Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-23-2012, 11:51 PM
 
16,292 posts, read 28,611,137 times
Reputation: 8385

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA View Post
Followed by a wall of scripts, UToob and very little else
Is it a "wall of verse" or is this the famed "tower of babel"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2012, 01:48 AM
 
646 posts, read 636,861 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by theflipflop View Post
Is it possible you have to have "corrupt" Pharisees in order to justy Jesus replacing Judaism with Chrstianity? And BTW, my understanding of what a Sadduccee is, is that it's a Jew who only believes in the written Torah and not the oral law. Friends, that's not a Jew. That's something else. So you cannot hold any of the actions of a Sadduccee against the Jews. They were not Jews.
They were not Jews only in the sense that they were not of the tribe of Judah. Since they were associated with the priesthood, they were evidently Levites. But their history proved to be different.

The term "Jew" referred to any member of the tribe of Judah.
The name is not used in the Bible account prior to the fall of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. The southern kingdom was called Judah, and the people were called sons of Judah or the tribe of the sons of Judah. The first one to use the name Jews was the writer of the books of Kings, doubtless Jeremiah, whose prophetic service began in 647 B.C.E. (See 2Ki 16:6; 25:25.) After the exile the name was applied to any Israelites returning (Ezr 4:12; 6:7; Ne 1:2; 5:17) and, finally, to all Hebrews throughout the world, to distinguish them from the Gentile nations. (Es 3:6; 9:20) (Insight vol............ 2 p. 73)

With their history better understood, the Sadducees can rightly be called "Jews."

Sadducees:
A prominent religious sect of Judaism associated with the priesthood. First historical mention of them by name appears in the writings of Josephus, which indicate that they opposed the Pharisees in the latter half of the second century B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 293 [x, 6])
(Insight vol. 2 p.839)

The Bible contains the entire history of the Jewish people - from their inception up until the present time.


Wilson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 06:22 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,139 posts, read 20,903,264 times
Reputation: 5939
Nice post. The Sadducees were something of a contradiction. They were one might say the wealthy elite: a group of ruling families who centered their worship around the temple and interpreted the Torah strictly and, as the Synoptics note, they did not believe in resurrection as the Pharisees did. And that's interesting as the Pharisees (the vastly more popular party) were less inclined towards Hellenism than were the Sadducees, who were more inclined to hobnob with Gentiles while Pharisees were the breeding - ground for popular nationalist uprisings.

The Sadducees were of course just as good Jews as any, Except for the Herodians of course, whose Edomite origins took a bit of forgetting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 06:55 AM
 
1,553 posts, read 1,842,336 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
One of the more perculiar verses in scripture I have encountered is John 9:39, where Jesus himself states;" For judgement I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind."

An interesting thing for Jesus to say in my view; one of those " Loaded statements." Seemingly contridiction, he says he will give sight and take it away; perhaps meaning moreso " Understanding of spiritual things"-- Maybe? But if he meant spiritual understanding, then that would mean he will take away spiritual understanding from people? If so, why? And then give spiritual understanding to others who don't have it. So that is a curious thing to consider.

If he didnot mean spiritual understanding, then what did he mean? Because if it has something to do with judgement, then why judge people who you have blinded?

The Pharisee who heard him say this were just as confused in verse 40; they asked Jesus were they blind too?

In 41 Jesus responds;" If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say we see, your sin remains."

Did he mean that those who see, see sin? And that he came to blind people, meaning to take away their sins? But if it meant that it would also mean that those who didnot see sin, he would open their eyes to it?

One of the more curious things I have read from Jesus.
Jesus did not shut the understanding of people; on the contrary, he wanted people to leave the traditions that are against the Commandments of God.

Jesus wanted people to think and see the marvels of God's creation and not to blindly adopt the inherited concepts of their fathers without thinking.

The thing is that Jesus Christ gave parables with many levels of understanding: some understand a superificial meaning and others understand deep meaning and still others understand more deep meaning and implication.

Therefore, you are blind because you don't see the truth, inspite of that you see the surrounding material objects.

This meaning is os obvious in the Quran, but some here, being blind to the truth, they don't see the wisdom of the Quran as they did not see the wisdom in the parables of Jesus.

In fact it is not the eyesights that will be blind, but blind are the hearts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 07:13 AM
 
1,553 posts, read 1,842,336 times
Reputation: 84
In another parable of Jesus, he said: if the eye bring you to Fire, then take it out; for it is better that you will be without eye rather than that all your body will be cast in Fire.

Moreover, if one is seeing with his eye, then he will overtaken to the sins of his eye; but if he is blind, then no sin of seeing the unlawful scenes about which he will be punished.

Example:
This is an excellent story, but I shall not tell you about it (because some people here do not like the stories of God-fearing Muslims):
A man wanted to give his daughter in marriage to a pious Muslim.(who is this one, and what made him admire that pious youth? I shall not tell you )

So the father told the pious young man: Because you are indebted to me, and you want that I should pardon you so that God may forgive you ...
But I shall not pardon you unless you marry my daughter who is blind (and deaf and dumb and lame)!
The young man was puzzled: what to do? He wanted that the father will pardon him so that God may forgive him his sin (I shall not tell you what was his sin )
So he begged the father to forgive him and not oblige him to marry this handicapped girl: blind, deaf, dumb and lame !!!
But the father insisted: And my daughter ? will be without marriage ?
So the young pious man was obliged to accept the marriage to that girl.

But when he went in to that girl after he married her: he found it very beautiful, fluent in speech, intact eyesight, hearing very well and not lame!

So she answered him:
My father desired to give to you in marriage, because he saw you are God-fearing and pious; and he meant to say:
I am blind (I don't see the ulawful scenes of the lewdness and indecency)
I am deaf (I don't hear the words of blasphemy)
I am dumb ( I don't utter the words of blasphemy)
I am lame ( I don't walk to the places of blasphemy and disobedience of God)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 07:20 AM
 
9,341 posts, read 29,776,367 times
Reputation: 4574
Quote:
Originally Posted by eanassir View Post
Jesus did not shut the understanding of people; on the contrary, he wanted people to leave the traditions that are against the Commandments of God.
And, exactly which traditions that violated any of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) would those be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 4,607,959 times
Reputation: 192
[quote=eanassir;22683730]

Jesus did not shut the understanding of people; on the contrary, he wanted people to leave the traditions that are against the Commandments of God.

quote]


I think he did, I mean he said himself that he did. So I tend to believe what he said, over the opinion of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 07:35 AM
 
9,341 posts, read 29,776,367 times
Reputation: 4574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
I think he did, I mean he said himself that he did. So I tend to believe what he said, over the opinion of others.
Others claim that this what Jesus of Nazareth said. They are giving their opinion. So, you are taking the opinions of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 4,607,959 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan View Post
Others claim that this what Jesus of Nazareth said. They are giving their opinion. So, you are taking the opinions of others.

I disagree, they recorded what the man said. Paul even made the distinction, on occasion, that he was giving his opinion ( "This is me speaking, not God", is how he would put it). Why would God enlist writers to give their opinions on his word, when he could enlist writers who knew how to record the words of others? You assume that all biblical writers that God inspired , were simply giving their opinions, as if God is not able to inspire a writer not to do that.

Which is really a slur on Gods abilitys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 08:35 AM
 
9,341 posts, read 29,776,367 times
Reputation: 4574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel View Post
Which is really a slur on Gods abilitys.
The Almighty had absolutely nothing to do with the Christian Bible.

According to Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, otherwise known by the acronym Rambam, 1135-1204 C.E.), "The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses and there will be no other Torah. (Source: Rambam's thirteen principles of faith)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top