| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 UriYosef |
|||
|
Posts: 2017 (10/18/09 22:20:48) Director of Education |
Mordochai,
Thanks for the correction. I fixed it and left the "JWs" as is since I didn't want to use that ridiculous name. UriYosef
Our raison d'être:
WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!! |
||
|
jodav |
|||
|
Posts: 28 (10/19/09 03:42:11) |
Mordochai: "What do you THINK "a begotten son" means, if not a BIOLOGICAL son?"
JD: "You are my son. Today I have begotten thee" Psalm 2:7 Mordochai, do you understand Psalm 2:7 physically in a biological sense? or you interpret it in a non-physical biological sense and ascribe to it another meaning? Same goes to verses like Exodus 4:22, etc JD |
||
|
jodav |
|||
|
Posts: 29 (10/19/09 03:51:00) |
Uri, where does it say that unitarian christians and JWs believe Jesus is a PHYSICAL/literal (or as Mordochai put it: BIOLOGICAL) son of God?
What you quoted backfires on you because I read in it: "Christ was first of God's CREATIONS". He is CREATED. The first to be CREATED. Your other quotes just show one thing, which no one differs on. that Jesus is the son of God. Uri, the discussion is whether unitarians/JW christians believe is the physical biological literal son of God. They DON'T believe that. Don't you also believe that God Has sons in a non-physical biological literal sense? and that they are all CREATED? JD |
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12822 (10/19/09 06:11:20) Moderator |
So, JoDav, you don't think that Jsus is G-d's son as 99.99% of Chrstian theologians assert?
In an earlier post I explained to you that the T'nach makes it clear that David's father was a human being named Jesse. Further the T'nach tells us that David's grand-mother was a human named Ruth and his grandfather a man named Bo'az. Ergo when a poetic term is used (in Psalms 2) which ARE ALL POEMS (the Psalms are poems written by and about David to be sung in the Temple) it is easy to see poetry in play! However there is no hint in the GT in the 3 or 4 places that the assertion regarding "no stone left standing" is supposed to be a prophecy (even though it is written long after the destruction of Jerusalem and STILL they couldn't make a decent retrofitted prophecy!). This argument is very weak. Can you tell the difference from a declarative sentence and poetry (don't mean that as an insult, it is an honest question).
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Posts: 2511 (10/19/09 08:30:34) |
jodav wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12823 (10/19/09 10:09:54) Moderator |
Mordochai, I didn't think a little thing like my response would stop you from making one of your own! (And obviously I was correct).
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Posts: 2512 (10/19/09 11:07:00) |
Sophiee1 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon
10/19/09 12:01:53.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12824 (10/19/09 11:58:59) Moderator |
Good gezut!
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Posts: 2513 (10/19/09 12:01:14) |
What is a "gezut"??? http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
||
|
jodav |
|||
|
Posts: 30 (10/19/09 12:11:16) |
Sophiee1 wrote:All Christians, both Trinitarians and unitarians believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Unitarians believe Jesus Christ is a CREATED being who is the Son of God in a non-physical biological sense. Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ is Eternal who is the Son of God, also in a non-physical biological sense (where's the wife?! God Forbid!). The meaning given to it is related to the Trinity doctrine. Sophiee, yes I got the point you're trying to make and we don't differ. I never meant to say that David didn't have physical parents. what I've been trying to say is that David is the begotten son of God in a non-physical biological sense, the EXACT SAME WAY unitarian christians understand this expression as it refers to Jesus Christ. JD quick note: you're saying the prophecy of 'no stone unturned is vaticinium ex eventu? and you're saying they still were not able to describe Jerusalem correctly and get it right? |
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12825 (10/19/09 12:11:54) Moderator |
Gezunt, not gezut. Good health -- (Yiddish), laughing like that will keep me healthy for a long time, and B"H, you too!
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12826 (10/19/09 12:25:51) Moderator |
JoDav, as we've told you at least 5 times now, David had a physical father. He was NOT the "begotten son of G-d" except in the sense that every
single human being is the child of G-d.
