Is your church teaching Gods commandments or man's traditions. Yes, I am aware that some traditions are to be passed down from generation to generation. But here lately I am hearing a lot more about what seems right unto man and not what God said in his word. Be careful! Are you looking for religion or salvation there is a difference?

Views: 1263

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mrs. smith writes:"I looking for God's shakina glory to fill the house.
you might try Shekinah or Shechinah... the Light or illumination of YHVH. As to Paul ...Hmmmmm. It seems that Paul alone on the road to Damascus had a heart to heart with a Rabbi named J-sus..[Like you will find any Jew boy named a Pagan name..NOT]....Whom in one testimony He Never Met....Also Mr Paul stated He did not go up and learn from the Talmidim of Yeshua
From that point on Mr Paul decides to go out and start a new thing..using J-sus as his all and all...right?
And then Venerates the man to the esteem of a godhead...Which Yeshua himself never' did nor intended to do.
Paul is dealing with much Hellenistic theology...and should be separated from the teachings of your Rabbi Yeshua.IMHO.

Who do you say you follow? Yeshua? Paul? Apollos?..somebody make up your mind.

And Lastly the word Salvation was not in the Vocabulary of the Sages of Israel so where did it come from?
Answer = Antisemitic-ROME.
The whole issue is about Obedience to Torah and its inherent love of Adonai...to the People Israel. nothing less nothing more.
Thank you for spelling the word "Shekinah" for me, I really do appreciate that, my sister. Why do you think the New Testament was written? What was the main purpose? Don't get me wrong, I am not coming againest your beliefs, whatsoever, because we are all going to find out where we all stand. But what are your views on the question I ask?
Mrs Smith, asks a few questions of worthy note:first this is Yaakov or James if you prefer I use my Hebrew version not because of some sacred-namer foolishness but there are many James on here and it helps my individuality as a Son with Hashem.
My Lady' Terry on the other hand writes articles and healthy living concepts to help in the Refuah [= Health and healing] of those who decide to eat a more healthy and kosher diet therefore being the greatest health care plan for Humanity
The REFUAH Link is to a great homemade fudge sauce that will make you throw away the Hershey type- High fructose corn syrup- toxic junk{enjoy}

{too bad the Government does not teach true health...we wouldn't need Control-ed Reform.}

So I think all of your questions can be addressed Historically:

My opinion however is that it was used as a way to level the playing field...and stop the harlotry of Rome.
Only one of the original team of scholars was a Jew and unfortunately he died before the selection process was complete...so actually the NT of Rome is not much more than the Nicene creed acceptable version..it was later altered by Wescott and Hort in 1841 again setting up a divide from truth...and continuing the antisemitic confusion.

It is because of bloodthirsty Imperial church of Rome and Paul's Hellenistic Christianity and paganism infiltration over many generations that allows us to visit mass graves at Auschwitz Today.

Mrs Smith, Remember had it not been for persecution against a commander in Napoleons Army the Inquisition the darkest period of the time may have continued until who knows when Yet was Stopped...You do not bring people closer to G-d with rape and torture. ...Just continually show then the Torah Get understanding into them of the Exodus the Marriage at Sinai and the selection of the Israelite Nation to carry the greatest gift the Torah' given to mankind and it needs no re-placement theology.

Why because it contains the Ketubah [the Marriage Contract] between G-d and really all humanity. if they choose to adhere to it.

I might suggest a book ~" The Jewish way to love and Marriage"~ BY: Maurice Lamm ] and understand the marriage and the Mitzvot / commandments between humanity and G-d and ourselves as one human species.

