ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
The people who value scripture the most tend to ignore most everything coming out of the RCC.
Scripture takes third place behind the pope and tradition. Basically, they value scripture only as far as they see it substantiate what they decided is truth for them. Hence they idolize Mary, pray to corpses and statues, their prayers are nothing but vain repetitions and they like to count beads. Their mass is a reliving of the death of Jesus Christ, hence the crucifixes everywhere. The power and love of God is in the resurrection. God could have left his son in the ground, but loved him enough to raise him from the dead to die no more.
I could go on, but I think I made my point.
Nevertheless, were not for the Catholic Church, the Protestants did not exist.
The power and love of God is in the Law, if you read Psalm 119. Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. That's why Jesus never spoke to his disciples about resurrection. Evidence of what I am saying is in Luke 24:10,11. When the women brought to the disciples the news that Jesus had resurrected, ALL the disciples took them as messengers of an idle tale of nonsense. It is only obvious that they had never heard about this from Jesus during the three and a half years they had been together. If the NT had existed at the time, they would have found the truth in 2 Timothy 2:8 that Paul had been the one who fabricated the idea as he confessed to Timothy that the resurrection of Jesus was according to his gospel.
As you see, you should have gone on, because you, definitely did not make your point.
That makes sense.
Jesus was the first born of that group of people who will bethe Jews whom collectively represent the messiah.
Jesus even said that "we all have the power to become the ons of God, which is what he was in 32AD.
The first one of the Jewish People was Abraham; and he was not born Jewish. He became one when he discovered Elohim, the One and Only Monotheistic God. Jesus was but one of the Jewish People.
The firstborn son of God was Israel, the Jewish People. See Exodus 4:22,23. Any one can become a son of God even get a name better than sons and daughters, but he or she must embrace God's Covenant with Israel through conversion to Judaism, according to Jewish law. See Isaiah 56:1-8.
I hope so.
I hope I can prove by your acquiesence, that my intellectual honesty is sound.
But a proof means that you decide to agree with me on that.
I have no control over proving to you.
Only you do.
It is possible to say I have failed to prove my honesty to you, no matter what I might claim.
Does it prove that the Jews believed in resurrection, in that you had said you, as a jew, ought be understood as to deny resurrection.
You said Jrws do not believe in resurrectionl yet Paul did and the Pharisees did.
I will ask you again: Do not the Pharisees, Jews, and those lay men who respected the Pharisee believe in resurrection?
Do Jews believe in resurrection????
No, learned Jews do not believe in resurrection. Some of the unlearned ones claim that they do but, by the same token, they claim to believe in reincarnation. Now, if you ask them to explain how resurrection goes together with reincarnation, you will understand that they don't believe either, as they don't know what they are talking about.
Regarding Paul, he did believe in resurrection, as he declared that if the dead do not resurrect, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. (I Cor. 15:32) But then again, that was a belief in his own doctrine, since he was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus had resurrected. (2 Tim. 2:8)
Neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the metaphorical resurrection, according to Ezekiel 37:12. The revival and return of the Jews buried in the graves of exile back to the Land of Israel. What happened in that trial of Paul before the Sanhedrin was a lie that Paul decided to play on the Jewish authorities about the reason why he was arrested. Not because he was teaching against the Law and the Sanctuary, as he had been accused of, but because of his belief in the resurrection. See Acts 21:28; 23:6.
Paul was referring to the Gentiles who were not under the Law.
He was saying that for the Gentile converts to Jesus, only the Noahide Laws were required of them.
When a Gentile resolves to fulfill the Seven Universal Laws, his or her soul is elevated. This person becomes one of the "Chasidei Umot Haolam" (Pious Ones of the Nations) and receives a share of the World to Come.
The Torah calls one who accepts the yoke of fulfilling the Seven Universal Laws a "Ger Toshav" (a Proselyte of the Gate).
Every one is under the Law. Above the Law, only God is; and outlaws are the criminals.
Paul never said that the Gentiles are under the Noahide laws. That was a suggestion by James and the Elders in Jerusalem who had assigned Judas and Sillas to carry a letter to the Gentiles in Antioch to, at least follow, probably the Noahide laws, but he included some level of cushrut from Jewish laws. (Acts 15:28,29) And those were former Gentiles who had become Jews and were persuaded to rather follow Paul instead. Now, why they used Judas and Sillas, two Nazarenes, and not Paul who was there? Because they suspected that Paul would never deliver that nonsense to the Gentiles in Antioch. To Paul, they were free of any Jewish nonsense. (Col. 2:16,17)
Nowhere in the Torah Gentiles who observe the Noahide laws are referred to as Ger Toshav. That's a reference to the Gentiles who convert to Judaism, according to Halachah, Jewish law. Also, Ger Tzedek, they were called as.
I was correcting you about the analogy in Gen 22, where two people with Abraham were watching the attempted crucifixion of his only son on an altar of piled up wood when you had erroneously said there were no men watching Jesus.
The verse above clearly says that John WAS there, with the mother of Jesus, Mary, too.
What are you lecturing me about above and how does that defend your error????
Did I ever say that no man was watching Jesus on the cross? I don't think so. The Romans in charge of his crucifixion were there. The women were there. But John was not. If you insist that he was there, you are digging one more contradiction in the NT. How could John have escaped by fleeing away when Jesus was arrested, and now, boldly expose himself on the Calvary before the cross with all those Romans up there? Think and admit the blunder of the gospel writer.
Now, with regards to Genesis 22, where on earth were two people watching Abraham sacrifice Isaac? Dave, be ready for this one, for it may cause you a mental scandal. On that day on Mount Moraiah there was none; neither Abraham, nor Isaac. Every thing happened in a vision of Abraham.
When Abraham arrived in Canaan, he was impressed with so much love of the local pagans for their gods as to sacrifice their firstborn sons in a burning sacrifice to their Baal. He would probably think of his no lesser love for Elohim and probably would look at Isaac and have strange thoughts.
Then, he had a vision when Adonai would test his love with the intent to explain that with the Jews it would be quite different. No human sacrifices. Animal sacrifices would do. That's all. All in a dream/vision. Abraham was a prophet, and that's the method Adonai would use to make His will known to the prophets. (Num. 12:6)