David had two physical parents -- a sperm and an ova came together and formed a human being. You are taking poetry in a Psalm and ignoring the pshat (plain meaning) in the 'nach that tells you the name of his father! So if you think Jsus was "exactly the same" as David then who was Jsus' father? Joseph? As has been explained to you, if Jsus had any biological father other than Joseph, husband of Mary, he was a mamzer and thus ineligible to be a messiah. Not to mention that Jsus never WAS any kind of a messiah, let alone the messiah. IF Joseph was Jsus' biological father and Jsus wasn't a mamzer then which of the two lineages of Joseph in the GT do you believe to be correct (they contradict each other)? It doesn't matter, because both lineages in the Greek Text eliminate Joseph and Jsus from possibly being a messiah, let alone the messiah. JoDav, whoever wrote the GT was extremely clueless on their "bible"! Not to mention that having the right to something (e.g. being a king) doesn't MAKE you a king. Ask the descendants of the Czars of Russia! Rashi had the right lineage to be the messiah, but he wasn't the messiah. R' Schneerson had the right lineage to be the messiah, but he wasn't the messiah either. Having the right DNA is just "table stakes" -- it gets you in the running. And Jsus wasn't even in the running if 1) he was the product of a virgin birth or 2) he was the biological son of Joseph and one of the 2 conflicting lineages in the GT is accurate. Kindly drop the "no stone standing" as allegory and not prophecy "line". Your concept has been disproven, so why continue to restate the same argument (a rule violation BTW)? Let's move on from stones in Jerusalem. If you don't consider Jsus' claim (repeated in Luke, Mark and Matthew) about Jerusalem as a prophecy then name ONE prophecy made by Jsus which came to pass. After all, don't you think Jsus was a prophet? Just one. I'll wait.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
jodav |
|||
|
Posts: 32 (10/19/09 12:50:16) |
Sophiee: "JoDav, as we've told you at least 5 times now, David had a physical father. He was NOT the "begotten son of G-d" except in the
sense that every single human being is the child of G-d."
JD: That's exactly what I've been trying to say too. That David was the begotten son of God IN THE SENSE that every single human being is the child of God. I thought I made that clear in multiple posts. I'm here confirming it again. Sophiee: "David had two physical parents -- a sperm and an ova came together and formed a human being. You are taking poetry in a Psalm and ignoring the pshat (plain meaning) in the 'nach that tells you the name of his father! JD: no I'm not. I understand the Psalm verse the exact same way you understand it. I don't know what else I could say to make this clearer :) Sophiee: So if you think Jsus was "exactly the same" as David then who was Jsus' father? Joseph?" No. Jesus doesn't have a BIOLOGICAL physical father. Not God. Not Joseph. No one. Mary was a virgin, a pure woman, not touched by any man when she conceived Jesus Christ. Sophiee: As has been explained to you, if Jsus had any biological father other than Joseph, husband of Mary, he was a mamzer and thus ineligible to be a messiah. Not to mention that Jsus never WAS any kind of a messiah, let alone the messiah. IF Joseph was Jsus' biological father and Jsus wasn't a mamzer then which of the two lineages of Joseph in the GT do you believe to be correct (they contradict each other)? It doesn't matter, because both lineages in the Greek Text eliminate Joseph and Jsus from possibly being a messiah, let alone the messiah. JoDav, whoever wrote the GT was extremely clueless on their "bible"! Not to mention that having the right to something (e.g. being a king) doesn't MAKE you a king. Ask the descendants of the Czars of Russia! Rashi had the right lineage to be the messiah, but he wasn't the messiah. R' Schneerson had the right lineage to be the messiah, but he wasn't the messiah either. Having the right DNA is just "table stakes" -- it gets you in the running. And Jsus wasn't even in the running if 1) he was the product of a virgin birth or 2) he was the biological son of Joseph and one of the 2 conflicting lineages in the GT is accurate. JD: both chronologies are accurate and non-contradictory. Yes, it's one of the Bible difficulties. but as Michael Brown says, there is no shortage of these in both the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible. and we both agree they are not real contradictions. There's been tons written about the chronologies and Jesus' rightful claim to being the Messiah. I refer you to two references (I know you already know about them): Michael Brown and Glenn Miller. Sophiee: "Kindly drop the "no stone standing" as allegory and not prophecy "line". Your concept has been disproven, so why continue to restate the same argument (a rule violation BTW)?" Let's move on from stones in Jerusalem. JD: I didn't bring it up again. It was in your last post in this thread. Sophiee: If you don't consider Jsus' claim (repeated in Luke, Mark and Matthew) about Jerusalem as a prophecy then name ONE prophecy made by Jsus which came to pass. After all, don't you think Jsus was a prophet? Just one. I'll wait. JD: I do believe the 'destruction of Jerusalem/no stone unturned' was a prophecy and one that was fulfilled (total destruction of Hiroshima). As for another prophecy, I''ll have to consult some books and online references for this. I don't have the Gospels memorized off by heart :) JD |
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12828 (10/19/09 12:54:58) Moderator |
jodav wrote:IF this were true then Jsus would have been ineligible to be a messiah. Mary may or may not have been virgin when she conceived (and BTW virgins conceive all the time!), but she was officially MARRIED to Joseph at the time. Thus any child born to her that was not the zera of Joseph was a mamzer and had no tribal status. The messiah must be of the tribe of Judah, of the line of Solomon. Lineage only transmits from biological father to biological son. IF you were correct (and the whole idea is pagan), then you just eliminated Jsus as a possible messiah.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12829 (10/19/09 13:02:51) Moderator |
JoDav, you can't have it both ways: either "no stone remaining" IS a prophecy (in which case it is a false prophecy) or it is an allegory and
isn't meant to be taken literally.