Regardless of our facade and colour separations and misaligned ideology we all have the same essence of g-d within...only our humanity/ pride separates us.
Yet we the people enable this war machine of arrogance to continue, even today instead of getting our hearts right before Adonai

Paul who was off slightly the Derech IMHO wrote"... you are to Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto The Master Creator which is your reasonable service"...that in a nutshell is a simple as it gets for the gentile court to understand...IMHO.
If that is the word most folks are following , and noting that most people follow the teachings of Paul and not Yeshua~

Would you agree that before we try to do the greater works/Deed and rebuild the crumpled hearts of others,we must first get the foundation correct and our hearts in place Holy Acceptable unto YHVH..
Ezekiel called for a sweet smelling Savor" Ezekiel 20:v41-42-
Perhaps then only then will our Worship/ Shachah = worship; True worship is when all the walls of your humanity are drawn down and the fullness of the essence of G-d permeates your very being.

The word Shach = Humble Humbleness is the root essence of true worship...this in turn reflects the true ShekinahThe true heart of YHVH which is in my opinion equates to "Love at it's fines, from one to another"
The true assembly of worship is Kahal Shacah= assembly of worship.

Amos 9:11-12 In that day I will raise up the Tabernacle of Daveed that is fallen and close up the breaches~~And I Elohim will raise up his ruins and will build it as in the days of old
That has not happened yet therefore the Moshiach has not come yet.
That is Shema Y'Israel Deverim ^:v4-9

BTW most of those persecuted were Jews of the Diasporia.
This is a Time line of persecution from 250 -1938-1945 at Shekinah~Life.
One should be looking to deliver Jahs people from the hands of Satan. The Modern day African Gentile is not even aware of Gods Law. A slave can never revolt and Jesus was a revolutionary. Any so-called pastor not teaching Jahs Law and has elevated the sun above the Master and worships on the Sun-day instead on Gods Days, then they looking for religion.
Who told folks that the old was dead? Was it a white man?
jagakut
One should be looking to deliver Jahs people from the hands of Satan. The Modern day African Gentile is not even aware of Gods Law. A slave can never revolt and Jesus was a revolutionary. Any so-called pastor not teaching Jahs Law and has elevated the sun above the Master and worships on the Sun-day instead on Gods Days, then they looking for religion.
Who told folks that the old was dead? Was it a white man?
jagakut
what are Jah's commandments (and why do we not call the father by on of his many names such as Jah) y do we call him god or dog (?).
y are we all over jesus but never on Jah...
y would Jah create a god bigger than him? Following the Law is the only freedom available to Jah's Children.
THE LAW WAS KEPT PERFECTLY ONCE AND FOR ALL BY CHRIST ON OUR BEHALVES FOREVER...
Preacher writes:"THE LAW WAS KEPT PERFECTLY ONCE... AND FOR ALL.... BY CHRIST... ON OUR BEHALVES... FOREVER...
Education sure would help..learning to Read the Bible with clarity may even help you all the more...This might help If you need help understanding the Historical Answers of Rome Let me know. I personally will not follow a Lie.

Hebrews 10:10
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Preacher is not a real preacher,..Sadly, just another Title~~~ Because a Real Preacher has such an intimate relationship with the Shekinah of YHVH that there is no time for a superficial misconstruction of lies to lead them.

Simply;{ that is what the N.T. is... an Antisemitic theology-at best a Gentile religion}~~Sages go much higher to the source and need no re-placement theology.( One G-d,YHVH~ One Mikveh,~ One Marriage)
We the Hebrew people have been made [Holy] = Set-apart from all the other human species by not what the lie of Rome stated in their misconstruction theology,... More-so by the Marriage at Has Sinai...and the Torah ( instructions) ...and that is all there is folks.
Does any body realize the Value of the time we are in?... It is The celebration of the Exodus and the Marriage..Passover/Pesach and we are in the time of counting the Omer.
Go read your Bible people...But first you might get one that reads like ours does...without the Lies and foolishness leading people astray as the Imperial church of Romes version does.


