: Yüan-shih t’ien-tsun (Original Beginning Heavenly Worthy), Ling-pao t’ien-tsun (Numinous Jewel Heavenly Worthy; also known as T’ai-shang tao-chün, or Grand Lord of the tao), and Tao-te t’ien-tsun (Tao and Its Power Heavenly Worthy; also known as T’ai-shang Lao-chün, or Grand Lord Lao). In contemporary Taoism, these deities are often invoked during community renewal rituals that are known as chiao.

Sorry if you are "irritated in general."
Actually, I couldn't care less.
I have no desire to become an expert on Taoism or Lakota Spiritualism. A quick Google on the two shows them to be false and paganistic. I feel a responsibility to lurkers to call your malarkey exactly what it is.

 

[Open Heart]

Deflecting as usual.

Do you know that Taoism has many "gods?"

San-ch’ing | Chinese Religion, Taoism & Immortals

San-ch’ing, (Chinese: “Three Pure Ones”) highest triad of deities in the generalized pantheon of sectarian religious Taoism. First in evidence during the T’ang dynasty, the triad represented a ranking of three deities associated with the three highest heavens (or “pure” realms) in the Taoist

www.britannica.com

San-ch’ing, (Chinese: “Three Pure Ones”) , Pinyin Sanqing, highest triad of deities in the generalized pantheon of sectarian religious Taoism. First in evidence during the T’ang dynasty, the triad represented a ranking of three deities associated with the three highest heavens (or “pure” realms) in the Taoist cosmology. Today the deities are identified as: Yüan-shih t’ien-tsun (Original Beginning Heavenly Worthy), Ling-pao t’ien-tsun (Numinous Jewel Heavenly Worthy; also known as T’ai-shang tao-chün, or Grand Lord of the tao), and Tao-te t’ien-tsun (Tao and Its Power Heavenly Worthy; also known as T’ai-shang Lao-chün, or Grand Lord Lao). In contemporary Taoism, these deities are often invoked during community renewal rituals that are known as chiao.

Sorry if you are "irritated in general."
Actually, I couldn't care less.
I have no desire to become an expert on Taoism or Lakota Spiritualism. A quick Google on the two shows them to be false and paganistic. I feel a responsibility to lurkers to call your malarkey exactly what it is.

You are referring to FOLK Taoism, which I reject, due to being polytheistic. I on the other hand am referring to philosophical Taoism, which has only Tao. I did discuss this before, I suppose it was in a post with Newbirth, since you seem unaware.

It's not a matter of becoming an expert on any religion. It's a matter of having the basics of the world religions, so that you don't continually make stupid errors. How hard can it be to buy a book on world religions, that has one chapter on each one?

If you aren't going to bother learning, then at least have the common sense not to say anything about them.

 

[GeneZ]

Rachel, I am irritated in general with your complete unfamiliarity with other religions, and the ease with which you condemn that which you have never even studied. I am irritated with the constant barrage of errors about other religions, your statement that Taoism is Hinduism is simply the most recent.

What I am offended about is that you called me a Hindu, which was a LIE. You owe me an apology for that.

One thing those who have been given the Holy Spirit do know. (which you find offensive)

All religions are of the same source. Just packaged differently. All demonic and deceiving the deceived.

Hindu? Tao? Baked accordingly to different world views and personal tastes. Yet, all cooked up by demons.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against ​

principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness ​

of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly ​

places."​

.

 

[Newbirth]

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

Are you saying that your dogs can become humans? If Moabites can become Israelites then your dogs can become humans

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

So your dogs can become humans? Because you believe Moabites can become Israelites

See above.

nothing has changed You believe that Moabites can become Israelites...therefore dogs can become humans

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 does not matter what you were talking about the same principle applies...If Moabites can become Israelites when adopted then dogs can become humans when adopted

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

which also means gentile... that makes you a gentile....You keep saying the same thing and expecting a different response...

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

You are also a goy in the goyim of Israel. It is applicable to Israel also...That is your claim.

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

We have been over that many times, adoption does not change the makeup of the person a Moabite is still a Moabite...Can you become a Chinese?

She's biologically a Moabite but part of the Jewish nation.

I have been telling you that all along...She is still a Moabite not an Israelite...

No different than different people from different races and nationalities being US citizens.

Don't try to conflate things again...The original citizens of what you call the US live on reservations... let's be clear about that. Unless you are saying the Palestinians living in Israel are Israelites.

 

[Newbirth]

Why do you think other things having souls makes them your equal, or having to teach them?

I don't think that. Taoism thinks that

You have all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. Hence my comment about being unable to reason with you.

They are your conclusions exposed....

 

[Newbirth]

You don't evidence she's not from Zimbabwe.

and you don't evidence that she is...