You are trying to have it both ways: black is white and up is down. Regarding "both lineages being right" this is exactly the same as your insistence of the prophecy about Jerusalem being accurate. A prophecy must be 100% accurate or it is false -- the prophecy about "not one stone remaining" is untrue and thus false. Two conflicting lineages of Joseph in the Greek Text can't both be right because they give DIFFERENT lineages. As I mentioned in my previous post both lineages exclude Joseph and Jsus from messiahship. (From Aish): According to the Tanach, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)You've boxed yourself in a corner.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
jodav |
|||
|
Posts: 33 (10/19/09 13:04:19) |
sophiee: The messiah must be of the tribe of Judah, of the line of Solomon. Lineage only transmits from biological father to biological son.
JD: is there a clear verse that states explicitly that lineage only transmits from bio father to bio son? side Q: if we don't know who someone's father is (unknown father cases), what would be the tribal affiliation of the child? case 1 i'd say would be a woman who was a victim of rape and got pregnant. case 2 would be a woman who sees many men and got pregnant case 3 would be a woman who got divorced and immediately got married to another man and got pregnant. Thanks. JD |
||
|
jodav |
|||
|
Posts: 36 (10/19/09 13:22:25) |
sophiee: JoDav, you can't have it both ways: either "no stone remaining" IS a prophecy (in which case it is a false prophecy) or it is an
allegory and isn't meant to be taken literally.
JD: Right (second part). It is metaphorical (you call it allegory) and its words aren't meant to be taken literally, just like statements like "Berlin and Hiroshima"were totally destroyed during WWII. What I'm saying is that YES it is a prophecy, YES it talks about the total destruction of Jerusalem, YES it uses metaphorical statement to refer to Jerusalem destruction, which is the "stones" one. Concerning the genealogies (sorry, I mistakenly called them "chronologies" in my previous post. I meant genealogies! :) ) I guess you don't like the super detailed answer of Glenn Miller and the answer of Michael Brown? They have addressed the points you raised in great detail. I have to admit, I can't do a better job than them. JD |
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12830 (10/19/09 13:28:49) Moderator |
jodav wrote:You do realize we discussed this two years ago? Link. And a second thread on the very same topic in which you took part: Link. In Hebrew all nouns are masculine or feminine. There is not ONE instance dealing with lineage that uses a feminine noun -- all are masculine, aka "paternal". Also read Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and Exodus 21:4. Again, all of this was discussed at length with you two years ago, including refuting Michael Brown's misleading arguments. Follow the links I give above. jodav wrote:If a father is unknown the child does not have a tribal status. This isn't as unusual as you might think. Converts to Judaism also do not have tribal status. If a woman is married and has a child by someone other than her husband the child is a mamzer, and also does not have a tribal status. Your cases 1, 2 and 3 are immaterial except if the woman is married in which case the child is a mamzer (however she got impregnated being immaterial). I suggest you read the article and the articles under the heading of Exposing the Myth of the "Virgin Birth" [REVISED]
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Posts: 12831 (10/19/09 13:36:56) Moderator |
jodav wrote:This is the LAST post of yours on this topic I will release as you are just parroting the same distortions over and over and over again. Do you know the definition of allegory??? Allegory cannot be literal. Ergo either Jsus was being allegorical or he was being literal. If he was being literal then he made a prophecy and that prophecy was FALSE. If Jsus (per the GT) was being allegorical, where is the allegory???? If it was prophecy then it was literal. If it was literal it isn't allegory. Black is not white. Up is not down. Allegory is not the literal meaning. Neither is a metaphor literal. Definitions -- I suggest you study them. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. (Dictionary.com)
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
||
|
UriYosef |
|||
|
Posts: 2018 (10/19/09 15:10:36) Director of Education |
jodav wrote:Let's focus on the JWs for now. On their official web-site they have a page called Who Is Jesus Christ? where they state that he was God's only begotten son (definitely consistent with many such statements in the Greek Testament, that he was God's first creation, and that he was placed by God into "the womb of a Jewish virgin named Mary". Do you think God shrank Yeshu haNotsri down to a size that would fit into a young woman's womb and that she would carry him for nine months as he grew to the size of an infant at birth, or maybe He just turned him into a sperm that fertilized an egg in there? The Greek Testament clearly states that he was conceived in the womb, which means that he was biologically fathered since he had a natural birth and was circumcized on the eight day (Luke 2:21). Christians who deny this are violating the Apostles' Creed, which states, among other things, that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. UriYosef
Our raison d'être:
WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!
Last Edited By: UriYosef
10/19/09 15:15:03.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