Emunah = Faith and Faithfulness'... to the One!
...anything else is Sin....
whatever a real preacher... is anyone who is born of God is a preacher when they preach Gods word..you're right its just a title... as for the lies,please feel free to prove it through scriptutre then you can show everyone that I'm a liar right?
GB
Sure thing, Sir, I was wondering when you were going to as...simply look back through the comments and everywhere where I posted a link out is a confirmation that the story has some Embellishment's to say the least...and I am using not only historical facts but as well the Historical writings within Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem throughout my discourse.
It is time to stop for Shabbat so I will quickly post this for you to study...Shalom //

The Catholic Church's Response to Our Critique of Christian Credibility


Because Christianity offers the second-most credible claim of any world religion, we opted to provide its most traditional branch -- the Catholic Church -- with an opportunity to respond to some of our critical observations.  In early December, 1995, we forwarded the following three questions to Pope John Paul II:

(1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts? (2) We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels
confusing. Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather? (We notice that Matthew
says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we
notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by
only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three
generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?

(3) The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to
pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin
conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry. How
is Jesus a descendent of David?


     In a letter from the Vatican dated 19 December 1995, the Pope's Assessor, Monsignor L. Sandri, responded in the Pope's name.  Monsignor Sandri declined to answer our questions, but informed us that the members of the French Dominican Fathers' Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem would probably provide satisfactory explanations.

     Through facsimile communications, we forwarded our questions to the Ecole Biblique.  In a facsimile transmission dated 11 January 1996, Marcel Sigrist, the institute's director, also declined to answer our questions, but suggested that answers could be found in the world of Raymond E. Brown, a well-known Catholic theologian currently on the staff of Saint Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California.

     Again through facsimile communications, we forwarded our questions to Dr. Brown.  In a letter dated 22 January 1996, Dr. Brown referred us to writings of his held by the library of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem.

     (The correspondences from Pope John Paul II, Marcel Sigrist, and Raymond Brown are reprinted at this appendix's conclusion.)

     On 2 February 1996 we visited the Ecole Biblique and examined Dr. Brown's writings.  As Dr. Brown suggested, his writings did address our questions.  Here we will summarize the answers we found there.

I.  Post-Resurrectional Appearances: Galilee or Jerusalem?

     In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error"), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real.  "It is quite obvious," Brown writes, "that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his
resurrection."[1]  "Just as the Jerusalem
tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances,"
explains Brown, "the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior
appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem."[2] 
Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the
simples solution to the contradiction:  "We must reject the thesis that
the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears
several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee."[3] 
Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, "Variations in place and time may
stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the
account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative."[4]  Brown makes
clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative,
substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed
by their respective authors.

II. Genealogical Contradictions

     In the same essay, Brown observes that "the lists of Jesus' ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible."[5]  Brown takes the surprising position that "because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which 'Son of David' was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide."[6] 
In another essay, also carrying the Church's Nihil Obstat and
Imprimatur
, Brown expands upon this proposition:

Increasingly, the  purported descent from David is explained as a theologoumenon, i.e., as the historicizing of what was originally a theological statement.  If I many give a simplified explanation, the process of historicizing Davidic sonship is though to have gone somewhat in the following way:  the Christian community believed that Jesus had fulfilled Israel's hopes; prominent among those hopes was the expectation of a Messiah, and so the traditional title "Messiah" was given to Jesus; but in Jewish thought the Messiah was
pictures as having Davidic descent; consequently Jesus was described as
"son of David"; and eventually a Davidic genealogy was fashioned for him.[7]

Brown explains that Matthew probably created fictional genealogical links back to Abraham and David also "to appeal to the mixed constituency of his [Matthew's] community of Jewish and Gentile Christians."[8]  As evidence that Jesus was really not a descendent of David at all, Brown points out that:

There is not the slightest indication in the accounts of the ministry of Jesus that his family was of ancestral nobility or royalty.  If Jesus were a dauphin, there would have been none of the wonderment about his pretensions.  He appears in the Gospels as a man of unimpressive background from an unimportant village.[9]