It doesn't help your case for Jesus's tribal lineage.

It does not help your case against Jesus linaege

it does. You're just wilfully ignoring them.

because they didn't change...

No, I addressed your arguments.

not once...

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

accept what?

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

X is not the issue because it does not have the capacity to make seeds...only Y does

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

Anyone normal would know that the NT is sacred and holy, authoritative.

It doesn't say what you think.

It does exactly and you know it because you are trying to deny it...

Which is your defense.

and the truth...

No double speak on my part.

I called it that and you said that you stand by it...

The Bible said so, unless you dispute that?

where is your proof? you are asking for proof show yours..

Where is the verse that says God impregnates Mary?

I showed you in Luke only a dunce denied what it means

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

X is not the issue X cannot produce seed...

 

[Rachel Redux]

You are referring to FOLK Taoism, which I reject, due to being polytheistic. I on the other hand am referring to philosophical Taoism, which has only Tao. I did discuss this before, I suppose it was in a post with Newbirth, since you seem unaware.

It's not a matter of becoming an expert on any religion. It's a matter of having the basics of the world religions, so that you don't continually make stupid errors. How hard can it be to buy a book on world religions, that has one chapter on each one?

If you aren't going to bother learning, then at least have the common sense not to say anything about them.

Oh, I will absolutely continue to expose your stupid endorsement of false religions. Count on it.

 

[Open Heart]

One thing those who have been given the Holy Spirit do know. (which you find offensive)

All religions are of the same source. Just packaged differently. All demonic and deceiving the deceived.

Hindu? Tao? Baked accordingly to different world views and personal tastes. Yet, all cooked up by demons.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against ​

principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness ​

of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly ​

places."​

.

See, this is one of the reasons I am so glad I am out of Christianity. I don't have to condemn to hell and blame on Satan all of the world's attempts to connect with the Divine. You can keep your exclusionism. I want nothing to do with it.

 

[Open Heart]

I don't think that. Taoism thinks that

Your ignorance of other religions is on par with Rachels -- abysmal.

 

[Open Heart]

Oh, I will absolutely continue to expose your stupid endorsement of false religions. Count on it.

The problem is that you are exposing nothing. You are only spreading untruths and telling lies. I'm still waiting for your apology for calling me a Hindu.

 

[Newbirth]

Your ignorance of other religions is on par with Rachels -- abysmal.

which is it ? are you Jewish or Taoists...because the God of the Jews does not tolerate other Gods in any way or form...and he is not the God Taoism...

 

[Newbirth]

Your ignorance of other religions is on par with Rachels -- abysmal.

Your ignorance of the God you claim to be following is abysmal...

 

[Rachel Redux]

See, this is one of the reasons I am so glad I am out of Christianity. I don't have to condemn to hell and blame on Satan all of the world's attempts to connect with the Divine. You can keep your exclusionism. I want nothing to do with it.

You do no credit to Judaism.

The problem is that you are exposing nothing. You are only spreading untruths and telling lies. I'm still waiting for your apology for calling me a Hindu.

The trail of posts is here for anyone to read who may be interested in what was really said. Maybe you need to re-read them yourself!
You're talking about everything except your approval of false religions.

I'm telling no lies, but you most assuredly are.
Open Heart:
"Undecided about what? I'm not undecided about God -- I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Great Spirit is simply the Lakota name for him. Jews recognize the righteous Gentile."
Lakota do not worship YHVH, the God of Abraham, unless they are Christians. Any Sioux will tell you that.

 

[GeneZ]

See, this is one of the reasons I am so glad I am out of Christianity.

God is not going to change for you.

 

[Newbirth]

You are referring to FOLK Taoism, which I reject, due to being polytheistic. I on the other hand am referring to philosophical Taoism, which has only Tao. I did discuss this before, I suppose it was in a post with Newbirth, since you seem unaware.

It's not a matter of becoming an expert on any religion. It's a matter of having the basics of the world religions, so that you don't continually make stupid errors. How hard can it be to buy a book on world religions, that has one chapter on each one?

If you aren't going to bother learning, then at least have the common sense not to say anything about them.

So basically you took one of the many Gods of Taoism and reject the others. The problem here is just because you reject them does not mean they are not part of the original religion.

 

[Newbirth]

The problem is that you are exposing nothing. You are only spreading untruths and telling lies. I'm still waiting for your apology for calling me a Hindu.

For the record please state clearly what religious teaching you follow...

 

[GeneZ]

During the British music Invasion of the 60's many unique and different British bands had big hits in the USA.

Now all the bands were different from one another. Each appealed differently to different people listening to them.

But! They were all Brits.

Likewise... there are many religions of the world. But, they are all demons empowering them. Its not God.