     Brown  goes even further, calling into question the reliability of large sections of the New Testament.  He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke "may represent non-historical dramatizations:"[10]

Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical.  Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem).  Luke's reference to a
general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine
before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong, as is his
understanding of the Jewish customs of the presentation of the child and
the purification of the mother in 2:22-24.  Some of these events,
which are quite implausible as history, have now been understood as
rewritings of Old Testament scenes or themes.[11]

     Brown's most extreme statement in this regard, appearing in the same essay, suggests that the Pope himself might reject the historicity of the resurrection altogether:

It was this interaction [of the eschatological and the historical] that Pope Paul pointed to in the same address when he spoke of the resurrection as "the unique and sensational event on which the whole of human history turns."  This is not the same, however, as saying that the resurrection itself was a historical event, even though editorial writers quoted the Pope's speech to that effect.[12]

It is crucial to remember (a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation; (b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and (c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities.

III. The Virginal Conception

     Brown cautions that "we should not underestimate the adverse pedagogical impact on the understanding of divine sonship if the virginal conception is denied."[13]  On the other hand, admits Brown, "The virginal conception under its creedal title of 'virgin birth' is not primarily a biological statement."[14]  He stresses that Christian writings about virginal conception intend to reveal spiritual insights rather that physical facts.  Because record
of the virginal conception appears only in tow Gospels, and there only in
the infancy narratives (which Brown suspects are largely fictional), the
Catholic theologian tactfully concludes that "biblical evidence leaves the
question of the historicity of the virginal conception unresolved."[15]

     Brown mentions the possibility that "early Christians" might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from "pagan or [other] world religions,"[16] but never intended that that mythology be taken literally.  "Virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins," explains Brown, citing such stories in Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman and
ancient Egyptian theologies.[17] 
He proposes that early Christians "used an imagery of virginal conception
whose symbolic origins were forgotten as it was disseminated among various
Christian communities and recorded by evangelists."[18]

     Alternatively, Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity's founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place.  Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: "Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in  wedlock; it has been illegitimacy."[19] 
Brown writes that:

Some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative of illegitimacy; they would see this as the ultimate stage in Jesus' emptying himself and taking on the form of a servant, and would insist, quite rightly, that an irregular begetting involves no sin by Jesus himself.  But illegitimacy would destroy the images of sanctity and purity with which Matthew and Luke surround Jesus' origins and would negate the theology that Jesus came from the pious Anawim of Israel.  For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be
an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery.[20]

     In summary, Brown leans towards a less miraculous explanation of Jesus' early birth.

EXPANDED APPENDIX FROM PERMISSION TO RECEIVE BY: LAWRENCE KELEMEN

  SCANNED COPIES OF ACTUAL LETTERS SOURCED

Bookmark and Share


RELATED ARTICLES: Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus



How Most Religions Start

The
Seven Laws of Noah (For Non-Jews)
*
Proof Torah is True
A History of New Years



The
Difference Between Judaism & Buddhism



The Difference Between Judaism &
Islam


For More From The Same Author Click here ------> Lawrence Kelemen
________________________________

[1]  Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Paulist Press, 1973, p. 99.

[2]  Ibid., p. 105.

[3]  Ibid., p. 106.

[4]  Ibid.

[5]  Ibid., p. 54

[6]  Ibid., p. 55.

[7]  Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, Garden City, New York: 1977, p. 505.

[8]  Ibid., p. 68

[9]  Ibid., p. 88

[10]  Ibid., p. 34

[11]  Ibid., p. 36

[12]  Ibid., p. 126

[13]  Ibid., p. 529

[14]  Ibid.

[15]  Ibid., p. 527

[16]  Ibid., p. 522

[17]  Ibid.

[18]  The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, p. 61.

[19]  The Birth of the Messiah, p. 530.

[20]  Ibid.


SimpleToRemember.com - Judaism Online

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service